Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates value and timing of Morris Leatherman community survey as input for priorities and budgets
Summary
Board members discussed commissioning the annual Morris Leatherman community survey used for district scorecard and budget input. Some members supported continuing the statistically valid survey; others cited cost and urged acting on prior results before repeating the survey.
The board discussed whether to commission this year’s Morris Leatherman community survey — a statistically valid, random‑sample instrument the district has used for about two decades to measure public opinion on priorities, satisfaction and levy/tax tolerance.
Superintendent McIntyre described the survey as a tool the district uses to “ask our community” what to prioritize and to inform the district scorecard, noting last year’s survey provided statistically valid input on items such as tax tolerance, perceived overemphasis on certain topics and satisfaction measures. Jim Skelly and Dr. Johnna Romerhert (research and testing) were present to explain sampling and uses.
Board members voiced mixed opinions. Director D'Shane and others supported continuing the survey for its representative sample (the district used a 500‑person random sample plus additional parent sampling in the prior year) and said the results can be useful for budget‑setting and policy choices. Director Wengenfeld emphasized the difference between a random-sample survey and voluntary surveys that may not represent the full district.
Other board members raised objections tied to cost and timing: Director Hoffman noted the district reduced some survey spending earlier in the budget process and suggested the $30,000‑ish cost (figure cited during discussion) is significant amid an urgent budget shortfall. Director Odgenfell (name in transcript varied) and others asked that the board fully use and act on results from the prior survey before authorizing another round.
The board did not take a formal vote on whether to commission the survey during the June 9 meeting. Superintendent McIntyre recommended that absent an immediate majority the co‑chairs poll other board members offline to determine whether to proceed quickly enough to inform Phase‑3 budget work. The administration said a full, representative survey would still be useful to inform fall budget decisions and that staff can narrow or modify question sets to reduce cost or focus topics.
