LATEST LETTERS

Jeffco ballot issue lets schools off the hook

Friday, October 26 at 12:01 AM

I did a little research on Ballot Issue 3A on the Jefferson County mail-in
ballot. After calling the Jefferson County assessor's office and clerk and
recorder's office and learning that neither office could explain the issue, I
was referred by the clerk and recorder's office to Jefferson County Public
Schools.
Seemed odd, but I called the office of Jeffco Superintendent Cindy Stevenson and
was told that the wording on the ballot was written by lawyers for the school
district. A "yes" vote will give the district the right to collect three more
mills on our property taxes without being required to meet the testing
requirements that Ballot Issues 3A and 3B required when they were passed in
1999. A "no" vote will not let the school district off the hook, i.e., will not
allow the school board to collect the additional tax until the standards are
met.
Since this ballot issue is related to ballot issues 3A and 3B passed in 1999,
it's hard to figure out what is really going on here.
However you are inclined to vote on the issue, I think it helps if you at least
know what you are voting on and you can't tell by the way the lawyers for the
school district worded the ballot language.
When in doubt, a good rule of thumb is to vote "no."

Kathryn Isenberger, Golden

READER COMMENTS

this is a very simple issue. the unions want more money for salaries and hate the idea of the teachers having responsibility in meeting the standards set in 99.

Posted by on October 26, 2007 06:42 AM

Why won't they print these ballot issues in plain English? Are they afraid they will have to be accountable to the citizens? Nah!

Posted by bluejacket on October 29, 2007 05:20 AM

Either you or I have received miss information. I called the school board 303-982-6801 and spoke with a very pleasant lady that said the exact opposite of what you said.

If you vote 'Yes' then additional mills WILL NOT be allocated to the school board. If you vote 'No' then additional mills WILL be allocated to the school board...which is all based on a bill that was passed in 1999.

This bill gave the school board the right to collect mills if they met certain achievement standards. This is a whole other issue, but they are not meeting achievement standards they originally set back in 1999 and have no way to meet those achievement standards as the way they measure student achievements have changed (i.e No Child Left Behind).

Posted by walldahl on October 31, 2007 10:02 AM

I agree with walldahl based on a reading of the ballot. It asks "SHALL THERE BE NO FURTHER INCREASES"? A "yes" vote agrees with this, i.e. with no further increases.

I have to say this wording seems designed to trick people into voting "no" thinking they are voting for no changes, like with most ballot issues. This negative wording should not have been put on the ballot to begin with, it's confusing. I wouldn't be surprised if it causes legal disputes after the election.

Posted by Jeff Montgomery on November 2, 2007 12:24 PM

walldahl's and Jeff Montgomery's assessment seem accurate. See the website below which gives a clear overview.

http://www.broomfield.org/elections/2007JeffcoTaborNotice.doc

Posted by chris hill on November 4, 2007 02:06 PM

My understanding is:
- a yes vote will change the current state of this issue
- a no vote will not change the current state of this issue

the current state of this issue is: R-1 schools may collect more money from property tax.
- vote yes and they maynot increase funds from property tax
- vote no and they may [continue to] increase funds from property tax

Posted by eddie lewis on November 6, 2007 03:41 PM