Reader comments
Teams get nowhere in Jordan talks
23 comments | Read story
Realism from the East | 6:37 a.m. June 4, 2008
I find it very ironic that we on the east (I voted yes to the split) who
initiated the split in the first place mainly for the purpose of keeping our
education tax dollars in our area are bickering about values of buildings and
land.
Yes we know we have allot of older buildings and the west side has allot of new buildings, but asking them to pay us back for our past help now seems petty and cheap. We wanted the split; we have it. I say accept the west proposal and move on.
In reality I think our tax and spend emperor Cullimore and the other elected officials now know it will cost us more in taxes. Something they said wouldn�t happen because the "study" said so. But at least we know the tax dollars will all be going to our area that�s what we wanted that�s what we voted on that is what we have to live with. If we can truly provide better education by splitting then let�s move on and do so.
Yes we know we have allot of older buildings and the west side has allot of new buildings, but asking them to pay us back for our past help now seems petty and cheap. We wanted the split; we have it. I say accept the west proposal and move on.
In reality I think our tax and spend emperor Cullimore and the other elected officials now know it will cost us more in taxes. Something they said wouldn�t happen because the "study" said so. But at least we know the tax dollars will all be going to our area that�s what we wanted that�s what we voted on that is what we have to live with. If we can truly provide better education by splitting then let�s move on and do so.
They Were Fooled | 8:11 a.m. June 4, 2008
Poor Senator Waddoups. He was fooled by the legislative process. Now he says
that this is bad legislation. Check his votes.
He voted in favor of passing most recent amendments to the school district split legislation. Both he and Senator Buttars voted to concur on Second Substitute Senate Bill 71 during the 2008 legislative session.
In the special session in 2007, senator Waddoups and Senator Buttars voted to support First Substitute House Bill 1001 and House Bill 1004, both of which amended the law which allowed for the creation of new school districts.
Waddoups voted against House Bill 77 in 2006, however that bill was supported by Senator Buttars, and Representative Mascaro. This is the bill that provided the election rules for creating a new district.
Now they want to take it back to the Legislature and ask for a delay. The Legislature had the opportunity to vote on delaying the process. On March 4, 2008 Representative Merlynn Newbold proposed delaying the process in an amendment. Her amendment was voted down.
These men are all powerful legislators. They were very involved in the process of this legislation. They supported it when they had a vote, what is their problem now.
He voted in favor of passing most recent amendments to the school district split legislation. Both he and Senator Buttars voted to concur on Second Substitute Senate Bill 71 during the 2008 legislative session.
In the special session in 2007, senator Waddoups and Senator Buttars voted to support First Substitute House Bill 1001 and House Bill 1004, both of which amended the law which allowed for the creation of new school districts.
Waddoups voted against House Bill 77 in 2006, however that bill was supported by Senator Buttars, and Representative Mascaro. This is the bill that provided the election rules for creating a new district.
Now they want to take it back to the Legislature and ask for a delay. The Legislature had the opportunity to vote on delaying the process. On March 4, 2008 Representative Merlynn Newbold proposed delaying the process in an amendment. Her amendment was voted down.
These men are all powerful legislators. They were very involved in the process of this legislation. They supported it when they had a vote, what is their problem now.
Comments continue below
Rep Steven Mascaro | 8:19 a.m. June 4, 2008
It would have been nice for the Reporters to have included my name as an
attendee at this news conference since I was the only other Legislator to speak
besides Sen Waddoups. The question I answered as to why this legislation has
gone so bad since the initial legislation passed in 2003 seemed to me to be
extremely important. Important because the answer went to the problem we have of
some Legislators who are in positions of authority and use that authority with
impunity because some reporters cannot seemed to get all the facts or
information correct on the stories they are assigned to cover. This split
problem was avoidable. I carried legislation in 2006,07 and 08 that could have
helped to avoid this conflict. Other Legislators carried legislation that could
have corrected this legislation in 2007,and 2008. Apparently that story is not
of importance.
Rep Steven Mascaro
Rep Steven Mascaro
A Big Mess | 8:28 a.m. June 4, 2008
This all seems like too little too late. We are now hundreds of thousands of
dollars into this and it's still a big mess. The east only seems to be
worried about $$$. Won't postponing all this be worse?
