A broken promise in Jeffco?
Thursday, October 23, 2008Written by: Uncle Charley
How can school district superintendents be held accountable if they break their promises to the public? The question is raised by a documented allegation forwarded by two concerned
This is the third time since 1999 that district officials have asked for voter approval on a mill levy tax increase and bond measure.
The move has Jeffco homeowners Jeff Sacco and Linda Sasenick calling foul. After a Colorado Open Records request,
Saco and Sasenick were outraged to discover a 2004 promise from Superintendent Cindy Stevenson that the district would wait five years before asking for more money (PDF). And according to a recent report in the Denver Post, Jeffco has sought about $940 million in bonds for capital construction in recent years.
According to the official minutes of the November 9, 2004, Strategic Planning and Advisory Council meeting: “Cindy [Stevenson] emphasized that Jeffco will continue to be efficient and effective with our budget. We committed to voters not to return for 5 years for more money.” Unless I missed something, the calendar hasn’t turned to 2009 yet. That directly hurts the case for 3A (the mill levy increase).
Other arguments are raised against 3B (the bond):
But Sacco and Sasenick are left questioning the need for new schools considering enrollment has fallen by 2 percent since 1999. “What possible needs do they have that are so critical?” Sacco asked.
Last week, the story was about an “old curmudgeon” who created a brief public firestorm by writing sarcastic arguments for Jeffco’s 3A and 3B that were published in the voter guide. I’ve talked to Sacco. He happens to be on the same side of the issue as the curmudgeon, but rightly disagrees with the tactic. Indeed, Sacco has taken a higher road to air his legitimate concerns. However, he says the traditional media sources have shown utterly no interest. At least Face The State gave him a little publicity.
I believe Cindy Stevenson deserves the opportunity to give her side of the story and fill in the context to explain the document. But I also believe JeffCo voters first deserve the opportunity to have her publicly answer the question about the five-year promise.
Certainly, Stevenson ought not be judged by the integrity of this statement alone. But if there is reasonable substance to the allegations, in what way should she and the district be held accountable? I think it’s an important question.
And I think we ought to resist the curmudgeonly, therapeutic, knee-jerk, “throw-the-bums-out” approach. Our first priority instead should be a strong grassroots demand for laws enforcing greater financial transparency, so citizens can easily monitor the checkbook and other budget expenses their school district makes.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Interesting that Mr. Sacco complains about a lack of media attention. Seems to me his name and Ms. Sasenick’s have been pretty prominent in the media of late. Just do a Google search and you’ll see that they were front and center in the dispute over the Johnson program alternative school being relocated to their neighborhood (they were instrumental in halting its move), and have been quoted in the Denver Post opposing the Jeffco bond and mill levy. The questions Uncle Charley raises may be legitimate, but I wonder whether Sacco and Sasenick don’t have some sort of vendetta going against the Jeffco superintendent. I sense a back story here.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Stevenson did respond, eventually - although her explanation doesn’t hold much water, if you ask me. Here’s the follow-up story at FTS:
http://facethestate.com/articles/11592-jeffcos-stevenson-responds-criticism-over-broken-promise