Second of two parts
Re “LaRose’s Bond Campaign Takeaway: A Lesson Learned”
[img]1551|right|Superintendent LaRose||no_popup[/img]One week ago this evening, David LaRose, Superintendent of the School District, was as startled as the people on his left and on his right in the horseshoe where he, fellow administrators, and the five members of the School Board sit to perform the rituals of their twice-monthly meetings.
Depending on your viewpoint, the much-discussed – or not-nearly-enough talked- about – school bond campaign just had bolted to an unceremonious, entirely unexpected dead end. Dramatically, Board member Karlo Silbiger, one eye on a November ballot deadline, declared in an 1854-word prepared speech that too much crucial information was unsettled about the potential $75 million project to upgrade District facilities.
It felt to him, and subsequently to colleagues Prof. Patricia Siever and Nancy Goldberg, like a sprawling vat of uncooked spaghetti, hundreds of dangling, undigested/undigestible strands.
By a month from tomorrow, the precise wording for the November ballot resolution – which would have coincided with a School Board election for three seats – needed to be ready at in the hands of the County Registrar.
As firmly as Mr. Silbiger and his two allies believe the District was not ready to proceed, Board members Kathy Paspalis, the president, and Laura Chardiet, both with two children in school, were equally solidly convinced readiness had been satisfied.
As the chief administrator, Mr. LaRose quickly established the proper tone for Phase II of the bond campaign that no one previously had anticipated.
Taking his cue from Mr. Silbiger’s reasoning, Mr. LaRose told the newspaper:
‘Confidence (in Us) Is Critical’
“To do something this significant, this important, we want people to speak with great confidence, not only about the need but the manner in which we are going to address it.
“I see this as opportunity to do a better job, to instill greater confidence in all of the parties involved in making this happen.”
Is next June’s state primary election the next stop on Mr. LaRose’s mind for the bond campaign ballot?
“Truthfully,” said Mr. LaRose, “what is next on my mind is not a specific ballot. What is next is how are we going to thoughtfully and purposefully responding to questions, comments, concerns and ideas.
“I am thoughtful first and foremost that we do understand the question. Then I want to make sure we respond to that in a variety of different ways, whether that is through tapping some of our external team that has the expertise in this, or if it is more personal and intimate, based on our internal team that helps better articulate a more tangible example of what one of those needs might be.
“For example, we could be talking about designing specific examples of projects as opposed to the general terms that are currently built into the needs assessment.
“Right now, it is about communication, about not losing sight of the good work that already has been done and the great consensus and collaboration that has been generated around a lot of different people from a lot of different lenses, some with specific interests. But the collective interest has been around investing in our capital needs. We need to come back to that,” Mr. LaRose said, “and answer questions that might be out there.”
