Vote No on both Issues on the School Referendum

Grand Regional Voices does, always has and always will fully support the best possible education for our children with quality teachers, excellent curricula in the best facilities this community can afford. While we fully support our children and their education, we cannot support the Bond Issue presented by ISD 318. Looking at it’s entirety, we see the development of this project was flawed from its inception. The entire project, including design, construction, project management, etc., has been driven by vendors, primarily FJJ and not the needs of our children and the District as a whole at a cost that the community cannot afford.

Superintendent’s Report Card

report cardWhat does it take to get “less than high marks?”

Isn’t it ironic that Superintendent Bruce Thomas got high marks on his annual review by the school board?  I would think the main goal for Bruce Thomas was to get the school bond issue approved. We all know that the school bond issue was resoundingly rejected in last fall’s election by the taxpayers of ISD 318.
This was the main reason Bruce Thomas was hired and he failed in epic proportions.  How much money was spent by the proponents of the school bonding bill?  What were the money sources?  How many man-hours were wasted on this effort?  Could there have been a more effective use of this time?
This issue drove a huge wedge between the school board and its constituents. It will take years for the wedge to fade away.
I’ve been involved in receiving and giving annual reviews.  The first thing to be considered is the status of the annual goals? Were the individual goals achieved? It would be helpful to know the goals for current year and the previous year.  Did the school board set his annual goals?
An annual review is a key item in evaluating a professional’s performance.  If there is no constructive criticism and key goals are failed to be addressed, the person undergoing a performance review is being handed a dis-service.   If you are an elected official executing this type of performance review, you have also failed your constituents.

Question of the Week: Does ICTV influence local politics and elections?

Itasca Community Television (ICTV) is a Governmental Access provider to the City of Grand Rapids.

From ICTV’s website : “At minimum, each candidate for local, regional, state or federal office representing a community in the ICTV viewing area will receive air time to discuss his or her position. These appearances will be arranged with the operations manager and shall occur no later than the Friday, three weeks prior to the election.

ICTV retains the right to schedule, record and air forums and discussions, as applicable on any issues of ballot.  These may or may not include incumbent officers or individuals seeking office.”

Does this rule allow ICTV to determine when and if candidates and issues receive airtime?  If this is true then doesn’t also mean that ICTV may promote or bury issues for airing as the operations manager and ICTV Management sees fit?

-GRV-

Vote NO on the November 3 bond referendum.

1000px-No_sign2.svg[1]

Vote NO on the November 3 bond referendum.
Because the Board has NO Plan to solve the many problems facing the school except to build new schools.
The board has No Facts to support its position.
The board has No Concerns about the existing imminent tax burdens of school district tax payers.
There have been No Answers to questions raised by the voters.
Board has No Dialogue with the taxpayers on alternatives to spending $80,000,000.
There is No Guarantee that academic performance will improve.
The Board has No Clue on how to proceed.
Just vote NO on Nov. 3