More to consider when it comes to the Cheney High School bond

By JOHN McCALLUM

Editor

There are a lot of issues surrounding the Cheney School District’s proposed $44.8 million bond to expand and renovate Cheney High School. Proponents and opponents of the bond have lined out some of these through letters to the editor, advertisements and other methods.

As someone who visits the high school fairly regularly, I’ve witnessed the overcrowding. Over the years, I’ve nearly been trampled during class changes, and I’ve tripped over students eating in the hallways at lunch. I’ve listened to coaches and administrators vent about practice schedules because of lack of space, even before the gym at the Fisher Building was taken out of use and surplused.

I’ve also seen a half empty cafeteria during lunch, which left me wondering why students were eating in the hallways. When bond opponent Bill Johns mentioned the cafeteria’s capacity of 320 could be met if district official put more chairs at the table than the current four, I had to scramble through our archives to see if I had any photos of the cafeteria.Sure enough, I had one from this fall, and there were four chairs per table.

When West Plains Little League began in 2004, we often met in the cafeteria, and it seems there were more chairs around each table then.

But even with four chairs per table, I’ve still noticed a cafeteria that’s maybe half full. Granted, I’m not there every day.

What this bond issue really screams for is a public forum or debate. At just about every school board meeting since the directors agreed to put the bond on a ballot, Johns has stood up and challenged the district to a debate.

Back in December, the Cheney Free Press put together a proposal to hold a public forum much like our candidate forums from several years ago. I presented the proposal to the school board at a meeting Dec. 17, suggesting it be held at the Wren Pierson Community Center.

The board wanted to run the proposal by legal counsel, expressing concerns about what they could and couldn’t do regarding promoting the bond. Unfortunately, holiday schedules got in the way, and it wasn’t until their first meeting in January that they responded, declining the offer by citing the need to be neutral about promoting the bond including not using district resources to do so.

By that time we had pretty much tabled the idea as well, and we respect the board’s diligence in making sure that whatever they did would not run afoul of the law. To me that’s good public stewardship.

But I’ve since learned of district officials volunteering with the Yes for Our Kids-Cheney School District Committee for Good Schools. I’ve had callers with connections to the school district tell me school staff have been asked to make phone calls for the bond, and I know officials have gone out and put up signs from the committee urging a yes vote.

A check of the Yes for Our Kids Facebook page shows a group of smiling students holding these signs. Are not all of these also use of school district resources?

Even if the phone calling and other efforts are intended to get out the vote, my question is would that same effort have been made in an election without a school district measure on the ballot? Would the committee and school district officials have made phone calls promoting other measures, such as last November’s Initiative 1351 to reduce class sizes?

It doesn’t pass the straight face test to say these efforts are only a get out the vote initiative.

There are just a lot of issues surrounding this bond that beg for more public discussion, but we’re not likely to get it unless the bond fails a second time. There needs to be clarity, and more transparency.

I know school officials feel they’ve done all they can to get the public involved, and I understand Director Rick Mount’s frustration vented at a March meeting about the lack of public attendance at their information events. And for what it’s worth, while I feel the $44.88 million bond maybe goes too far with some things, I also feel opponents $11.6 million alternative doesn’t go far enough.

But for now, everything comes down to the vote on April 28.

John McCallum can be reached at [email protected].