FEWEST NUMBER OF VOTERS IN PAST 10 YEARS PASS THE FOREVER LEVY
The Watchdog is disappointed that the May 7, 2013 FOREVER levy passed. Here are some facts worth noting:
The May 7, 2013 election had the lowest voter turnout since February 2003 (10 years ago)
Six Hundred (600) more people voted against the May 7 levy than voted against the Feb. 2003 levy
About Two Hundred Fifty (250) fewer people voted for the May 2013 levy than voted for the levy in 2003.
For the Levy
Against the Levy
Total (2013 preliminary)
Nearly One Thousand (1000) fewer voters turned out for the May 7, 2013 levy than turned out for the August 2012 levy (one year ago).
Nearly Three Hundred (300) more people voted against the May 2013 levy than voted against the levy one year ago.
Nearly Thirteen Hundred (1,300) fewer voters voted for the May 2013 levy than voted for the levy one year ago.
For the Levy
Against the Levy
Total (2013 preliminary)
To put the low voter turnout into perspective, the last election held in NOVEMBER (when voter turnout is typically high) was in 2010 when more than 12,000 voters in Brecksville-Broadview Hts. turned out to cast their votes.
In their letter to the Sun Star Courier April 25, 2013, the Board members said the following is one reason for putting the levy on the ballot as a “continuing” (forever) levy:
“This will eliminate ‘levy fatigue’.”—BBHCSD Board members, David Tryon, Mark Jantzen, Mark Dosen, Kathleen Mack, Michael Ziegler
The Board saying that people are tired of voting on levies reminds me of the following quote:
“The truth is that men are tired of liberty.”—Benito Mussolini, Italian Fascist Dictator (1922-1943)
I’m not saying our Board is a group of Fascists--I’m just quoting the Board and the Fascist dictator! I can understand a dictator justifying his desire for power by saying that people are tired of liberty. But our School Board, in a nation founded on freedom, should NEVER justify its desire for "the power to impose permanent taxes on our community forever" by taking the position that we, as voters, are simply tired of voting.
Considering the fact that the Board’s MISSION is to teach our children to become good citizens of a “global society” (instead of having a mission to teach our children to become good citizens of our great nation) GO, we really should not be surprised that the Board is trying to convince the community to give up their right to vote on school levies--a right we should cherish and protect!
Highlights of new contract (salaries, insurance, and work day)
Mark Dosen’s reasons for voting “NO” on contract
Teachers' Union Issues Scathing Press Release
Shows Contempt for Thousands of Voters
Teachers Group Needs Lesson in Respect
Teachers Receive Increases 2012-2013
April 2011 Coming this August 2, 2011 Board Recommends the "EverReady Levy"--it keeps going and going and going...! Voter approval would not be necessary for renewal.
On August 2, a renewal levy will be on the ballot--NOT as a five-year renewal, but as renewal levy that, if passed, would be changed into a CONTINUING levy. If the voters (that is, those voters who know about the levy) pass the levy, the renewal levy would not come back to the voters ever again, and the tax would "continue" to be assessed every year for as long as the Board (not the voters) "continues" to believe it needs that tax money.
If the "continuing" levy fails in Aug., it is expected that it will be on the ballot again in NOVEMBER--not as a "continuing" levy, but as a 5-year renewal levy. We should not waive our right to require the School Board to seek periodic approval from the voters before continuing to receive our tax dollars, especially in a case where a School Board has demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility in the past by approving salaries the District could not afford and by disseminating less-than-accurate information to the public.
___________________________________________________________________ July 24, 2011
Vote NO to giving the School Board more power to act without voter approval. Vote NO to giving the School Board our tax dollars every year indefinitely into the future-- regardless of its performance. Vote NO to giving levy supporters a financial advantage over those who do not support a levy. Vote NO to the Aug 2 levy. see my response to the Dosens' letter to the editor
Board Ignores Public Opposition to New Levy Approves New Levy for Nov. 2, 2010 Ballot
On Thursday, July 8, 2010, the BBH School Board held a Special meeting, during which the Board voted 4-1 to put a new 5 year - 5.8 mill "new money" tax levy on the November 2, 2010 ballot.
Dave Tryon is the only member who voted against putting the levy on the ballot. Mr. Tryon said that based on (1) the outcome of the (failed) levy last November, (2) the results of the community survey taken just this past April (which cost the taxpayers $10,000, and which showed the voters overwhelmingly opposed to a new levy), and (3) the current economic conditions, he believes that it is not prudent to put such a large levy on the ballot at this time.
No one at the meeting said how much money the levy, if passed, is expected to generate for the District. On Monday, July 12, I requested public records that I believe would reveal the amount of additional tax dollars that would be sent to the District over the five year period of time, but I (on Thursday, July 15) am still waiting for those records and was told by our Treasurer that those records wouldn't be provided to me until "the end of next week." Stay tuned.-----------
-----------On July 22, 2010, the District provided me public records I requested which show the amount of money the District expects the tax levy, if passed, would generate for the District. Here's what I found:
On November 2, 2010, the voters will be asked to compel taxpayers to pay the school district an additional $29.2 million over 5 years. Last year, 86% of the District's expenditures went to pay the salaries and benefits of District employees, and we can expect that 86% of this "new money" tax levy---$25.1 million---will go to pay salary and benefit INCREASES.
"The overall reduction plan is to try to spread out the difficulty...There's an attempt to spread that pain, that difficulty, out."--Superintendent Diringer, Feb. 22, 2010
At its April 27, 2009 meeting, the board unanimously approved two Waiver Days that has the effect of taking nearly a quarter million dollars that was supposed to be used for the purpose of educating our children and using that money instead for the purpose of educating our teachers. (go)
Learn About the Two New School Board Members: Dave Tryon and Mark Jantzengo
Lone former Board Member (Dave Dosen) Reaches Out to Community with Truth about District Financesgo Lone former Board Member (Dave Dosen) Opposes New Tax Levy--FInd out whygo Lone former Board Member (Dave Dosen) Votes Against Contract with Teachers' Uniongo
Absurdity of the Day!
Oct. 29, 2009 In an Oct. 29, 2009 editorial, the Sun Star Courier endorsed the passage of the BBH School levy because:
"The problem here is that, at stake, are the lives of the children."
Does the newspaper realize it's being ridiculously over-dramatic when it states that our children's lives are at stake? If the newspaper really believes that our children's lives are at stake, then it should call the county prosecutor to charge the District with child endangerment.
You might think that the newspaper is using such extreme rhetoric to simply convince voters to pass the levy. However, the heightened olfactory sense of the Watchdog is taking her down a trail that leads to a possible additonal motive. To find out what that is, sniff here.
The Schools Issues Committee had 3X8 signs up in front of the Middle School and in front of Central School that said "VOTE YES on Issue 104". When I asked if I would be able to put up a sign that said "VOTE NO on Issue 104," the District told me that I wouldn't be allowed to do that, and then they instructed the Schools Issues Committee to take down their signs.
Artificial Turfmore During its March 26, 2007 meeting, our school board decided to purchase $600,000.00 worth of artificial turf for the high school football field with the understanding that it would need to be replaced in eight to ten years at a cost of an additional $300,000.00
_____________________________________________________________________________ If anyone finds anything on this website that is not correct, please contact me through e-mail so I can quickly correct any mistakes.