Unit 4 Purchase Scrutiny

[UPDATE: The N-G editorial board is still peeved:

It would be unrealistic to expect public officials to appreciate being called to account in that manner. But it’s completely realistic to hope — even expect— the responsible parties learn something from it. But if board member Kathy Richards is representative of the board and administration, it’s disappointingly clear that Unit 4 has learned nothing. In a post on Unit 4’s website that was headlined “A Matter of Public Record,” Richards doubled down on duplicity by contending the district’s handling of this matter was above board and open to public scrutiny. Any suggestion to the contrary, she said, is inaccurate and unfair. To make her case for forthrightness, Richards refers readers to a Unit 4 webpage where visitors can review video of a Nov. 12, 2017 meeting.

Video link here. Oddly they go on to describe that the issue was made public, was described as part of the project and its use. It seems they're taking issue with the agenda item not having a longer description? I don't know. I'm guessing this mole hill will need a Sherpa to guide us soon enough.] 

The News-Gazette had harsh words for the Unit 4 School Board over the quietly acquired property mentioned in this previous post. From today's Sunday Editorial in the News-Gazette:

Opaque Unit 4
If this measure was expected to slip by, it didn’t. Now, having invited suspicion, school board members and district officials unsurprisingly find themselves under suspicion as to their motives.

Were they, as it appears, trying to downplay a bigdollar acquisition in the aftermath of passing the huge property tax increase needed to finance the school improvement plan? With property tax bills scheduled to come in the mail within a few months, was the district trying to insulate itself from criticism about its spendthrift ways?

Nothing, district officials say, could be further from the truth. The district’s lawyer said the $3.4 million purchase was a routine expenditure that is “not a part of the referendum” and not particularly noteworthy because the money to pay for it comes from the district’s building and maintenance fund. That claim doesn’t hold water. The new building will be used to house Unit 4 employees working out of the Columbia Center. The district needs Columbia to house students moved from Dr. Howard Elementary School so Dr. Howard can be torn down and a new Dr. Howard built in its place. So the purchase of 502 W. Windsor Road is not as separate from the referendum as the district asserts.

Further, a $3.4 million spending proposal, no matter which fund the money comes from, is sufficiently large to justify an explanation...

Unfortunately, this kind of administration/board complicity is not new. It’s common for administrators to turn — or try to turn — board members from watchdogs into shills.

Elected school board members need to remember that they are the public’s representatives, not tools of the administration.

[originally posted 3/4/2018 at 7:46am]