Forgotten your password?
Not yet registered? Register.

The Issue At Hand SCHOOL BOND

SCROLL DOWN FOR NEW UPDATES!

New updates will appear at the TOP of this page. If it gets too long I will start a new front page, but for now we'll leave this one go for awhile.

I have not yet received anything from Our Kids 1st but have pieced together what we can including a link to their website at the bottom of this page.

We received the following from Ellen Novak this morning and she asked us to put it up. Nothing from OurKids 1st but I am still hopeful, its a long way to Nov.

What is C.A.R.E. 5 hiding from voters and why are they trying to get taxpayer funding for their smear campaign?

Ord School Superintendent, Max Kroger received a request for a significant volume of records dated September 30, 2009 directly from Paul Dorr of Copperhead Consulting Services, a consultant for C.A.R.E. 5.

Paul Dorr undoubtedly knew the request would require the Ord School Staff to spend a considerable amount of time to fulfill this request. In fact C.A.R.E. 5 acknowledges that they anticipated several of the items might not even be currently available and that other records might take time to compile.

Because of the significant volume of documents requested, Max Kroger responded directly to Mr. Dorr, in the manner provided by Nebraska state statute.

When Ord Public Schools under Nebraska law told Paul Dorr the cost to gather the documents, he decided he did not want to pay.

C.A.R.E. 5 wants taxpayers to subsidize their campaign.

When Paul Dorr found out the cost of paying for the Ord School Superintendent and staff’s considerable time to gather the information he decided he objected and did not want to pay the full amount. He suggested the amount should be less than the cost and wants the taxpayers to pick up the difference.

C.A.R.E. 5 makes false charges.

Because they did not want to pay now CARE 5 has made false charges that Ord Schools are hiding something. Paul Dorr and CARE 5 have falsely accused Max Kroger and attacked Max and the Ord School Board. The truth is no records have been denied, nor information withheld. Paul Dorr and CARE 5 simply do not want to pay the full cost. They are in effect looking for a taxpayer subsidy.

Max Kroger and the Ord School System has followed Nebraska statutes in answering this request. Ord Schools is ready to spend the extensive time to locate and assemble the requested documents. The issue is whether Mr. Dorr and his consulting business, Copperhead Consulting Services, is willing to pay the charges provided for in Nebraska state statutes. If Mr. Dorr will pay the expenses the information will be provided. Included in his request Mr. Dorr asked for copies of emails addressed to numerous parties that stretch back for nearly one and a half years.

What is Paul Dorr Hiding?

Paul Dorr has refused to fully disclose the scope of his request for information. In fact he would rather mislead and disingenously downplay the amount of information he requested. Paul Dorr asks for public information and disclosure from the School administration but Paul Dorr asked that his request be hidden from the public. Plus in an email from C.A.R.E. 5 they attempt to downplay Paul Dorr’s control of their campaign. So its obvious that while Ord Schools is willing to disclose to the public – Paul Dorr is the one hiding.

Why is C.A.R.E. 5 Deceiving Ord voters?

Keep Paul Dorr’s outrageous actions and smear campaign in mind when you see further information from C.A.R.E. 5. Remember the deceptions put forward by Paul Dorr in this matter and judge whether he and C.A.R.E. 5 are talking about the true issues and what is important for our kids and our community’s future or is Paul Dorr simply a hired gun who could care less about the future of Ord. There is sure to be more lies and deceptions coming from Paul Dorr. Further, if you are willing, please make a donation to fight the underhanded negative campaign of Paul Dorr and C.A.R.E. 5. You can send donations to: Sandy Bartholomew, 206 S. 13th Street, Ord, NE 68862

Please feel free to forward this on to family and friends who care about the Ord School and our children.

If you would like to see for yourself the extensive request made by Paul Dorr go to our website: www.ourkids1st.com

*******

What is the Ord School Administration hiding from voters and why are they hiding behind a $700 fee?

