READERS OFFER DETAILS ON THEIR `NO' VOTES

In the aftermath of the Oct. 5 election failure of a school improvements package for Cape Girardeau, the second time such an issue has failed, the Southeast Missourian published a clip-and-mail coupon seeking comments on the negative outcome.

Several dozen people responded to our request. What follows are comments offered concerning the questions posed. Many used the coupon as an opportunity to write longer, more detailed explanations for their votes. So many people responded and continue to respond that they won't all fit in today's edition. The remainder will be published in the coming days.

We welcome other letters concerning this subject. We would like for this to be just the beginning of the dialogue. We believe people are using it for just that purpose.

The reasons I voted against the property tax increase for education are varied. Here are a few to focus on:

1. Taxes in the U.S. are too high and on course to increase more in the next year or so. Middle class income and fixed income have no flexibility to deal with a property tax increase in conjunction with federal and state tax increases.

2. For how long will the new local rate of taxes be adequate until yet another increase will be requested? Three years? Or maybe five? Sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a rear-guard action to just slow down the rate of property tax. The issue will continue to be put on the ballot in some form until it passes.

3) How many tax and tax-related proposals have been approved by the voters of Missouri with the selling point that the schools of Missouri will benefit financially only later to find out that it was not true? True, the Missouri lottery revenue now is all earmarked for education. But how much of the funding for education was then reduced in general revenue appropriations?

I have other reasons that my whole family voted down the property tax increase but I am sure that there are space limitations.

To answer the question of what school plan would be acceptable I offer the following:

1) The school board must show that every effort has been made to run the district as efficiently as possible. Show that operating costs have been stable by comparing costs of today to 10 years ago, taking into account inflation. Show that the salaries of administration officials have been raised reasonably. Sell the need for more money with facts, not emotions. I would vote for a proposal where the case for a new property tax has been made and I feel I am getting my money's worth.

2) The very basis by which schools are funded need to be re-examined. Why is it a given that funds can only be raised by property taxes? Look to the long-term future. Property tax increases have turned out to be only a short-term solution. That is why every five years or so the school district makes additional property tax increase requests. How about a local sales tax earmarked for education? How much revenue would a one-half or one-quarter cent sales tax generate? I know that there are more complexities that exist than can be dealt with in depth in a letter. My goal is simply to start a discussion on new ground.

There is a crisis of confidence in this town in the school leadership, from the board of education through the superintendent and the perceived overburden of school staff.

The inept firing of Arthur Turner is a large part of this community attitude, and it lingers on. It goes beyond the present school boards by several years. If the board and administration had gone about an incremental increase in taxes for a building program -- a long range plan -- instead of trying to stuff a 99-cent property tax at one fell swoop, we would not be in the position we are today. Those who know the people of this city, and their voting record through the years, would have recognized this. But too much, all at once, is too much. We do not have bankers, leading business people and demonstrated leaders on the board of education as we once did. Until citizens of this caliber can be persuaded to run, we can not expect much change in the present community attitude.

Efforts have been made to pin the defeats on the older citizens in our midst, but this is a myth. The results at the polls show the vote was across the board, a cross-section of Cape Girardeau, and not a specific societal age group.

Some of us are dismayed at the board's tactics. This was an admitted low-key election. For what reason? Simply because they hoped if the natives were not stirred up, those against the proposition would not get out and vote while quietly the pro crowd would be encouraged to get out and vote. This shows a callous attitude toward the broad voting population, and is beneath the dignity of school officials. It did not go unnoticed by those who took the time to go to the polls.

Cape Girardeau residents have shown time and time again that they will be fair if treated fairly and will vote positively if given strong leadership. They do not now have the confidence that this is the case.

First of all, I am for education -- my husband is an educator, we have raised and schooled three children in Cape Girardeau, all three went on to graduate from various universities, and one of them has earned a Phd.

Until I visited my grandson's school in Kentucky last month for grandparents day, I had not been in an elementary school for some 20 years. Perhaps there is crowding in the Cape Girardeau elementary schools; perhaps there is a need for a middle school, and perhaps through unwise budgeting and planning over the past 20 years the schools here have gotten into bad shape.

No one has made an attempt to show those of us who have no more children in the system where the needs are and what is planned for the buildings that are "left behind." If you take sixth graders from each elementary school and put them in the middle school, that should eliminate the crowding. Washington and May Greene, with careful planning, could become beautiful buildings like the old Lorimier School is now. If they aren't used, will they be abandoned?

What will happen to the old seventh grade center (Schultz School) when you take those students and put them in the new middle school? Why all the recent expense for remodeling and adding an elevator if you're going to abandon it?

What happens when the eighth grade leaves the Junior High building to go to the new middle school? The ninth graders will have more than enough room for their classes and activities. Or will you use both buildings as a Senior High campus? Why is everything so secret? You're wanting to spend the voters' money without telling them how and why and most of us don't like that.

I see by television and read in the paper that there was a meeting for the public. I would have been there and asked some of these questions, but who knew about the meeting? It appeared as though it was attended by school employees and was a small gathering.

Your paper says the election was low key. It was so low key a lot of people weren't sure of what was going to happen. If more could be revealed as far as distribution of students and use of buildings, perhaps I could be convinced to vote "yes". I need to know more about the whole picture.