Once brave, now shy.

Voters’ rejection in April of a $59 million bond package for Lawrence school construction and renovation has the school board feeling apprehensive about the pending birth of “Bond Issue Jr.”

There’s a sense among veteran board members and newcomers who start terms on the board Tuesday that caution must be taken to make the next proposition more to taxpayers’ liking.

“If it’s not going to work, let’s not pretend,” said Rich Minder, who takes his seat on the board this week.

Minder was elected on the strength of his opposition to elementary school consolidation and the bond issue, which was placed on the ballot despite suspicion among supporters and critics that it was doomed.

Sue Morgan, a member of the school board, said defeat of the last bond shouldn’t deter the board from taking another plan to voters.

“The buildings aren’t going to heal themselves. We need to keep looking for ways to get it done,” she said.

No extensive bond planning has occurred since the April election, which left a trio of lame-duck board members in office for three months. Scott Morgan, Mary Loveland and Jack Davidson will be replaced Tuesday by Leonard Ortiz, Cindy Yulich and Minder.

It didn’t make sense to hatch a new bond strategy with so much turnover on the horizon, Supt. Randy Weseman said. He also said the board was tied up with the 2003-2004 budget, which will include $1.4 million in staff and program cuts. They also grappled with elementary consolidation, eventually voting to close three schools.

¢Past stories on the school bond

Discussion of a new school bond issue will begin at the board’s annual retreat in August or September, Weseman said.

At that gathering, he said, the four veterans on the board will sit down with the three new members to discuss the issue.

“That’s the extent of the planning right now, because they lead the thing,” Weseman said.

Avoiding old wounds

DLR Group, a consulting firm hired by the district for the first bond, is under contract to assist with the follow-up.

John Fuller, a principal executive at the DLR firm, said he would encourage the board to assess why the $59 million bond couldn’t get more than 45 percent of the vote. That can be done through board dialogue, town meetings and formal surveys.

“Post-mortems are good,” Fuller said, “but do it in a positive way so you’re not digging at old wounds.”

The new board will have five members who supported the bond and two members, Ortiz and Minder, who didn’t.

Fuller said timing of the next bond vote would depend on how quickly the board agreed on a construction and renovation plan. If that occurs in September, he said, it might be possible to have a mail-in bond vote in early 2004. It’s more likely that a bond vote will occur in late 2004 or early 2005, he said.

“It’s paramount to get all the board members on the same page,” Fuller said.

Yulich, who was elected to the board while supporting the failed bond, said the next package ought to be the output of a unanimous board. The last bond was backed by six of seven board members.

“The seven of us need to agree and then take that to the community,” she said.

Minder said the district and DLR Group did a reasonably good job of assessing the physical condition of school buildings and drafting a facility master plan for improvements.

The missing link was connecting those reports to public sentiment, he said.

“What can we do to retain that good planning that has been done and bring along those people who have not bought in?” he said.

Secondary school focus

Leni Salkind, who will assume the title of board vice president, said the next bond likely would lean to needs at secondary schools.

In the last bond, two-thirds of the money would have been spent on improvements at the junior high schools and high schools.

For example, she said, the board would have to settle the future of Lawrence Alternative High School. The last bond would have allocated $6.8 million for a new alternative facility. Opposition to that expansion erupted during the bond campaign.

“One thought I had was maybe we need to include more of the vo-tech,” she said.

Salkind said there were equally pressing facility issues at the junior highs and high schools.

A high priority needs to be South Junior High School, Minder said. The last bond earmarked $21.1 million for demolition and construction of a new South.

“That seems to be something there is sufficient support for,” he said.

Board member Linda Robinson said she would be more comfortable with a bond that had a lower cost and didn’t tackle so many projects at once.

The failed $59 million bond, a record for the district, would have provided money for work at nine elementary schools and six secondary schools.

“The bond was too big, too comprehensive,” she said. “We need to come out with a bond that addresses the most critical pieces and most sellable pieces.”