Quantcast

Comments about ‘South Jordan City Council accepts interlocal agreement, downplays potential for district split’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 30 2014 9:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
play by the rules
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

Actually what Hodnett said was "The last bond measure made him feel like the kid persecuted by the bully for his lunch money."

Reader
Sandy, UT

What is the "interlocal agreement"?

1Observer
Cottonwood Heights, UT

So sad that it takes the threat of a split to force education leaders to communicate or collaborate with local city officials and the residents they serve. Hopefully the dialogue will be constructive and improve the district. In many parts of the country school district boundaries follow city boundaries and there is a lot of partnering that occurs. Many of those cities tout the strength and quality of their school district to attract businesses and residents. You don't really hear that around Utah because there is such a disconnect between the school districts and the communities they serve - a self-imposed intellectual curtain - as if the average citizen just can't understand or appreciate the inner workings of a school district so their opinions are quickly discounted or ignored. As long as that disconnect exists it will be tough to pass bonds and improve education funding. The lack of transparency and the lack of real, meaningful dialogue and consideration of public opinion will continue to doom education funding in Utah and will fuel split efforts. Truly meaningful engagement and involvement is the only cure.

rbojak
West Jordan, UT

It's too bad the people of South Jordan are not in communication with their city leaders. And visa-versa.
For the last two years, the Jordan School District has had monthly meetings with every mayor from every city. Sometimes these meetings lasted for several hours. All cities knew everything they wanted. All aspects of the district were open in full detail. There sounds like there now are some political agendas on the rise.

mominthetrenches
South Jordan, Utah

There has been finger pointing on both sides, with serious gaps in communication. As one who attends SoJo City meetings as well as JSD Board and Town Hall meetings, I think when people accuse City or JSD of "never knowing what is going on..." should attend the meetings I've been to, where hard work and effort to present useful information to diffuse questions are always presented, you have a chance to ask those questions, but the question I ask is, "Where are all the people from my community?" It took these kinds of district split threats to create an interlocal agreement (where the Mayor is now required to sit in on meetings with the JSD Board so they can coordinate better), and a feasibility study, which cost the taxpayers a lot of money, to make the obvious determination. Yes, I was there last night, and I guess the good thing is, they are on the same page.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

I was not at that meeting, so I didn't hear first-hand the dialogue that took place, but I am a resident of South Jordan. There is something in the article that disturbs me. The quoted statement by Chuck Newton seems to be opposite of what he should have said: "I promised the (school) board, gave them my word of honor, that if they signed the interlocal agreement, they wouldn’t see it on the ballot," Councilman Chuck Newton said. "I am honoring that word tonight."

A council member represents the people of the city, not the school district.

Dividing the Jordan School District is a complex decision, but it should NEVER be the result of a pre-arranged "agreement" between a council member and the school district.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments