From my write-up here:
"Other than the fact that we have had three balanced budgets in a row, increased fund balance to improve the financial health of the District, and took action on the referendum debt to cut 5 years of payments and save taxpayers nearly $10 million in costs associated with that debt, has he explained how he wants to "not overburden taxpayers?"
Why does he need to wait until he is on the School Board to take a deep dive into the financials? As a governmental body, we are obligated to provide the public information when asked for it. As a candidate for a position on the School Board, shouldn't he be taking the time and effort to learn as much as possible to not create a "we need to vote for him to find out who we voted for" situation?"
"However, please know that when you start to see him detail the positions that he has identified as important to him in the coming days leading to the election, it wasn’t by design. It was because of this post."
My opponent's response to the ads that I'm currently running on Facebook was predictable. Rather than focus on developing the positions that he chose to run his campaign on, he has spent most of his time on two issues: DEI (which he has said he doesn't see in our District) and banning CRT where it only shows up in two college-level classes, one in which students can earn college credit, and requires parental sign off before they can be officially registered for the class. His first instinct is to attack me, claim "misinformation," and make a false statement himself.
Let's address the "Not Overburdening the Taxpayer" ad first:
Let's first note that he didn't dispute what I noted about his column. He is on record as saying that he wants to "trim the fat," but has never gotten into details about what he sees as being a problem for our expenses. He has told a story about how he has known he wanted to be on the School Board for a number of years and has "watched, listened, learned," and yet, needs to be on the board to be able to figure things out.
Second, I never claimed that I ever served on the Finance Committee. Therefore, he is correct about his second sentence.
Third, from 2012 through the fiscal year-end 2021, the District had a structural deficit. In other words, the District's expenses were greater than its revenue, and fund balance had to be used to "balance" the budget. I don't have a Finance degree, but I do have an Economics degree and when you have to pull from your "savings" account to cover a shortfall, that's not a balanced budget.
When I ran in 2021, I wrote extensively, with data, about the District's financial situation.
Fact: I voted for three balanced budgets in a row.
Fact: Since I joined the Board, the fund balance went from 6% to 14%.
Fact: I voted twice for resolutions to cut 5 years off of referendum debt saving District taxpayers upwards of $10 million.
So my opponent claims misinformation... whee exactly is the misinformation?
Comments