Pondering “Pandering”

By John Strand
Staff Writer

I have avoided using this page to discuss issues I am directly involved in as an elected public official serving on the Fargo Board of Education.
That is a general rule.

However, after Tuesday’s editorial in The Forum, I’m going to respond, but in our own newspaper and with our own ink and in my own words.

“Pandering not same as leading,” was Tuesday’s editorial headline.

The first paragraph: “Members of the Fargo School Board were elected to make decisions—sometimes difficult or unpopular decisions. If they aren’t up to the task, they are on the wrong public board. If they want to toss every tough call to a vote, they don’t understand their responsibility and authority as elected officeholders.”

The Forum then gave its readers its take on a resolution I put on the school board agenda Tuesday night. That resolution would call for public votes on new construction projects funded through the Fargo School District Building Authority and using the District’s general fund.

“The measure has the potential to erode the effectiveness of a school building and renovation fund that has been a remarkable success for nearly 20 years. Passed by 72 percent of the district voters in 1991, the 11.4-mill fund has proved to be an efficient and cost-effective mechanism to build and improve schools without raising property taxes for specific projects. The fund also also includes proceeds from a base 15 mills.”

“Managed by a Building Authority formed in 1988 and the board, the fund has not only helped hold taxes in check but also has allowed the district to leverage other funds at reasonable cost, thus further saving taxpayers money. New buildings have been built in anticipation of needs, and older buildings have been expanded, renovated and repurposed. And all was done without adding to the burden of district taxpayers.”

“Yet that’s not good enough for a cadre of board members who seem more interested in pandering to a few loud voices rather than preserving financial integrity and smart management.”

That is The Forum’s take on that resolution. I hereby take this opportunity to correct The Forum’s misinformation.

The truth: Yes, voters approved an 11.4 mill building levy in 1991 by 72 percent.
But to set the record straight, that 11.4 mills has nothing whatsoever to do with the Building Authority, period.

State law allows the Fargo School District 15 mills in its building fund. Voters approved 11.4 mills for Discovery School in 1991. That combined statutory allowance is 26.4 mills. It is managed solely by the Board of Education. The 26.4 mills will generate $6,679,200 for the building levy construction projects this fiscal year.

The Building Authority, on the other hand, is a separate non-profit corporation that is an additional way to fund construction projects. It takes money from the district’s general fund. For 2010-11, the Building Authority principal and interest payments from the General Fund total $5,900,000.

Add the two funds together, and the total amount allocated to new construction projects this year exceeds $12.5 million, of which nearly half of that amount, over 20 mills, comes out of the General Fund.

The Building Levy and the Building Authority are different beasts. The Building Fund is allowed by State Law and is dedicated to construction projects. School districts, on the other hand, are not allowed by state law to have a Building Authority. Hence, that entity, albeit a mirror board of the School Board and district leaders, is supposedly not connected at all to the school district.

Building Authority construction activities are paid for through annual lease payments out of the school district general fund.

The Building Authority bonded indebtedness has been as high as $53 million in 2000, while Building Fund debt for that same year was $18 million. That trend continued for a decade, with more debt accruing to the General Fund than the Building Fund, until last year with the construction of Davis High and using the Building Levy, bringing totals for the Building Fund debt to $72 million, and the Building Authority to $40 million for 2009-10.

“It’s always savvy to favor a vote on expensive public school building projects. But a savvy position is not necessarily a financially or educationally sound one. Indeed, a few Fargo legislators have joined Strand and his board allies on the pander wagon,” The Forum’s editorial continued. “The questions remain: If they don’t want to make the big decisions, why are they on the board? If they don’t have confidence in their own abilities and competence to lead rather than follow a noisy minority, why are they on the board?”

Rather than interjecting my own opinions regarding The Forum’s misguided and misinforming editorial published Tuesday, I am, however, compelled to clarify the difference between Building Fund and Building Authority. Though it is confusing, there is a world of difference.

The Building Fund uses funds specifically dedicated to construction projects and is allowed by state law. The Building Authority uses general fund money not intended at all for bricks and mortar but instead for teachers and curriculum, etc.

To give readers a comparison, one of my dreams for the Fargo School District would be to lower class sizes in primary grades down to 15 students, which is proven to give students a significant advantage as they continue on from there in learning environments.

That proposal, however, would cost $2 million annually to fund about 50 teachers. Compare that, if you will, to $5,9 million coming out of the general fund for new construction projects, rendering it unavailable to teachers, curriculum and student activities.

It’s a matter of priorities, plain and simple.

New construction should be funded through the statutorily allowed Building Levy, not through the General Fund, and here in Fargo, we do both. That is the issue.

My resolution only asks for public votes on Building Authority and General Fund new construction activity. It’s reasonable and is not pandering. It’s instead an acknowledgement of significant public sentiment and it gives voice to those citizens at the Board table, something I was elected to do and campaigned to accomplish.

My opinion aside, I defer instead to the four opinions published online by Forum readers after the editorial was published. Hence, Forum readers have the final say today in the High Plains Reader editorial:

Dave Engebretson said: “So who’s pandering to whom in this editorial? Too bad the school board meetings are not broadcast on the internet/radio/tv. So easy yet so many board members only want biased news stories that news media picks the topics that goes to the public. Televise the meetings so we know exactly what this school board is doing!”

Dave Arnholt said: “When this much money is being spent the public has the right to be involved in how it is spent. Sorry Forum, you’re wrong on this one.”

Kevin said: “This is an example of the pot calling the kettle black; good grief!”

M. Graalum said: “The school board has made mistake after mistake, they deserve some criticism and accountability.”

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)