We are the CARE #5 committee of Ord and we’ve asked the district for some public records to help us get clear, straight-forward information out to you voters - leading up to the $9,800,000 school bond election!

We do not anticipate that they will have several of the items we asked for, but we asked simply to confirm that. Other records may take a couple of hours to pull together. Most of the records are relative to the proposed school project and are likely sitting in a file on top of the Superintendent’s desk. The total request of photocopied records should not be over 75 pages.

We are prepared to pay a fair price. At $0.10 a page for the photocopy charge plus two hours of staff work, it shouldn’t cost more than $40 for these records – a fee we are willing and pleased to pay the school district. More so, consider our request in the following context.

When voters asked school administrators for similar public records in Ponca and Syracuse-Dunbar-Avoca, Nebraska school districts those administrators charged nothing to provide the records. Throughout the Midwest, the few small districts who do charge - have charged up to $75. Yet, the estimated charge Superintendent Max Kroger has quoted our committee representative is $700, not $70 but $700!

Something smells fishy! Why are they trying to punish voters by making access to routine records so prohibitive?

What don’t they want Ord voters to see? Keep this outrage in mind when your ballot arrives in the mail. Further, if you are willing, please call Superintendent Kroger (Ph 308-728-5013) and ask him what it is he is hiding. If he says, “Nothing!”, then insist he charge a fair fee for these records.

Also remind him - if our kids are supposed to be taught to play fair during recess and play by the rules in football or volleyball, how are they going to learn by his example? Shouldn’t he practice what he preaches?

If he refuses, then you’d better start looking for what they are hiding!

Please feel free to forward this on to family and friends who care about the Ord School and our children.

For More Information Contact: 728-7920 or caredist5@gmail.com

Paid for by Citizens’ Association for Responsible Education committee 81161 466th Ave., Ord, NE 68862

UPDATE

CARE #5 needs to apologize. We never intended to send our recent email out open courtesy copy for everyone to see your e-mail address. (Not all were sent open courtesy copy, but many were.) We send these out as if they are public mailing. Any one email address on our list does not imply support for our cause. Your support we hope to earn. Meanwhile, the removal notice at the bottom makes it possible for all who no longer wish to receive this mail, to be removed from the list. Again we apologize and will not make that technical mistake again.

UPDATE

Meanwhile, the CARE #5 committee challenges you to consider the disingenuousness of Superintendent Kroger's recent reply to our e-mail.

He tries vainly to divert the issue over to the consultant we have employed. This is not about Paul Dorr, this is about members of the Ord community being denied access to some rudimentary records unless, that is, we are willing to be fleeced! Our consultant made it clear that he wrote the letter to Mr. Kroger on our behalf. In the second paragraph he wrote, "To that end, could you, as custodian of public records for Ord Public School, provide C.A.R.E. #5 with the following information..." Off the list (number 7) he wrote, "CARE #5 would like a copy of...." On number 9 he wrote, CARE #5 would like a copy of any..." Number 11 he wrote, "CARE #5 would also like the name..." In the last paragraph he wrote "CARE #5 thanks you in advance...."

It was clear by this letter our consultant was employed by CARE #5 and was asking for these records on our behalf. He even provided a CARE #5 officer name and phone number if Kroger needed to confirm his employment with us.

Yet, in response Superintendent Kroger wrote, "...Mr. Dorr and his firm are objecting to paying for the cost that Ord Public Schools would incur in providing them the information." Later he wrote, "..the issue is whether Mr. Dorr and his consulting business, Copperhead Consulting Services, is willing to pay the statutorily authorized charge ." That's like saying "the" reason we need to waste nearly $10 million on a new school building is because of the Fire Marshal's report! Max Kroger is making this up. Mr. Dorr isn't objecting as Mr. Dorr's firm never directly requested them, nor agreed to pay for them. Local Ord voters want these records. We object to being fleeced and that is why we sent out the e-mail Tuesday.

