Operation "End Around": 1st Impressions, 2nd Thoughts, 3rd Degree

The more we think about Stackhouse's little shenanigans--we'll call it "Operation End Around", the more we think it stinks on multiple levels.

SP-EYE post: "Referendum shenanigans Afoot?"

Stackhouse's plan
It's pretty clear that Stackhouse is interested in emptying the piggy bank of leftover funds from the referendum. Assuming that's not enough, he's looking at a one-time special levy to fund his soggy reverie. How much is he looking for? Well...his plan for a $12.00 tax on a 200,000 home translates to a mill rate of $0.06. 6 cents....that's pretty harmless...right? Wouldn't you pay 6 cents per $1,000 for football? Hmmm? Assuming an equalized value of $3.9B for the tax base, a mill rate of 6 cents translates to about $235,000.

Board of 7 or Board of 1?
Stackhouse's e-mail is clearly directing Culver to take some action. Giving Stackhouse the benefit of the doubt, SOME of what he asks for could be considered an "Open Records request", which can be made by any citizen. Of course, what he's asking for could involve a lot of paper...and we don't see any offer to PAY for his request, as other citizens are required to do.

On the other hand, unless legal opinions already exist, Stackhouse is requesting that the district consult with legal...at a cost to the taxpayer of $250 per hour. Certainly, a legal opinion must be sought regarding whether or not the district MUST use Findorff.

More importantly, shouldn't such a directive come for the board itself? Wouldn't this have to be a specific board agenda item...open for discussion...and then a vote by the SEVEN board members regarding whether or not to direct administration to do anything?

Culver covers his bee-you-tox
You gotta love Culver's "Get Out of Jail Free" respond. By copying all 7 board members on his directive to McLowry/Frei, he is essentially telling the board to "speak now or forever hold your peace". That is...if no board member says, "Wait a minute, Tim...", and only LATER questions Culver....then Culver can say..."but...but... I alerted you to what I was doing. If only you had said something, I would have stopped." This is the old "It's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission" philosophy.

But...he's brilliant...because NONE of the board members will actually take issue with this and call Culver out on it. And Culver knows it.

Culver SHOULD have said, "Mr. Stackhouse, I'd be happy to do what you request, but I really need you to get this on the board agenda and have the full board make a motion".

Conflict of Interest?

"I have been approached by the football community to
spearhead a campaign to upgrade the facilities for Ashley field. "
--(Schoolboard member) David Stackhouse

Whoa! Since ultimately Stackhouse, as a board member will vote on this issue, won't he have to recuse himself?

" [The football community] will present at Monday's board meeting and I will follow-up with
a situation report for the April 26 meeting. "
--(Schoolboard member) David Stackhouse

Isn't this a tad presumptuous? We all remember board President telling us that the board cannot discuss, respond to, or take any action on anything raised via community resident comments. Yet Stackhouse seems to imply that the board will add this as an agenda item for its April 26th meeting. Oh wait....the board doesn't vote or discuss future agenda items publicly, does it? The board president (which mean Culver) sets the board agenda. Hmmmm.

Seabass, the athletic supporter?
This is "where the rubber meets the road" as Caren Diedrich likes to say. So...will she continue to vote as a fiscal conservative [as she professed during the elections] and vote this down? Will Seabass McCourt, now that he's been re-elected, vote like the budget conscious guy he claims to be? Or like the athletic supporter we all know him to be? Being decidedly sans cojones, we know that Whalen will vote to support Stackhouse's proposal. Hmmm...does Stackhouse have 4 votes?

This just smells increasingly rank the more we think about it.