Issue 4

[Shawn Juris]

Dan,
One of two things has happened throughout this post. Either I worded my objection to issue 4 poorly or my point was gradually misconstrued. Not mine to judge but for clarification, I am not opposed to improving schools. It's a foolish (but often effective) argument to attempt to attribute something like that to someone who is against an issue related to education. Politics 101 I suppose. What I was and am opposed to is increasing taxes further that will only be carried by property owners. They already have the 2nd highest in the county and the county isn't exactly a safe haven from taxes. Related to the YMP, I think that I always saw the objectives differently than others involved. Much like you, I wanted to have an impact and not just talk about it. The recent meetings have conflicted with my work schedule but I won't deny that it I thought the direction should have been different and wanted to step down to leave the majority to lead it through the next stage. So in my view, the YMP was to be a system that assessed and redirected resources when necessary to accomplish the agreed goals of the community. Think of energy not being created or destroyed in relation to funding. The dollars exist and just need to be moved to fit the need. I wasn't looking to create more expenses but maximize what we had. If we go through with all three phases of this taxing and the results (the end result of higher property values) don't follow, then what? We will have fantastic buildings, top notch equipment, terrorist prevention systems, holding cells, laser beams and whatever else has been promised which can't be afforded because there's no money left. The past discussions seems to support that we aren't going to get more commercial income and our solution has been to tax the residents who traditionally are seen as the top of the food chain, the property owners. I know, I know... if we tax the property owners the expense should be passed along to their renters. Not going to happen, it's difficult enough to rent a place let alone pay for the mortgage, maintenance, taxes, and improvements, there is no way a renter in this market is going to pay the amount needed for half a double.

To the second point, Junior Achievement has been highly recommended by several who have experienced it in the classroom or have volunteered in the past. As I saw it, it was a good fit with YMP. But I have admitted that I saw the goals differently. I suppose that it's not important to teach about career choices and budgeting/financial issues. The teachers saw it as beneficial but that was really about it. Maybe it's really more of the same issue that some in Lakewood feel that established, working programs aren't good enough. We need to start it from scratch and recreate the wheel. At any rate, I had referred JA to connect with the YMP to see if there was an interest. This was again what I saw the purpose behind the YMP, find ways that we can make things better. Find resources, identify if they fit and implement them. You're right that it doesn't address regular curriculum because that's what teachers cover every day. I have confidence that the BOE and teachers can handle math, science, etc. This again seemed to be an issue that there was quite a bit of dispute about in the meetings that I attended. The school handles the basic topics, all I was looking for was supplemental subjects that can broaden a student's base of knowlege to be delivered outside of classtime if needed or during if allowed. For what it's worth though, many of the topics covered by JA will be part of the core curriculum in the next couple years, so we can catch up later when the students parents have to figure out how they are supposed to afford their house.