The name is Bond...Failed Bond

A friend texted me the results of the District 91 $84.5 Million bond election last night.

With all due respect to those supporting the bond, I was far more elated than I expected. I must have been more emotionally invested in this one than I thought, because I was nearly giddy.

Keep in mind, I don't live in District 91, and don't really have an obvious stake in the outcome of the election.

But here's why I think I had a surge of "Yes!" when I found out the bond failed.

First, let me say that I am an unapologetic school election reform advocate. I think school elections are a sham for a whole bunch of reasons:

1. They do not fall under the purview of the Secretary of State. Every public election in Idaho should be overseen by a "disinterested" party. The school officials have a vested interest in the outcome, so why should they be running their own elections?

2. Because there is no outside observer, school districts resort to some shifty tactics to better their chances. I received two calls about activity that I believe borders on electioneering, if not rigging. One was about his elementary school holding a student music program from 6:30 to 8:00pm -- the last ninety minutes of yesterday's election. How convenient. The second was from a patron who was appalled at the glossy architectural renderings of the district's proposed schools inside the polling place. Would the schools give equal access to the opposition to hold activities and display their printed materials? Not likely.

3. Elections are held at the very location that stands to benefit from passage. What would happen if a polling place was set up at GOP headquarters in a partisan election? We all know the answer to that, and we all understand why that's not acceptable. So where do we hold them? How about the post office, or city hall, or the library? Even hotel conference rooms have served as perfectly good polling places. The county courthouse. The police station. The airport. The senior citizen center, or legion hall. We have plenty of neutral locations for a vote. Let's get them out of the schools.

4. Thanks to legislative action earlier this year, this concern is almost moot, but why have schools been able to set their own election days? Yesterday's vote is a perfect example. While I understand 6,000 votes is a pretty decent voter turnout, holding it two weeks earlier on the regular election day would have guaranteed even more voter participation.

Add to these reasons the unusually prompt enforcement by the City of Idaho Falls in removing signs opposed to the bond in the public right-of-way, and I'm happy to see that the underdogs prevailed.

With all of these factors playing in District 91's favor, fifty-six per cent seems pretty anemic.

I suppose part of my unexpected elation over yesterday's bond failure came about because the outcome is another reminder that people don't like education officials' insatiable appetites for public money. Among the patrons with whom I associate, administrators throughout education have wandered into that realm where yesterday's wants have so easily morphed into today's needs. Perhaps one of my callers said it best yesterday when he described his change of mind upon hearing the "need" for the schools to have air conditioning in a climate that necessitates it only a few weeks out of the school year.

I strongly believe every parent wants the best education for their children, and when arguments are reduced to a supposition that those who vote against a bond or a levy don't care about education, it's sad, simplistic, and unproductive.

Hopefully the architects of this failed bond will go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that is more innovative, exciting, and palatable to the taxpaying patrons in District 91.