Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I make this plea each and every time the school puts another levy on the ballot.

PLEASE VOTE NO!!!

Do not let their threats against our children ply your conscience. We need to call their bluff. We need to insist they live more within their financial limits. Please stop giving and giving.

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET - THERE WILL BE ANOTHER LEVY ASAP FOR OPERATIONS!!!

Don't think the school's problems end here with passage of this levy. YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY TO OPERATE THE NEW SCHOOLS IF YOU BUILD THEM.

Perhaps catching Thiede at a weak moment because he was obviously tired from his evangelical tent revivals, but when asked directly he said that the operating levy required for these new (and also to bolster the existing schools - can you imagine the Taj Mahals already need more operating funds?!? Their gold-plated toilet handles must be tarnished) I repeat - the operating levy will be more to pay per $100K than this building levy. AGAIN - M O R E !!!

Their tactic in the past has always been ''Hey - you passed the construction levy. Now what are you going to do? Leave a new building vacant because you won't pass an operating levy??'' And we always did.

Please be sure you have all the facts before you vote.

One other point of conflicting information in Thiede's sales pitch and what other board members are saying. Brink says that this construction levy will relieve current problems for no more that 3 years. Thiede is saying until 2012. Which is it? How many more schools do you want to build in 3 years?

Because the board and administration cannot agree on important figures like this I am voting NO. Because I believe this construction levy represents less than 50% of the actual need and cost towards this endeavor, I am voting NO. Because I do no trust the board and administration, I am voting NO.

Want to buy my vote? FIRE STEMEN! He is the common denominator.

Common denominator?

You, or others who have posted on here as ''Anonymous'', have repeatedly blasted Lou Stemen, and named him as the apparent cause for all our problems over the years. I don't know what the specific objections to Mr. Stemen have been, since no one has bothered to enumerate them. Is it because he has been the person in the district office who has been responsible for enrollment projections over the years? His numbers, historically, have been very good, whether he divines his numbers using a ouija board, counting swingsets, making them up from whole cloth, or actually doing a statistical analysis, he has been right on the money regularly.
If his numbers were way off one way or the other, there might be cause for concern, but trashing Lou Stemen for being accurate makes no sense. If there are other, real reasons why he should be fired, state them.
The fact is, the last time the Board voted to put a combined bond and operating levy on the ballot, it was soundly defeated, and the number one reason stated by the ''no'' voters was that they preferred to approve bond issues first, then see a separate operating levy at a later time. That is what will happen with this issue. Rest assured, if the bond levy fails today, the problems of overcrowding in the schools will not go away. It will continue to get worse, simply because people are still moving into the PLSD, as they see it as a good value. This issue, or one similar to it, will more than likely be back on again in August or November. The buildings are needed, and further money to operate them will be needed as well. Do I like that? Not really, especially as I receive no direct benefit; my children have all graduated from PLSD, and I have no grandchildren as yet. I chose to remain in Pickerington because of the community itself in addition to the schools. I could easily have said, ''I got mine and now I'm voting no'', but I have chosen to support this levy. I voted against the November issue because I believe it was ill-conceived, and over-reaching, and came from out-of-the-blue, with no public input or even public consideration.
Voting ''no'' could very well mean some form of alternative scheduling, such as year-round school or split sessions. Yes, we have endured split sessions in the past, and voters were relieved when they were finally ended. Year-round school currently has no general support, and is the least-likely alternative.
I will tighten my belt another notch and vote yes.
I would urge everyone to give considerable thought to this issue, and I would encourage them to vote yes today.

Year-round school

You've got my vote tigpan. Year round it is. Sure makes my child care costs go down and I am betting after the teachers and staff get over being so PO'ed, the kids may get a better quality education.

BTW, sorry about the Stemen crack. He is just the common denomiator is all PLSD's ills over the last several years. You take your self too seriously. I'll stand by the rest of my post and regret the Stemen crack.

I presume you know this...

...but year-round school does not mean 12 months of continuous schooling for all kids, at least in no district I have ever heard about. It normally is a staggered number of weeks on then off, with roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the students not being in school at any one time. The buildings are used as schools all year, just not with the same students each grading period.
I believe Bruce Riegelman posted something here recently about year-round school. Perhaps he can refresh our memory on what was looked at involving this the last time.