Skip to main content

Orlando George, Appo, and Colonial--what does it mean?

Ever since Del Tech President Orlando George (a man who makes--I'm not kidding--a higher salary than the President of the United States to run our community colleges) came back to the General Assembly with his perpetual proposal that Del Tech have its own dedicated property tax ...

And ever since (for about the last couple hours, really) I found out that both school referenda at Appo and Colonial went down to inglorious defeat ...

I have been ruminating on exactly what both of these things mean.

George (who keeps hoping that having his own daughter on the Joint Finance Committee will help him pull this off) is arguing that Del Tech needs a steady source of income for future expansion and operating expenses.  Of course the fact that the state's other two institutions of higher learning--UD and DSU--have to manage by playing the state game every year and courting private donors does not (for whatever reason) impinge on George's thinking.  Del Tech is different, and Del Tech alone out of every education institution in the state needs to have predictability in its finances and (above all) exemption from any oversight by voters or the General Assembly.

Ridiculous.  And dangerous.  But (one must admit) ultimately possible for him to achieve if he is persistent.

Meanwhile, Appo, which has earned a reputation for being one of the best-managed school districts in the state, fails miserably at a referendum.  One can cite multiple causes:  the bite they asked for was too big; many important names in the area (like Joanne Christian) did not support it for that reason; there was an organized opposition with signs and websites; and--frankly--in the middle of economic downturns people are unlikely to raise their taxes over middle school sports.

To be honest, however, referenda in our districts are usually a two-step process.  The district loads up the first one with all the chrome and bonuses that anybody in the central office wants, and the public says NO.  Then the district whittles down the request to something more reasonable, and the public (which is generally not averse to supporting education) says YES on the second go-round.

This is legitimate public stewardship of taxation in support of K-12 education, and might be a good lesson for Del Tech President George.

As for Colonial's failed efforts, from what I can tell they appeared to be running the old "stealth referendum" strategy.  That's when you put out the referendum notices and try not to talk about it much.  Then you have band concerts at all the schools and drag the parents in to vote.  This generally avoids having to deal with buses coming in from the retirement communities to vote against you.  Apparently that didn't work this time because people are better focused on what the government is trying to take out of their wallets.

But there is a clear message hear, both for Del Tech and our school districts.  Voting against a property tax for Del Tech or a particular referendum for a school district does not make one inherently anti-education.  It may mean (and I hope it does mean) that the voting public is taking its job seriously to manage the growth of spending without creating disaster.

We could only hope that Congress and the President someday get the same message.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...