Welcome to the new home of Lee's Summit Tribune. We are dedicated to providing you the most current and accurate news and events in Lee's Summit
Home»News»Lee's Summit R-7 School District Levy...
Lee's Summit R-7 School District Levy Election Fails To Receive Majority Vote
February 8, 2011
Dr. David McGehee, Superintendent of R-7 School District Tribune Photo/Fred Poese
Lee's Summit R-7 School District Levy Election Fails To Receive Majority Vote.
Dr. McGehee watches the screen at the Stansberry Leadership Ctr as the Jackson County Election results posted: 32 OF 41 PRECINCTS _ NO* 7101 63.52% _ YES 4079 36.48% Cass County had already posted NO - 171 to YES 89 with 100% of the precincts reporting.
Final results after all Lee's Summit 41 Precincts reporting Total 15113 NO* 9493 62.81% _ YES 5620 37.19%
The School District Immediately sent the following release:
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS FROM FEB. 8 R-7 LEVY ISSUE ELECTION Levy issue fails to receive majority vote
R-7 voters failed to approve a levy issue on Feb. 8 by a 63 percent majority, according to unofficial results released by the Jackson County Election Board on Tuesday evening.
The 89-cent levy issue was recommended by the R-7 Citizens' Advisory Committee following a comprehensive study of district finances last fall. The levy's failure will result in approximately $6 million in additional budget cuts district-wide in 2011-12 and 2012-13 as the school district addresses ongoing losses in state and local revenue. This school year, the R-7 School District has reduced its budget by $19.5 million as part of a three-year cost-containment effort totaling over $30 million. R-7 officials will now work to implement the additional budget cuts determined with the assistance of the community cost-containment team, which completed their work last fall. This will take the district's total accumulative cost containment to over $55 million, including 2008 through 2012.
If you would like information about the Lee's Summit R-7 Feb. 8 levy issue and the budget cuts planned for 2011-12 and 2012-13, please visit the district's election website at http://www.leesummit.k12.mo.us/districtinfo/election2011.html.
cost container says:
February 9th, 2011 at 14:13
***Hey McGeehe, Hertzog and school board......That will be $100,000 please!!!!!!(approx. cost of "special election")
Can someone post the actual number of principals and assistant principals in the district? I just found out that the junior high has 3 principals.One for 7th, one for 8th and one for both not to mention assistant principals. What is their actual pay? What do they do all day? Do they teach?
Dr. McGehee's article states "R-7 voters failed to approve a levy issue..."
"Failed to approve."
That's the good doctor's somewhat disingenuous assessment of the citizens' decision to vote NO on increasing their property taxes for the third year in a row.
Also note that the good doctor failed to approve the use of the word "taxes" in his article.
As I've stated before, simply demanding more and more tax dollars is not an equitable solution.
No one begrudges paying top dollar for top administrators. Lord knows they're hard to find, and even harder to keep (witness the wretched, decades long stupidity in the KCMO school district).
The same can be said of excellent teachers and staff, but there must be a greater shared burden between employees (teachers, staff & administrators) and the employers (tax paying citizens) when a budget crisis threatens.
And the district has been loudly beating the drum that this is a crisis.
My previously stated solution of a voluntary 5% cut in teacher, staff and administrator salaries and benefits will almost close the estimated 2012 $6 million dollar budget short fall of state funds for our district.
Maybe once that "skin is in the game," then the tax payers would be more agreeable to another slight increase in their property taxes.
Why is this monetary cooperation not even mentioned during a crisis?
Of course, once the notion of small voluntary reduction is salaries and benefits is breached, two straw men named "Falsehood" and "Cynical" appear.
"Falsehood" says that if tax payers do not pay more to support schools, then those tax payers only care about money, and our excellent teachers and administrators will be lured away by those districts with more resources. This totally discounts the fact that many districts all over the nation are already crying "poor," as their own cities and states face their own crisis of budget.
"Cynical" says that if tax payers do not pay more to support schools, then those tax payers only care about money, and do not care about children or schools. This implies only govt. entities can educate children, and totally discounts the excellent results from home schools, private schools, and voucher funded charter schools.
Yet, once that cynical door is open, it seems to me it would swing both ways, i.e.: if teachers and administrators do not volunteer to a small cut in salary and benefits to ease this budget crisis, then those teachers and administrators only care about money, and do not care about children or schools, and are willing to be lured away by those with deeper pockets.
But, I'll leave it to small-minded individuals to open that door.