BURKEonBOARD

(Oct. 20, 2008) – A couple of letters to the editor in last week’s two local papers require a response because of grievous factual errors. I have sent the following letter to both papers but don’t expect it to be printed in its entirety because of the length. The full letter is included here.

Dear letters editor,

I feel obliged to respond to the misinformation in recent letters to the editor about my school board candidacy printed in these pages and web site.

The writer’s most damning comments are based on incorrect information.

With regard to finishing what I start, as a city council member in Grand Forks, ND, from June 2000 to June 2002, I finished the term to which I was elected. It was a two year term instead of the normal four year term because of the reapportionment after the 2000 census. In fact, I remained in Grand Forks to finish my term even after my wife and daughters had moved to Farmington.

Here in Farmington last year, I was appointed to a vacancy on the Planning Commission. I completed that term and did not reapply for reappointment, because I was nearing a decision about whether I would focus my attention on school district and a possible run for the school board. It seemed to me that service on a city commission and a run for the school board had some inherent conflicts. I chose to avoid those conflicts. The writer would have been right to note that I resigned from the Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission in 2007 (after four and a half years service), but it was to take the seat on the Planning Commission. In fact, at the request of the HPC chair and with approval of the city council, I served for two months on both the HPC and the Planning Commission while the vacancy on the HPC was being filled.

With regard to my involvement in the NoSportsPlex issue, I respect the opinion of those who thought that project was a good idea, but nearly 70 percent of those who voted on the referendum disagreed. I offered possible alternatives with regard to additional ice in Farmington but the city has not chosen to pursue them.

One option that I proposed with regard to additional ice is the model in practice in Lakeville where the city, school district and youth hockey organization have created a joint powers agreement to share in the financing, operations and debt service of their new ice. No one in our city hall, our school board or the Farmington youth hockey organization has pursued that possibility as far as I know. I suspect the school district isn’t interested because they wouldn’t be in control (so much for the collaboration thing they’re so hot on) and wouldn’t have the opportunity to sell bonds to offset the horribly over-budget new high school project. (Remember that in 2005 when we voted on the high school bond referendum, it was advertised as an $83 million project. Today, it’s a $100 million project and that’s after the school board cut $20+ million plus worth of amenities from the building.)

The writer mentions that I have not always stayed to the end of school board meetings. Well, I’m not on the school board, but I certainly have attended more board meetings and stayed longer that any other candidate in this contest bar the lone incumbent running. And for many of those meetings, I was there just as an interested citizen not yet even contemplating a run for the school board. I had to go to know what was going on because our current school board has forced the public comment period off the regular school board meeting agenda to a time when it is not carried on the cable TV. And they have also changed one of the formerly two business meetings per month into a “work session” also not carried on the cable TV and held at 5 p.m. when few members of the public could attend even if they wanted to.

This from a board that claims to want to keep citizens informed.

With regard to my data request for access to the district’s legal bills, that is just flat wrong. I still have a request for legal billing information that is pending with the district.

With regard to being a “vocal opponent of a levy that would let the district open the new high school and fifth elementary school,” the writer is again completely mistaken. I never took a public position on the operating and technology levies on the ballot last November. I did organize a petition drive to force a recount on the operating levy #1 question after the election resulted in an initial 12 vote margin that was narrowed to 10 following the recount.

And finally, with regard to the writer’s charge that “if you evaluate what Mr. Burke has said for his goals for wanting to be on the board, you won’t find any mention of those things that are absolutely critical in working together to educate kids.”

One of the most important things that I have talked and written about over and over again is the stunningly poor achievement scores our district has recorded on the state tests, particularly in the upper grades. I have made it clear that I am no expert on teaching (and neither is anyone else running or serving on the board now). I have said that I see my role on the board as setting policy and expectations that the administration needs to meet. Current results are unacceptable. The board’s role is to hold the district’s administration responsible for making our school better at what they exist for–educating our kids. If that’s not about “the kids,” I don’t know what is.

I have raised more issues in this campaign, offered more ideas about what to do and been more forthright about my opinions than anyone else in this election including the current incumbent and board chair. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I would be frightened if they did. Certainly, I may not have the most ingratiating style, but if anyone is unclear about what I think, they simply haven’t been paying attention. This district needs some shaking up because the way we’ve been doing it so far has gotten us into the mess we’re in now–low test scores and the highest school taxes around. We can do better.

Tim Burke