The timing of a bond issue to fund improvements to Lawrence schools raises some interesting issues.

The Lawrence school board faces a real dilemma as it considers putting a bond issue for district facilities before voters.

The process of working with the public to come up with a proposal that the public would approve is taking longer than school officials had hoped. It now seems unlikely that a proposal will be ready in time to place it on the November general election ballot.

The next scheduled general election that could accommodate the bond proposal would be in April, but that timing is less desirable for a couple of reasons.

First, it would be almost impossible to enact any changes for the 2003-2004 school year if they are authorized in April 2003. A November 2002 election would allow school officials to get rolling on some initiatives before school starts next fall.

Perhaps the greater concern, however, is the prospect of putting a bond issue on the ballot at the same time that local school board members are being elected. This could be particularly problematic if the bond issue calls for merging or reconfiguring any elementary schools, which has been a highly contentious issue in previous school board elections. Even if the current board members were unanimous in their support of a bond issue, the selling of such a bond issue would be complicated by members seeking re-election or choosing to step down.

A look back at the past four school bond votes in Lawrence shows that all those issues were put on November ballots. The last three were passed; the one before that, which was defeated, was the first attempt to approve a second high school for Lawrence.

Supt. Randy Weseman says he would prefer to have a bond issue on the November ballot but not if it would rush the process and endanger community support. Taking his usual philosophical approach, Weseman said, “We’ll serve no wine before our time.”

Weseman is right not to cut short the process of arriving at a bond issue proposal. It would be a waste of time and money to offer a poorly constructed plan,

Another option would be for the district to pay for a mail-in ballot vote in early 2003. This is a proposal well worth exploring if costs are not prohibitive. The timing would be better than waiting until April, and other school districts in the state have found they get far higher voter-participation in a mail ballot.

Timing is important, but it isn’t everything. The school district’s first priority should be to take the necessary time to put together a facilities plan that reflects the community’s goals for its public schools. A well-crafted, thoughtful plan probably will win voter approval.