Lawrence school board members found many options concerning the purchase of a new administration building closed to them on Monday night, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't approach this issue -- and all others -- with an open mind.
Monday night, the Lawrence school board affirmed earlier decisions to purchase a new administration/warehouse building and sell two other district buildings.
That may be the best course of action at this point in the process, but the attitude of some board members toward the large building projects being funded by a $16.6 million bond issue approved last November may concern some local taxpayers.
It also is worth noting that several important votes taken at Monday's board meeting showed a split between the three board members who took office in July and the four carryover board members. The split could be viewed in a variety of ways, but some of the comments by continuing board members seem to indicate a certain unwillingness to reconsider decisions or take a second look at important issues.
All three new board members had different objections to the purchase of the 110 McDonald Dr. building. Scott Morgan said it was a bad deal, but it would be too expensive for the district to back out of it. His idea was to proceed with the purchase then immediately seek to resell the building, a plan that takes a philosophical stand, but seems unlikely to provide any economic advantages for the district. If the assumption is that the district paid too much for the building in the first place, why would it expect to resell it without suffering additional financial losses?
Sue Morgan said there was no evidence that the building would fulfill all the needs the district has in mind. That seems a strong possibility considering the list of personnel and materials the district says it plans to consolidate in the building and earlier statements that the building was smaller than what the district had wanted. John Davidson took an entirely different tack, saying the district's space needs are so great, the board should consider hanging onto the current administration building in addition to buying 110 McDonald Dr., although it's difficult to see how the district would finance that plan.
This idea drew strong response from continuing board members Leni Salkind and Austin Turney, who were adamant that plans to sell both the administration building and the India School building should stand.
"I under no circumstances will back away from it," Turney said of the previous board's decision.
Under no circumstances? Really? Selling both buildings may be the right decision, but it's always good to be willing to consider other options, especially if "circumstances" change.
In the discussion about budget revisions for various projects to be funded by the bond issue, Salkind also objected to how much the board was managing the construction projects.
"I don't think it's our role to get in there and manage these projects," she said.
It's true that the primary management of the construction is the job of district employees, but board members never should try to abdicate their duty to oversee the spending of taxpayer money. If board members have time for a lengthy discussion on the location for high school graduations, as they did on Monday, they have time to review and comment on plans and details of large, publicly funded projects.
Voters' favorable response to last November's bond issues indicated that they saw a need to provide additional, centralized warehouse space for the district. The plan to combine that space with a new administration center took most district patrons by surprise. Monday's 4-3 school board vote to proceed with the purchase of the 110 McDonald Dr. building shows that the four carryover members from the board that made that decision plan to stick by their plan regardless of what the three dissenting new board members think.
They may be right. It may be too late for the district to do anything but proceed with the purchase. But, for future reference, the interests of local taxpayers are not well served by any board member who stubbornly refuses to reconsider a decision or by one who hesitates to provide as much oversight as is needed for publicly funded projects.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.