We're not stupid. Those of us who have been trying to provide information for people about the bond proposal and the logistics of a sinking fund knew our posts would get deleted.
Today, though, someone asked where they went.
Quick side note on Ms. Gunderson's comment.
Rather than "pounding [folks] with insults," we're actually trying to drum up dialogue - dialogue that we feel is very necessary.
However, we agree with Loraine here - we all need to keep up on this, whether we agree with it or not, and that's why those of us here started the Beaverton Free page. Because it became crystal clear very quickly that there would be no dialogue on Beaverton One's page, just a static aura of agreement.
And after reading the comment in response to Loraine, we could see that there would be nothing here if it was not consensus.
We will admit, we're not quite sure why there is a Beaverton One page at all, if there's no discussion allowed. But we are sure that we want to make sure there is a place for everyone - for and against (have we made that clear enough? :-) ) to have the opportunity to discuss those pros and cons, not just blindly accept the idea of a 15-year bond extension "for the kids" or because "we're all in this together."
That, friends, is called Groupthink, and it's an often unsuccessful strategy for getting things done. See below.
See Exhibit A:
This gives the impression that this group is the only collective of people who cares about "advancing and enriching Beaverton Rural Schools." Simply untrue. Many of us care very deeply about this community and this school - we just don't blindly accept a bond extension as the perfect vehicle for propelling us into the fiscal future.
See Exhibit B:
The "illusion of unanimity" is what is referred to by some entities as "stakeholder buy-in." It earns you more points on grant applications, and makes some people feel part of a cohesive unit.
The above example, like the first example, is also rhetorically misleading. "Sign your name ... support our kids." What are you supporting? A list? You're on that list and that means......? That you are giving the impression that you all think the same way, in hope that more people also "buy in."
(By the way, we're not convinced of the accuracy of the list, anyway....we've heard a few people have asked to be removed, and can't figure out how they got there in the first place.)
And honestly, some of us do not believe that shuffling our debt 15 years down the road is a great way to support the kids. We would like to examine other options.
Like what Loraine said about Middle Schools. That's valid and very worth the time to discuss (thanks for the link, Loraine - we will look into it). Like the information about the sinking fund legislation. Information on prevailing wage.
An informed electorate is a necessary thing. Denying them any information is a disservice.
We want EVERYONE to have information on both sides of the issue - pro and con. People should be free to make their own decision with the best information out there. Advocates are doing nothing but providing propaganda in support of something.
We get it - we just don't agree with it. And we will continue to provide information and a space for discussion. We intend to FOIA documents and continue asking questions, even if we don't get answers. All the information we get will be available to you as well.
Let's be honest - no matter who signs the Who's Who, this bond extension is not favored by everyone, and it may not pass. And if it doesn't does anyone have any other suggestions?
With reasonable and continuous discussion, we may come to solutions together that we never would have come up with on our own, individually. That's an exciting prospect!
If you want to be part of the dialogue - for or against the bond extension proposal - please join us at Beaverton Free. Like our Facebook Page. We're glad to have you.
No comments:
Post a Comment