This isn't Fair | 8:29 a.m. June 4, 2008
The west side has persisted in the argument that since they did not get to vote,
they are the only ones who should determine what is fair.
They have an attitude that says: We did not get to vote, so we get to stick it to you. It was not fair that we did not get to vote, so we have the right to make the allocation of assets unfair.
If it is really about the kids, quit crying about it being unfair and make sure that every kid gets a fair portion of the assets of the district.
The West side rejected an offer that would have given their 57% of the students 65% of the assets. That offer would have left only 35% of the assets to the other 45% of the students on the East side. For some reason, the West side needs more than that. The 45% of the East side students deserve only 25% of the assets in the mind of the West side.
But don't get them wrong, it is not about the money...it is about the students. Is it about all of the students, or only those on the West side?
They have an attitude that says: We did not get to vote, so we get to stick it to you. It was not fair that we did not get to vote, so we have the right to make the allocation of assets unfair.
If it is really about the kids, quit crying about it being unfair and make sure that every kid gets a fair portion of the assets of the district.
The West side rejected an offer that would have given their 57% of the students 65% of the assets. That offer would have left only 35% of the assets to the other 45% of the students on the East side. For some reason, the West side needs more than that. The 45% of the East side students deserve only 25% of the assets in the mind of the West side.
But don't get them wrong, it is not about the money...it is about the students. Is it about all of the students, or only those on the West side?
john | 8:56 a.m. June 4, 2008
As I understand, two negociators from each side's transition team came to
agreement on two separate ways to divide the assets and liabilities, both of
which were approved by the East approved and rejected by the West. As per the
previous comment, it seems the West is being very obstructionist and
unreasonable and doing all they can to stop this.
All for three holdouts | 9:47 a.m. June 4, 2008
The problem with this is process is the three politicians on the West Side
Transition Team that refuse to accept their job description and actuall DO
IT.
Nine of the twelve transition team members (all six from the east and three from the west) were in favor of the first proposal drawn up by the negotiating team in March. The only holdouts were the politicians [the East Side prudently appointed experts in finance, education, etc. rather than appoint politicians).
As I see it, all blame for the "process not working" and "costing more money" should be at the feet of those three - Haws, Johnson, and Kennett. They refuse to accept their statutory job of dividing the assets and insist upon judging whether or not the creation of the new district was right.
Nine of the twelve transition team members (all six from the east and three from the west) were in favor of the first proposal drawn up by the negotiating team in March. The only holdouts were the politicians [the East Side prudently appointed experts in finance, education, etc. rather than appoint politicians).
As I see it, all blame for the "process not working" and "costing more money" should be at the feet of those three - Haws, Johnson, and Kennett. They refuse to accept their statutory job of dividing the assets and insist upon judging whether or not the creation of the new district was right.
Funny about Waddups | 9:53 a.m. June 4, 2008
Kind of funny for Waddups to claim "the legislature didn't
understand" this or that. Either HE didn't get it or has changed his
tune due to rhetoric. Does he REALLY beleive 100+ people didn't consider
the impact of a June election on new district creation process? It was in the
Bill for all to read and consider. The method to divide assets is also in the
Bill (count the buildings, assign a value, and move on), but now that he
realizes that of over $1 billin in building values in JSD 75% of it is west of
the river (due to years and years of defered work on the east to satisfy needs
on the west), using that method is suddenly unfair?
WJ | 10:54 a.m. June 4, 2008
I'm glad my rep (Mascaro) and senator (Buttars) are sticking up for me,
despite what some posters and reporters may say about past errors on their part
(which I don't necessarily buy). If I understand correctly, the
legislature had some say in creating what has become a mess, let the legislature
work on part of the solution. I talk with Steve occasionally, and while we most
often agree, we don't always; he listens to me and supports his decisions.
I know he gives serious thought before casting his votes.
@this isn't fair's comments about the west not voting and saying they get to "stick it to 'em", look in your history books about the American revolution. The taxes imposed by the crown were to pay for the colonists' protection from the French and Indians and cover the costs of the French and Indian War. The colonists said, we don't get to vote on the tax, stick it to the British taxpayers. I guess 'this isn't fair' is a Tory and want to be re-united with the British crown.
