Cast Your Vote
Featured Video
AP Top Stories
Today's Crossword
Bookmark Us
Trust and accountability
A question of trust and accountability was raised at last week’s Tecumseh School Board meeting where it was announced that project costs for roof repairs, as well as ceiling and lighting, and cold water pipe replacements totaling $1,478,008 were not accurate.
The total of $1,478,008, was part of the $37 million bond proposal presented at the school election on May 6, 2008, by the Tecumseh School Board.
Since then, in a span of just 8 weeks, the total for these projects are now estimated at $859,007. Voters who rejected the bond request just saved the district $619,000. Congratulations.
The electorate, especially those who supported the bonds, should be asking their representatives on school board how such a drop in cost could take place. Again, trust and accountability is the issue — credibility remains the problem.
One school board member said the original cost estimates were needed to cover a “worst case scenario,” and an administrator said the changes for roof repair costs came after “closer inspection” following the election.
What is a reasonable contingency fund for such projects as these? And what about the rest of the projects in the $37 million bond proposals? Were they accurate, underinflated, overinflated? Who knows?
And what should the district voter believe the next time a bond issue comes along?
This is a matter of caution
In a perfect world every estimate would be exactly the right amount. In a magical world, we would be able to look at the outside of buildings and equipment and know exactly what needs to be done to repair or fix something. In a realistic world it is more difficult, and one must look at what might happen, especially when asking for funds to cover those contingencies. I think it is better prepared cover those unseen risks, than to be unprepared and not have enough money to complete the job. Even now, there may be issues that arise to make these latest estimates inadequate, but apparently the editorial writer would find the idea of taking into account unforeseen circumstances as being less than genuine.
Most of Tecumseh has been complaining about the things that weren't covered in the last bond because they perceive the management team as lacking foresight, as not having considered the physical plant needs that were hidden below the surface. Now the Board considers these possibilities and the editor complains about the violation of public trust.
Why would anyone ever want to serve in this community? The mentality seems to be that there is no such thing as a wise decision or process. Maybe these people, including the writer of the editorial, live in that perfect, magical world.
Post new comment