The debate surrounding Proposal 5 hit close to home as even members of the Clarkston School Board fell into disagreement over whether or not they should even be discussing the matter.
Originally, the board was slated to briefly discuss the proposal and vote on a resolution to support it, but after disagreements between several board members, the board voted 3-2 to remove the original motion from the agenda. Secretary Ron Sullivan and Trustees Joan Patterson and Joseph Armstrong voted for the motion, Treasurer John Koval and President Stephen Hyer voted against. Vice President Barry Bomier and Trustee Karen Foyteck were not in attendance.
The K-16 Coalition for Michigan’s Future started a successful petition drive in Fall 2005 to place a proposal on the November ballot mandating the state to increase annual funding for K-16 public schools, community colleges and universities to equal the rate of inflation.
However, the proposal has received criticism from government entities and officials, include local State Representative John Stakoe and Senator Mike Bishop, who have said the proposal force the government’s spending without taking any other factors into account.
Patterson echoed the state officials? feelings, saying ‘I don’t like mandates. It sounds right on the last statement but when you try to implement it, it doesn’t work.?
Patterson’s comments came after the debate began, but instead of debating whether or not to officially support the proposal, Sullivan initiated the debate by requesting not to discuss the matter at all.
‘I don’t think we should be playing these politics,? he said, adding that if the board suddenly needed to take a stand on ballot proposals, they should take a stand on all of them, which Hyer disagreed with.
‘We need to let (the state government) know what goes on in our district,? Hyer said.
‘Having funding tied to our economy is not working,? said Koval. ‘Education is important enough that funding should be locked in.?
Regardless of Hyer and Koval’s support of the original motion, the others vehemently rejected the idea of furthering the discussion.
‘As a teacher, there’s no question I would support this, but as a board I don’t think we need to take a stand,? said Armstrong.