@this isn't fair's comments about the west not voting and saying they get to "stick it to 'em", look in your history books about the American revolution. The taxes imposed by the crown were to pay for the colonists' protection from the French and Indians and cover the costs of the French and Indian War. The colonists said, we don't get to vote on the tax, stick it to the British taxpayers. I guess 'this isn't fair' is a Tory and want to be re-united with the British crown.
Patrick | 11:55 a.m. June 4, 2008
For the past 4 years (at least) bills have been introduced, debated, and adopted
in the legislature that would allow for the creation of the East-side Jordan
School District. Those who are opposed have had ample opportunity to weigh in
on this issue and offer their suggestions. Waddoups, Buttars, Mascaro, and the
others who are opposed, were part of the legislature when HB 63 was considered
in 2005, and then when HB 77 (2006), SB 30 (2007), and SB 71(2008) were adopted
into law. Now, to ask for more time for a Special Session to "work out the
kinks" (while the Jordan School Board feverishly transfers all of its
assets to the West side) seems very disingenuous to me.
Chuck | 12:27 p.m. June 4, 2008
The WSTT is not acting in good faith. They don't want a solution or
compromise. They have refused excellent offers in the hopes that they could
make it look bad and kill it. In asking for a delay they are ONLY trying to buy
more time to try to kill it.
There is NO reason to delay or have a special session. Since WSTT chose not to take any of the offers that favored the west, let it go to the arbitrators. Let's get on with it!
There is NO reason to delay or have a special session. Since WSTT chose not to take any of the offers that favored the west, let it go to the arbitrators. Let's get on with it!
To realism from the east | 12:42 p.m. June 4, 2008
During the past six months as the asset transition teams negotiated, I believe
there were a couple of occasions when the east team was ready to reach
compromise and would have signed off on the proposal before them. But both
times, it was the Remaining District Transition Team that jammed the spokes. An
early proposal that looked promising was put forth by a negotiating team of four
members -- 2 from the west team and 2 from the east. But the full west-side
transition team rejected that proposal at a meeting that their own two
negotiating team members couldn't even attend. Bottom line, the east-side
team has bent over backward trying to reach compromise only to be rejected at
every turn. As you stated, the east team would have liked to accept a proposal
and move on a long time ago. But the reality is that the RDTT doesn't want
compromise -- they want it all. And since they can't have that, they have
now turned their strategy to one of trying to destroy the entire process.
SW | 4:03 p.m. June 4, 2008
All the proposals the east side "compromised" on include a huge
increase in taxes for the west to pay hundreds of millions to the east side. No
wonder the west side will not agree. Good for them. They are trying to get
something that helps all the kids rather than just those on the east.
The split was based on a feasibility report showing that the east would pay the west. Now the east side says the feasibility study they based this whole thing on is not accurate and they need hundreds of millions from the west.
As much as the east hates it, this needs to be feasible for both sides, not just the east.
The split was based on a feasibility report showing that the east would pay the west. Now the east side says the feasibility study they based this whole thing on is not accurate and they need hundreds of millions from the west.
As much as the east hates it, this needs to be feasible for both sides, not just the east.
SW | 4:29 p.m. June 4, 2008
The compromise the east wants would raise the west sides taxes more than the
amount allowable by law so the east side team is kind enough to say the west can
just max their taxes and pay over several years.
The legislator needs to fix this so splits don�t kill tax payers or children.
This is ridiculous.
The legislator needs to fix this so splits don�t kill tax payers or children.
This is ridiculous.
Stephen | 4:45 p.m. June 4, 2008
Money is being diverted from children to lawyers. Just look at the comments on
this article. Nothing but biased one-sided posturing.
There is not enough money for education so both sides are fighting to get the biggest share of the pie. In the end, neither side will have what they want and a lot of education dollars will be wasted.
The west side legislators are exactly right. The legislators need to step in now to stop the madness. Revisit the entire thing to define how a split should happen without taking funds from educating children.
There is not enough money for education so both sides are fighting to get the biggest share of the pie. In the end, neither side will have what they want and a lot of education dollars will be wasted.
The west side legislators are exactly right. The legislators need to step in now to stop the madness. Revisit the entire thing to define how a split should happen without taking funds from educating children.