Have we submitted to the District's fleecing before? Yes we have, as we had little knowledge of this process before nor how fair so many other small school districts in Nebraska and the Midwest have been to very similar requests. Candidly our budget is limited, we can't afford it anymore and we recognize that if the Ord school administration can get away with fleecing us that the average taxpayer in Ord stands little chance of getting basic information from them anymore. Accessibility to records, which we pay for with our property and income taxes, are being "locked up" in the 'vault of unaffordable fees' to the general public.

But Kroger compounds the deceit by implication when he writes, "I do not believe that the school district, nor the taxpayers, should foot the bill for responding to the requests of a person or group that do not directly benefit our students." Neither do we! So who is asking you to do that Max? Not us. As our e-mail said, "We are prepared to pay a fair price." We also take offense at how he implies CARE #5's interest in this election does "...not directly benefit our children." We think our involvement better benefits the community's children than his extravagant plan and are preparing to illustrate that to the community.

Finally, Max refers to the "...significant volume of documents requested" and writes "the time of locating and assembling the responsive documents will be extensive." Keep in mind who is making these assertions! It is the man who will be heavily involved in spending your $9,800,000.

Why is this not an extensive process for other small Nebraska and Midwest schools? We have every confidence in the professionalism of the District's office staff. We asked Kroger for a break-down of the estimated time it would take and the copy expense. He hasn't given us an answer! Isn't there a ready calculation sheet demonstrating how he arrived at $700?

There is no way they need this much time, when other small Nebraska districts do not. Why are nearly identical requests not considered a "significant volume" by other rural school districts? Why do many schools charge nothing, many charge no more than $75 and yet, Max insists we need to spend $700!

We are convinced he is hiding something. But you can call and ask him yourself. His number is 728-5013.

If Kroger is going to manipulate the truth and try to waste $700 of our money, ask yourself what he will do if you hand him $9,800,000.

CARE #5

Paid for by CARE #5, 8161 466th Ave, Ord, NE 68862

Published Tuesday, October 6 2009 at 12:21pm by admin in General

Comments

Note from OrdTalk admin: This section is for comments from Ord Talk's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Ord Talk admin agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Shakes - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 3:15pm

Sure sounds like a crooked, dishonest board to me! I mean they purposely hide the fact that the 8 cent reduction is a projection for the first year. Oh wait, they DID say that it was a projection...amazing how honest people can be when you actually ask THEM questions instead of relying on a bunch of idiots who like to spread crap at the coffee shop.

Rock - on the 29.4 cents deal, clarifying that that amount is what would be over the general, not in addition to the general and the 2 cents that they are for sure leaving on. Maybe that's where it got screwed up was the inclusion of that 2 cents - of course you probably already knew that, the genius that you are.

rock - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 5:20pm

Our Kids First Committee flyer states, "We are estimating an 'initial' bond levy of 19.4. Using their own examples of specific property increases.

Taxable Levy Yearly Monthly
Value Increase Increase
$50,000 19.4 $ 97.00 $8.08
$75,000 19.4 $145.00 $12.13
$100,000 19.4 $194.00 $16.16

Average taxable value of a home in Valley County is $58,080, which would be an increase in property tax of $112.08 per year, or $9.39 per month.

Average Irrigated Valuation in Valley County
$1,387 19.4 $2.69 per acre

Average Dry Land Valuation in Valley County
$733 19.4 $1.42 per acre

Average Pasture/Grass Valuation in Valley County
$608 19.4 $1.18 per acre

This scenario could be in our near future. If the bond passes this very scenario could happen as soon as 1 year, depending what repairs became necessary in the grade school or any new repairs or projects in the high school. The board would not need another bond to do this either. They would just need a majority vote. They could also get an "over ride vote" for an extra 5 cents, along with the 10 cents (building fund) besides the bond levy of 19.4 cents. The board members would only guarantee the Our Kids First flyer figures for one year. Draw your own conclusions.

rock - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 5:21pm

Shakes, you were the only one not on the same page. Sting figured it out, and so did I. What took you so long?

sweetpea - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 5:59pm

initial ...bond levy... what does that mean?

rock - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 6:14pm

sweetpea
initial,....first,..opening,..starting,..introductory,..occurring at the beginning. From the Oxford ,the world's most trusted name in dictionaries,(third edition).

