Yesterday, the ISD School Board put its best happy face on during their interviews. Whether they believed that they were going to win or whether they knew a defeat was in the cards, the indisputable truth from Tuesday night was that taxpayers rejected the School Board’s proposal by a pretty significant margin.

Tuesday afternoon, School Board Chairman Dennis Whipple told KNSI’s Dan Ochsner that most referenda and special elections attract approximately 4,000-6,000 voters in St. Cloud. When all the ballots were counted, ISD742 residents cast 15,853 votes; 7,393 (46.6%) were yes votes while 8,460 (53.4%) were no votes.

It’s one thing to lose a tight race. It’s another to lose by 1,000+ votes.

Tuesday afternoon, I told Dan Ochsner that we would look at the Times’ Our View Editorial as the turning point if this bonding referendum lost. At the time, I wrote in this post that it’s “foolish to think that this group of “experienced leaders” is running an under-the-radar campaign because this is a terrific deal for St. Cloud. If this deal was that important and that well thought out, these “experienced leaders” would’ve canvassed St. Cloud at least 3-4 times.”

The fact that only 3 mailers were sent out and that few Vote Yes signs were put up around town indicates that the School Board didn’t put much effort into this campaign. In hindsight, I never saw anyone from EdMinn dropping lit or knocking on doors.

Whipple said that the School Board would “return to” listening to the people. Hint for Chairman Whipple: it’s time for the School Board to start listening rather than talking amongst the education community, then telling the taxpayers what their bill will be for the School Board’s plans.

3 Responses to “ISD742 proposal rejected”

  • J says:

    At least some people are starting to wake up. Job well done, Gary.

  • Rex Newman says:

    LFR readers: I called this outcome, predicting a “big” defeat, and I think this margin qualifies given the off cycle timing and the usual union support.

    Your Board should read this as a perceived lack of credibility. Two things seem obvious to this Metro reader. One, the discipline and academic problems at Tech have to be openly, directly addressed. A new building solves nothing, especially one blind to the real needs of the new demography.

    And two, claiming a new roof “could cost” $10 million raises red flags with those of us who have some experience in such matters. That’s a lot of roofing, possibly necessary given the age of the structure underneath. But what do you bet there is all manner of extra “rain water capture” and “green roof” and “solar panel” nonsense baked in?

    “You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to see the plan.”

Leave a Reply