Steven Jarvis | 5:28 p.m. June 4, 2008
Chuck,
You must be in Fantasy Land. The offers from the East were heavily in favor of the East. They wanted all the buildings and physical assets on the East side of the river (including both District office buildings) AND a whopping load of cash that will not exist at the actual time of the split as it is being converted to buildings. The second offer wasn't quite as lopsided as the first.
The West put in one proposal. It favored its side a bit by just splitting the value of the shared facilities. It was by far the most reasonable of the three proposals, but it shouldn't be the endpoint either. The District should be split leaving the assets where they currently reside. That gives the East what they need. That gives the West what they need. It is that simple.
Split the assets by location of use and move on. I'd even let the East have all the junk at the District buildings. The West are going to have to build new offices (or rent them). The East needs a Middle and High school in Draper within the next five to ten years. Otherwise cancel this.
You must be in Fantasy Land. The offers from the East were heavily in favor of the East. They wanted all the buildings and physical assets on the East side of the river (including both District office buildings) AND a whopping load of cash that will not exist at the actual time of the split as it is being converted to buildings. The second offer wasn't quite as lopsided as the first.
The West put in one proposal. It favored its side a bit by just splitting the value of the shared facilities. It was by far the most reasonable of the three proposals, but it shouldn't be the endpoint either. The District should be split leaving the assets where they currently reside. That gives the East what they need. That gives the West what they need. It is that simple.
Split the assets by location of use and move on. I'd even let the East have all the junk at the District buildings. The West are going to have to build new offices (or rent them). The East needs a Middle and High school in Draper within the next five to ten years. Otherwise cancel this.
Fair and equitable | 8:16 p.m. June 4, 2008
Steven Jarvis,
If you are at all informed as you claim to be, you should know that your statements about the offers favoring the east are completely false.
Two proposals were put together by negotiators (representatives from both transition teams) that would have resulted in two viable districts and a workable division of assets. The west-side transition team turned down both proposals but made a counter-proposal to send 24 percent of the net assets east and 76 percent of the net assets west. This, even though the new district will serve 43 percent of the students � 35,000 kids.
So please tell me, Mr. Jarvis, how a deal that gives the new district 24 percent of the net assets -- even though it serves 43 percent of the students and shoulders 57 percent of the tax burden -- is "fair and equitable." It's not -- no way around it.
If you are at all informed as you claim to be, you should know that your statements about the offers favoring the east are completely false.
Two proposals were put together by negotiators (representatives from both transition teams) that would have resulted in two viable districts and a workable division of assets. The west-side transition team turned down both proposals but made a counter-proposal to send 24 percent of the net assets east and 76 percent of the net assets west. This, even though the new district will serve 43 percent of the students � 35,000 kids.
So please tell me, Mr. Jarvis, how a deal that gives the new district 24 percent of the net assets -- even though it serves 43 percent of the students and shoulders 57 percent of the tax burden -- is "fair and equitable." It's not -- no way around it.
SW | 10:44 p.m. June 4, 2008
24 percent to 76 percent? Please. This is based on fully on a very biased
decision on how to determine assets.
24 only holds true if you believe the east sides propaganda. East sides idea:
Older school - worth almost
Newer school - worth a lot
Students without a school - just ignore them
Then say the west must pay the east because the east huge $$ because their schools are older. Just ignore students on the west in portables, 6th graders going to high schools because the elementary schools are out of room, increased growth etc.
24% vs 76% does not hold true at all.
Steve Jarvis is right on. Give the east their schools and let them deal with maintenance. Give the west their schools and let them deal with growth. Take the remaining cash and divide it based on students.
Its a good idea but the east hates it because they want more money regardless of impacts to the kids on the west.
24 only holds true if you believe the east sides propaganda. East sides idea:
Older school - worth almost
Newer school - worth a lot
Students without a school - just ignore them
Then say the west must pay the east because the east huge $$ because their schools are older. Just ignore students on the west in portables, 6th graders going to high schools because the elementary schools are out of room, increased growth etc.
24% vs 76% does not hold true at all.
Steve Jarvis is right on. Give the east their schools and let them deal with maintenance. Give the west their schools and let them deal with growth. Take the remaining cash and divide it based on students.
Its a good idea but the east hates it because they want more money regardless of impacts to the kids on the west.
To Rep. Mascaro | 12:03 a.m. June 5, 2008
What you feel bad because the newspaper stiffed you? Quit whining. By the way
when you going to join the Democrat party, your socialistic enough you would fit
right in.