Teacher - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 6:16pm

Admin,

Wow. Maybe you should look at the time stamp on my post: 7:25 p.m. I'm so sorry to have misused the taxpayer dollars that I was supposedly earning as I took a few minutes out from correcting papers/planning lessons/completing work for my graduate classes almost four hours after my contract hours had officially ended. Don't worry; I went right back to work after that. I did go to bed at 11 p.m. before getting up at 5:30 a.m., though. I hope that was okay. You must be so jealous of my "govt. funded job that allows [me] to play on the computer all day long and collect a paycheck at the end of the month." Why don't you join me? I'm sure if we had more teachers like you, society would be just as open-minded as this site. By the way, good job of dodging the questions I posed at the end. (End sarcasm)

Teacher - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 6:24pm

NLS -

I plan on using this of one of many examples of biased media. I explain to students how to find reliable sites by providing them with information about how to identify the sites that are not reliable (i.e. looking for bias, making sure the information is current, checking credentials on the author, etc.). I show them examples as we go through so they see what I mean. Since I don't teach in Ord, I highly doubt any of my students will be interested in using OrdTalk as a source anyway. Therefore, they are still responsible for making the official determination on whether or not they find a source to be reliable.

Which websites my students use often depend on the topic. The only site I tell them specifically not to use as a source is Wikipedia (since content can be added/edited by anyone); while Wikipedia is okay to go to as a starting point, its information should be verified elsewhere.

As far as this site being a "news source," when it first came into being, I'm fairly certain that I remember it being billed as an alternative to the current news media available in Ord (the Quiz and KNLV). That's where I'm coming from on that one. I expect the Viral Vent to contain posts like the front page does now. I was disappointed to find that the front page so clearly illustrates bias.

Okay, hopefully that clears everything up because I've got work to do.

sweetpea - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 6:29pm

rock, OK witty one.:) I know what initial means. What do they mean when they say ..initial bond levy?

rock - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 7:03pm

sweetpea, just poken fun with ya. I believe when they use "initial" in this context it is just the begining and the 8 cent reduction in the general fund will come back soon as the "initial 19.4" will not be enough. This is why I say this is a 29.4 in bond and building fund. And don't forget the board can get an additional 5 cent over ride,on top of the 29.4.

sweetpea - Thursday, October 8 2009 at 8:13pm

rock, looks like you have been doin some serious home work on this thing. I knew you were just funnin, I like your sense of humor and your serious side. By the way what is "ourt" ? rolf asked that the other day, what is an "ourt" and you said we were getting 2 of them. What is it???

rock - Friday, October 9 2009 at 11:06am

School Board President, Bill Ziegler said,... "Perception is reality." Public perception is that there have been some not so public meetings and decisions made surrounding the purchase of the lots, the tearing down of the school for the building of a new school and gym, etc. Add to this that there is once again a recent school board meeting (which has been acknowledged) where the public was not a part of, and to the 700 dollar price tag for public documents leaves the perception that something is not quite right here. Read again, "Perception is reality."

burgerboy - Friday, October 9 2009 at 12:23pm

Who or what is the Care 5 comittee? I saw the word "WE", without any names. Personally, using an out of state consultant is a real turn off. I think the $700 price tag for documents is a little high. But so is the $300-$500 that many doctors offices charge for records. Just ask any Workmen's Comp lawyer, how much is charge for medical records.

Shakes - Friday, October 9 2009 at 2:02pm

Sorry to keep you waiting rock, so here goes. You suspect so much of the board trying to deceive you and raise your taxes without reason. I ask you this, do you have any reason to have so much distrust in the board other than the purchase of the lots? To tell you the truth, I've known Bill for a long time and if you can't trust him, then you can't trust your own mother. The man doesn't have a dishonest bone in his body. You can keep saying what you want about the board, but this just reminds me of a saying my grandma taught me: "If a person can't trust anybody, then they can't be trusted."

