| abstract
| - I wish to thank the district directors for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I am here to raise my substantial concerns about revisions to policy 707 and the unintended consequences that these changes may have. I wish to ask the directors to consider delaying a vote on the policy changes until the directors have given the citizens of our district the opportunity to carefully read the policies, to consider the implications of these policies on the different organizations that use our facilities and to understand what the impact of these changes will be for the children in our district. I further ask that the directors consider soliciting from these organizations feedback on these proposals so that we can ensure that whatever policies are put into place will meet the needs of our children. I mean no disrespect to any director, but my concern is that the diversity of organizations that use these facilities makes it unreasonable to expect that those outside the organizations can have a true perspective on the implications of policy decisions. From swimming to football to soccer to the Girl and Boy Scouts, our community groups are so diverse. We need to ensure that we do not move so swiftly as to have our decisions have unintended and potentially detrimental consequences to our children. By delaying a decision and soliciting feedback from those who will be directly affected by these policy changes, you can ensure that the policies will have been developed collaboratively and not in a vacuum, thereby enabling the district directors to make informed decisions for the citizens of our community. With respect to the 7 current proposals, I have many, many concerns. As written they have consequences that will surely lead to the closing of some of our clubs. For example, Options 5-7 imply that during any event the organization will need to pay $100 per participant not from the district. This means for example that under options 5 and 7 our swim club would pay anywhere from $5,000-$20,000 for a swim meet, even if all our swim club members were Carlynton District Residents. I do not believe in my heart that the writer of these policies intended that, but that is what it states. Options 3 and 4 are internally inconsistent. 3a states that groups with less than 100% district resident members do not pay anything for the facility use (see the definition of Individual/Group). 3b states that those with less than 90% district membership will pay to use the facility, while 3c states that only those with <75% membership will pay a fee. These are all contradictory and I don’t think this is what the writer intended. I believe the writer intended a sliding scale whereby the more out of district members you have, the greater the fee you pay. But that is not what the policy says. Option 2 states that groups with 100% participation will not pay a fee. What does “100% participation mean”? Can a group of 100% non Carlynton residents who allows every member to participate in their activity use our facilities for free? Which groups don’t allow 100% of their members to participate in the club? Why would anyone want to be a member of such a club? Again, I’m certain this is not what you meant, but that is how it reads. If you meant 100% district membership, then how does option 5 differ from option 2? Also, each of these policies has fees for facility usage. How were these fees derived and how well do they reflect actual costs? As an example, Dr. Panza reports that it costs the district $6000 to run the pool each year. Yet almost every one of these policies has fees that will far exceed that amount of income to the district in a short period of time. For example, our swim club has 75% district membership. Under policy 3 you would charge our club $500 a week to practice in the pool. In less than 3 months we will have paid 100% of the district costs for operating the pool. Over the course of our season, we will have paid more than twice what the district incurs to run the pool. Is that what you meant to do, make money off of clubs and in essence levy an underhanded tax on district residents? I hope my examples have helped you understand why I urge the directors to postpone any vote so that you can allow the public to carefully review these proposals and provide you with feedback to make the best decision possible. Let me be so bold as to suggest another possible approach to the facilities usage policy. As a taxpayer, my monies go to support the maintenance and welfare of the facilities. When I participate in an organization that uses the facilities, I do not expect to pay for the facilities – I’ve done that already when I paid my taxes. However, those out of district residents who participate in an organization have not contributed a dime to the maintenance of our facilities. I think that’s where the injustice is. A more equitable facility usage policy would not levy a fee on a club, but instead would levy the fee on the outside the district individuals who are using the facilities while participating in a club. Those monies would go directly to the district to maintain the facilities. In essence, the district would be taxing out of district participants only – not re-taxing district residents. Isn’t that more fair to everyone? Finally, whatever policy the directors choose, please understand that as a small school district with, according to public data, a large population of school children from very low income families, in certain circumstances, we can gain by allowing non-district residents to participate in our programs. That is, we can enhance the educational experiences of our children. Policies that are written to ensure almost no out of district participants in organization without an unreasonable financial burden to the organization will likely have the unintended effect of raising costs for in district residents. This would unintentionally exclude from participating in activities children who come from limited income homes. In our district that amounts to over 40% of our children. How sad that our policies will in essence mean that children who are already at a disadvantage in life will face even more disadvantages because they couldn’t participate in activities that may enhance their education and their chances to win college scholarships. How sad that we, perhaps unknowingly, chose to create policies that cut short the opportunities of almost half our children to seek a better life, thereby putting their dreams out of reach. Again, I urge the directors to postpone any vote tonight, to open the floor at a future meeting to discussions from citizens and organizations about these policies, so that we can all work together to achieve the ONE goal we all agree on – creating the best possible environment for the children of the Carlynton School District. I thank you for your time.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)