Steven Jarvis | 6:39 a.m. June 5, 2008
Fair and Equitable,
24 percent? 45 school buildings, 2 district offices would go to the East. 48 school buildings (2 open next year) then to the West. I don't have the number of the lots and other property of JSD, but the basics I have just rolled out are accurate. You could go and count them yourself if you'd like. But it just sounds like either you failed miserable in mathematics or are making stuff up to try to strengthen a weak argument.
The tax burden isn't divvied up or reassigned with a split because that was something agreed to by all residents of JSD back in 2003. I voted for it then moved down to Utah county. If you don't want to pay what you legally owe for construction costs, move. You have that right. You do not have the right to force someone else to pay your obligation by creating a new taxing authority. If we could, why would people pay taxes to the federal government or state government if they already pay the local one?
24 percent? 45 school buildings, 2 district offices would go to the East. 48 school buildings (2 open next year) then to the West. I don't have the number of the lots and other property of JSD, but the basics I have just rolled out are accurate. You could go and count them yourself if you'd like. But it just sounds like either you failed miserable in mathematics or are making stuff up to try to strengthen a weak argument.
The tax burden isn't divvied up or reassigned with a split because that was something agreed to by all residents of JSD back in 2003. I voted for it then moved down to Utah county. If you don't want to pay what you legally owe for construction costs, move. You have that right. You do not have the right to force someone else to pay your obligation by creating a new taxing authority. If we could, why would people pay taxes to the federal government or state government if they already pay the local one?
anom | 11:46 p.m. June 5, 2008
Get over it and split the buildings and stuff they are not that great to begin
with. Quit being so self important and do what is right for the kids
Anonymous | 4:45 p.m. June 6, 2008
Senator Waddoups is by fair the only knowledgeable other than the few other
Senators and Representatives that completely understand this issue, and have
spent many many hours researching, and trying to create a better bill and way of
going about this split. People need to trust the people they put into office.
Clearly they know what they are doing.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- New U. telescope captures universe 12:36 p.m.
- 'Office Space' star Livingston weds 12:35 p.m.
- Utah case: U.S.-Indian culture clash 12:33 p.m.
- Dads rewrite rock songs for kids 12:29 p.m.
- Keep laughing at your kids 12:28 p.m.
- Cougars land Vegas standout 12:27 p.m.
- Maintaining a healthy relationship 12:27 p.m.
- Watch how a school bus is made 12:24 p.m.
- 5A: Hawks, Miners by the numbers 12:23 p.m.
- Battling obesity one treat at a time 12:19 p.m.
- House passes health care bill
292 - SLC council OKs gay rights policies274
- TCU showdown has big implications195
- Senators want food tax restored158
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections110
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah109
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges101
One of my guilty pleasures is perusing the covers of celebrity magazines...
Advertisement
Latest comments
seniors enjoy , make every play your greatest and it will carry over to the...
Sorry to burst your bubble but it's not gonna happen.
Is this in production? If I could replace my tranny in my old cherokee, it...
Beck claims that Obama has an unprecedented number 32 "czars" when in fact...
The biggest surprise is to learn that the Church owns this newspaper! Most of...
I went there today for lunch. It was great. The owner threw in a free order...
The church's support of this ordinance is too little too late. After proding...
To "Anonymous | 10:57 a.m." who have been scapegoats for Rush, Hannity, and...
More Christ-like( and no swearing) is the goal. Which is good,but,"That is...
"Expect a big time beat down?" YES! Any objective fan who has watched...
Advertisements
If they believe thier position represents a fair and equitable split of the assets, why are they afraid to go to arbitration?
Their position has been based on showing that this whole thing will not work rather than on being fair and eqiutable. They want it to look broken. Issues like this are resolved by arbitrators every day. What are they afraid of?
They are OK with appointed transition teams, what is their problem with appointed arbitrators?
It seems that they just don't want anyone to solve the problem. They just want to keep holding up the process. Holding up the process is the most expensive waste of money. Why don't they care about that? They don't care, because they don't want this to get done...whatever the cost.
Don't be afraid that arbitrators will reach a fair and equitable result quickly. This is the best thing for the students, teachers, andministrators and the communities as a whole. If you really care, get on with it.