Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum And Finance Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose $28 million roof referendum, criticize legal costs and district performance
Summary
Public commenters at the Lacey Township Board of Education meeting urged the board to abandon the proposed $28 million referendum, criticized legal spending on board-member cases, and called for financial transparency and reforms.
Several residents during the board’s public-comment period urged officials to oppose a proposed $28 million referendum the board plans to place before voters for roof repairs and other capital work.
Regina Desanza, of Sunset Drive in Sunrise Beach, criticized board members’ legal costs and ongoing appeals, saying one board member had incurred “200,000 in legal fees” and continued to appeal “his ridiculous case.” She asked whether the board had adjusted policy so that “once the insurance policy runs out, that the Board member should be responsible for the out of pocket costs, not the taxpayers.” Desanza also urged the board to make district manuals available as attachments to agenda item 28 and requested a copy of the district purchasing manual.
Richard Bidnick, speaking for Lacey Citizens for Responsible Government, said the district’s U.S. News ranking of 42.7 merited concern and said taxpayers are “paying more and more and getting less and less.” He said the group opposes the proposed $28,000,000 referendum and criticized prior borrowing and a past solar project the speaker said is “paid through 2029.”
Bidnick urged greater budget transparency and proposed a citizen budget committee, open committee meetings, renegotiated employment contracts tied to student achievement, and changes to employee health-insurance cost-sharing. He also suggested the district reinstate a public spreadsheet of employee salaries and total employment costs that a prior superintendent had posted.
During a second public-comment turn, Bidnick proposed placing cameras in classrooms “for security purposes” and to check teacher performance. A union representative in the audience objected, noting that such recordings could be governed by statutory rules and could be treated as an evaluation; the speaker replied that the teacher association would likely “sue the district over it.”
Other residents made smaller requests, including a suggestion that “student of the month” presentations be moved from business meetings to assemblies so more students can attend. The board acknowledged the comments; trustees repeatedly noted that confidential student matters cannot be discussed publicly.
The concerns aired in public comment were taken up later in committee and policy discussions, where board members reviewed a draft referendum question, updated committee schedules, and planned public outreach materials.
