Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Bond Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters raise concerns about bond timing, millage math and transparency of district records
Summary
Multiple public speakers at the Aug. 18 board meeting questioned the district’s bond timing and millage calculations, pointed to missing archived meeting materials, and criticized access to bid documents and Freedom of Information Act responses.
Several members of the public used the board’s Aug. 18 comment period to question Midland Public Schools’ transparency and recent bond election decisions. Don Hinkle questioned holding a special election and said borrowing for short‑lived assets such as buses or computers with long-term debt is inappropriate. “You should have the financing no more than 10 years,” Hinkle said, urging the district to verify asset lifetimes and to ensure director and officer liability insurance and indemnification for board members in case of litigation. Joe Vanities asked why the district removed archived board information from the website for meetings dated 2012–2020 and urged the board to restore minutes and supporting information to improve transparency. He said a 2022 “continuity of learning” plan referenced in the minutes does not appear posted online as described and asked why it was not easily accessible. Vanities also raised questions about the debt millage and special election cost, saying the “Freedom of Information grapevine has the cost at over $100,000” and asserting that millage reductions discussed earlier may still be collected; the board did not confirm those figures during the public comment period. Renita Banadis asked why the full bid submissions for the strategic planning RFP were not included in the public agenda packet, saying similar bid materials had been provided in past packets. She said she had submitted a FOIA request Aug. 6 for invoices from Banach, Banach & Cassidy related to prior survey and engagement work and expressed frustration with extensions the district had taken to respond to FOIA requests. District officials responded in general terms during the meeting. Administration clarified that asset financing in a bond application follows expected asset-life tables and that the bond application includes a table showing life spans for items such as buses. No board action was taken in response to the comments during the meeting; public commenters were raising issues for the board to consider or investigate further.
