We're asked to "vote yes" again, sigh

Did you see that "vote yes" flyer that was distributed by mail? Oh, I know it wasn't literally a "vote yes" flyer. The message wasn't stated directly, at least not in so many words. But "yes" came through with the force of a sledgehammer. One of my first thoughts was: the issues appear so severe, work ought to begin immediately if not sooner, and why are we even voting on it?
The flyer actually seems like a disincentive for parents to open-enroll their kids to Morris. It makes the high school look like sort of a minefield of hazards. The school always has needs for spending money, right? I remember many years ago, when I was at the paper, I mentioned at the shop about the school having some particular need, and Terry Manney immediately responded: "The school always needs money." I read in the Star Tribune once that residents of outstate communities always feel chagrined about the demands of schools, as their local school seems to them like a "money pit." A money pit.
Sometimes it strikes some as a game of seeing how much the public can be shaken down.
We have such a sprawling school campus, don't we? Remember the campaign for getting a new "elementary school" built. Paul Rentz said "well, do we need a new elementary school?" He was skeptically suggesting that maybe the proposal was going to include much more than an "elementary school." Tony O'Keefe talked in a similar vein. Tony said "they're going to build a new high school," and that of course was an exaggeration, but the elaborate new structure did include a whole lot that would be used beyond elementary school needs.
A new varsity gym? Really? Was there really a pressing need for that? It's nice of course but a lot of things are "nice." That's not necessarily what district residents need to approve. Holy mackerel, remember when the 1991 gym went up? You probably don't. It sits there like a big barren enclosure. It's "nice" but is it used for any major athletic endeavors? Was it built just for gymnastics practice? I remember once when a building proposal was in front of us, Jim Morrison actually wrote an editorial wondering if we were trying to become "the gymnasium capital of western Minnesota."
Such skepticism did not win the day. We plowed forward and just kept on building. We voted "yes" on the RFC. I remember Charlie Berg at the dedication of that facility, saying that when he first heard about it, "I wondered what (the proponents) were smoking."
I could almost faint, when comparing the alleged largesse in such projects with how this community was stubborn on school referendums in the 1960s. Holy cow, it was like pulling teeth. People my age all still well remember. We remember the famous proposal that included the pool - it got voted down. Eventually a bare bones version got to the finish line. Were too many corners cut? Is that why we're having all the problems with the high school building now? There is such a thing as "durability." It does cost a little more. I have a push lawn mower today that is built so much better than my previous mower which was a Lawnboy, supposedly name-brand. But that Lawnboy had parts start to fall off almost from the start. My new mower (actually three years old now) from Eul's Hardware is so solid. Thanks Rob.
This flyer promoting the referendum practically makes me ill. Are we really sending our kids to this place? Is their basic health even safe? We read that "years of use have rendered many building spaces unsafe and unusable for our students." What if we vote "no?" Is it time to consider just cutting off or closing a portion of our sprawling school campus? But we sure have a state of the art football stadium. School parents of the 1950s would faint if they saw Big Cat Stadium. Of course a football stadium is dangerous for the health of the kids who play football, but I digress.
Looking at this flyer, I'm inclined to view the high school almost in the same light as the old, now-razed school in its final years. Have we fallen that far over such a relatively short timespan? The high school was built when I was junior high age. I used the place when it still seemed fresh and new.
Fred Switzer seemed like the kind of superintendent who would want to spend as little as possible most of the time. Was he a good enough steward for our facilities?
I was rather shocked when we abandoned the 1968 gym for nearly all serious varsity purposes. That gym was built as the long-term solution for varsity. It seemed like a dream when it was first opened for basketball. I'm old enough to have attended basketball games at the previous school building.
I once heard that the superintendent chose the cheapest possible bleacher seats for the 1968 gym. That probably doesn't surprise you if your butts ever got sore there. Switzer was old enough to focus on certain financial issues that today would seem petty to us. There was probably a lingering influence of the Great Depression. I was at a school board meeting when Switzer told a story about how he accosted a young man in the gym who was shooting baskets for Community Education open gym. Switzer seemed to be bragging to the board about his concern about the lights being on in the gym for just one person. As I recall the story, the superintendent told that young man to himself find the light switches and turn off some of the lights. In general, I suspect there was a lot of hand-to-hand between school superintendents and Community Ed. people in the early days of the latter. Superintendents felt their authority had to be unchallenged in school facilities, I suspect. Today I think it's all ironed out.
I recently wrote a post about how school teachers unions were once such a horrible, toothache-like pain in communities. Today, that seems to be ironed out too, for the most part. Teachers needed to be made to feel a little more humility. My God, how they used to be in-your-face.
Why are we now being asked to spend for updates and repairs that appear absolutely essential? This after various building projects through the years, much of which seemed less than essential. The concert hall is "nice." Is it essential in such opulent form? Was it essential to have a new varsity gym constructed and to leave the 1968 gym in a state of irrelevance? I probably have to remind you that we even have the 1991 gym. Common sense easily suggests that all the gym space is unnecessary.
As far as an artistic performance venue, the high school auditorium seems inadequate - I get claustrophobia there - while the concert hall seems too much. We could use something in between. Remember when music concerts at the school were free? As the late Terry Manney said, "the school always needs money."
So we get this new flyer in the mail. Who exactly put it out? The school people? It is slick and with color photos, photos that can induce nausea. Why not a simple but thorough text letter instead? Look at those pictures. Or better yet, don't look at them.
If the "yes" vote is to be assumed, why are we even voting? Cracks, leaks, rust, corrosion, mold, mildew, mineral deposits. We read that "areas of the building have become unusable." The flyer says "our students deserve a clean, safe and functional space to learn." As if anyone would say the kids don't deserve it. So it really is a "vote yes" flyer for all practical purposes. Sigh. Where does it end? Where in heck does it end?
This whole thing just keeps rolling along like it's a racket, n'est-ce pas?
Are we having the referendum because the school has over-spent in other areas? Give any school a long leash and they will spend every penny they can get, and later say it was all "essential." I'm 62 years old and have been around these matters for a long time.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com