Why I’m Voting No: Community Members’ Perspective on the St. Michael-Albertville Referendum

Editor's Note: This is the first in a two-part series that looks at where local residents are falling on the upcoming St. Michael-Albertville School District Operations Levy referendum, set for Tuesday, Nov. 8. The opinions expressed are those of the people interviewed for the story, and not of St. Michael Patch.

It’s easy to find people in St. Michael-Albertville who want to tell you why the upcoming levy referendum is needed for the district’s schools.

District leaders are spreading the word and giving their reasoning for it, a community group called the “Invest in Excellence Committee” has formed to support the levy effort and many average citizens are open to sharing their reasons for supporting local schools.

Though they are not as easy to find, there is an unorganized, but real, opposition to the levy in St. Michael and Albertville. Not all of them want to make their opinions known or speak out by name, but their misgivings are real nonetheless.

Albertville mother Kristen Lang, for instance, said she doesn’t feel that it is a wise decision to raise anyone’s taxes during a recession.

“In my household budget, if we do not have the money to buy everything we want, we need to sit down and pick the things that we think are the most necessary and buy them frugally. But we can't just buy, buy, buy and ignore the fact that our budget can't sustain it. It also means that we can't just walk into our employer (or any other third party) and demand money because we don't have the money to get everything we want. We make do, and we do without. I expect no less of the government (local, state, and federal). I suggest that the school does the same," she said. 

St. Michael mother Laura Nielsen said she plans to vote “no” for the referendum, saying she doesn’t feel the district’s reasoning for the additional funding was satisfactory. First, she noted that $500,000 of the annual $1.2 million of additional revenue raised will go to replacing lost federal funding, though she feels this shouldn’t be necessary because the school shouldn’t have used temporary federal dollars for teaching positions. The district, she said, knew the funding wouldn’t be maintained.

“This was not good planning, in my belief,” Nielsen said. “ ‘Federal jobs funding’ sounds to me like make-work money that the district should not have counted on for future and should not have relied upon for anything other than extra money for the time being.”

As for the $300,000 annual increase toward maintaining the district’s technology offerings, Nielsen said she thinks this money doesn’t sound very well planned.

“It doesn't detail exactly what the monies would actually be used for and what the ‘dire’ consequences would be if they don't have that future funding,” Nielsen said. “I believe that the technology is top notch in our school and maybe even a little bit overboard for a public high school. I understand that high tech is the way of the future but I believe high school is the place to learn how to learn and that, if a child has a desire to enter a higher tech field, they can get that education in college.”

“We don’t need new computers all the time,” added another dissenter, who asked that her name be withheld for the purposes of this article.

“We have a computer for every 2.6 students, but I had one computer in each of my classrooms growing up, and I’m tech savvy.”

The anonymous dissenter said she wonders what is an educational necessity versus a luxury. She bills herself as a supporter of the school system-noting that she would support a levy referendum that would specifically lower class sizes, which she feels are too large at the elementary level right now.

However, she said she will vote no on this referendum because she thinks the school district could find creative ways to maintain educational excellence without raising taxes. For instance, she feels the schools could use textbooks longer, and supplement any changes with additional resources, rather than purchasing all new textbooks.

She also questioned what a ‘reasonable accommodation’ might be for a special education student versus providing things that are well above and beyond what the state mandates.

The anonymous resident also cited middle school activities as an area that should be cut from the school budget, saying families should pay for club programs if they want their children to be involved, rather than subsidizing the programs with taxpayer dollars.

“We never had middle school sports, and I’m curious how many districts around here do have it,” she said. “It seems like a waste. If people are going to use it, they should pay for it.”

“It’s not like we live in a bad area where kids are out vandalizing, joining gangs or doing hardcore drugs if they aren’t in middle school sports,” she added. “Parents need to keep their kids out of trouble, it’s not the school’s responsibility.”