[Vision2020] campaign contributions

[Donovan Arnold]

Andreas,
   
  I am not sure there is a difference between the way you explain it and my understanding of it. I just think you worded it a little different. 
   
  We did not vote on a levy that stated the proper amount of the entire bond in over 15 years. And the M&O levy has not passed three years in a row because MSD has not had three elections three years in a row that passed.  
   
  Word games, or just honest bad communication? I don't know. 
   
  Best, 
   
  Donovan

Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
  On 7/17/07, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Your premise is incorrect. It was not the election 15 years ago that was
> illegal, it was the absence of one in the last 15 years. 15 years is a long
> time to go without affirmation by the people. How many of those people that
> voted for the bond in 1992 are still in the MSD? We don't know if 2/3 of the
> people still support the current bond because it was so long ago that we
> voted, and it was at a time when the student population in public schools
> was much higher. 15 years is entirely too long to ignore taking a vote.

In Idaho, once a school M&O levy passes for three years in a row, it
becomes permanent. However, because it becomes fixed at a certain
dollar amount of funding, supplemental levies are required to make the
levy keep pace with the price of inflation. The dispute, as I
understand it, is not whether a permanent levy is legal (it is), but
whether the wording of the ballot question provided sufficient
explanation as to the amount of the levy (it did not include the
amount of the permanent levy).

I don't know what lawsuit *you're* talking about, but you're wrong.

-- ACS


       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070717/6ac9ea5c/attachment.html