You keep talking about projections and I have to ask, do you know exactly what you will be making in two years? Not just a ballpark figure, but exactly? I think you guys are getting a little nit-picky with the numbers. Like they said, their budget depends a lot on legislation and what that does EVERY YEAR, not just every five years or so. You need to keep in account that a local business knows what it's selling, can estimate it's own profits, and so on. A school doesn't control what it gets from the state or federal government every year. Also, quit trying to inflate the bond amount with bogus claims that they will add this and that to it later. The bond is a large enough amount without ANYTHING being added to it, so why not bring that point home instead of coming up with idiotic overcompensations for lack of brain cells.

sweetpea - Friday, October 9 2009 at 4:37pm

Shakes, Your reading and comprehension level needs much improvement. Read what rock posted. Rock didn't say that he had distrust in the board. What he said was, that public perception is... I was at the presentation by Kids First Committee, Bill Ziegler said himself, in response to Andrew Mihm's question,"Preception is reality." I don't know how anyone could make it anymore clearer or simpler.

Also the board is now realizing that the 19.4 is the figure that should have been used in showing what the tax increase will be for property owners. Bill Ziegler, Marty Petska were both discussing this and the last thing that was agreed upon by them was it was going to be the 19.4 figure and not the 11.4, because they couldn't budget past one year.

sweetpea - Friday, October 9 2009 at 4:44pm

Rock, I see from your comment on the viral vent why you will not answer shakes.

I know you will answer me. Now tell me witty one, you have kept me and everyone else in suspense long enough, what is ourt? You'd better let the rest of us in on this or I will tell burgerboy to cut off your cinnamelts until you do. lol :)

Shakes - Friday, October 9 2009 at 4:45pm

sweetpea - have you been paying attention to this site at all the last few weeks? It's pretty obvious by rock's past ramblings that he has an amazing amount of distrust for anyone in public office. I'm not going to just ignore the fact that he's been a bumbling blowhard all his life (yes I have known him or someone close to him since his days in Comstock up til now) and say, "Oh, that's okay, he was just quoting someone else." We all should know by now since he's rambled plenty on the "corrupt" school board that he doesn't trust them. As far as the 19.4/11.4 cent debate, I think the point to take home is that even with the 11.4 cents, it's too much for the ag community and even businesses that are struggling already. All the hoopla over the difference and the "projections" is just a bunch of idiots having hissy fits because the board can't predict the future and won't claim that they can.

Shakes - Friday, October 9 2009 at 4:46pm

Cut off the cinnamelts anyway. Or strap a pole on his back so it dangles three feet in front of his face - he'll chase that thing forever!

Shakes - Friday, October 9 2009 at 4:50pm

Forgot to mention, why isn't anybody talking about the fact that the 19.4 could go down year after year if valuations go up? (Which they usually do.) 6 one way, 1/2 dozen the other. They could be forced to add back on to the building fund, but the levy for the bond could be less and less every year that valuation goes up. Anyone want to predict EXACTLY how much that will change over the next 20 years? That's what you seem to expect the board to be able to do with the building fund!

sweetpea - Friday, October 9 2009 at 5:39pm

Shakes you are a mean evil person. You have never said one nice thing about anyone or thing. How can anyone take you seriously being so mean. Your life must be full of misery.

sweetpea - Friday, October 9 2009 at 6:10pm

Oh, by the way shakes I have been following the posts for a long time, and I have never seen anyone say the board is dishonest. I have seen where people don't agree with them, but not to call them out right dishonest.

To comment you must be logged in.

All comments are property of their respective authors. Ord Talk in no way assumes responsibility for or endorsement of information supplied by third-party users of this site. We reserve the right to delete or edit any comment at our discretion.