Another pathetic voter turnout

Another school election and another pitiful voter turnout. Of course, who could blame the electorate for staying home on a rainy day when faced with our “choices” - two unopposed cookie-cutter candidates and a deceptively-named millage “renewal.”

According to a Standard & Poor analysis, Farmington’s Return on Spending Index (RoSI) is below the state average. The RoSI measures how well a school district uses the resources (i.e. money) that it receives. While Farmington schools academically perform “well above” the state average, they spend “exceptionally above” the average as well. This means our district fails to deliver the results we pay for.

This election was a glaring example of the waste our school board promotes. Instead of holding elections in November, our board decided May would be better. Their stated concern is they worry local issues will get lost in a national election. One wonders what kind of idiots the board believes the voters are. How difficult could it be to fill in the oval for two unopposed and interchangeable candidates? Maybe if you wrote in a more qualified candidate such as “None of the Above”, it got tougher.

I’ll concede that the millage issue was a bit more complicated, but only because of the misinformation campaign waged by the district. Calling it a “renewal” was misleading since taxes were raised on property owners who live outside the city. I would characterize the campaign as blatantly dishonest.

Once again, our school board held an election timed to suppress voter turnout at the cost of a teacher’s salary. Whenever layoffs are announced, parents should ask board members how long they intend to sacrifice teachers for their special elections.

[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 05/11/2006.]