The metaphoric "Pants on Fire" approach (Oakland Press article of 9-12-15)

There is so much misinformation and so many falsehoods in the above names article that I hardly know where to begin.  I suppose the best thing to do is take them one at a time. I will address them in the order which they appeared, not in the order of importance

The most glaring thing about the story is that the district’s Board did not all the sudden decide to "regroup and not place any millage increase on the November ballot" The fact is they were attempting to break the law, which clearly states that a taxing unit cannot put a proposal on the ballot more than 2 times in a calendar year. November would have been their 3rd failure in 2015.  At first when this was pointed out to them, they decided they would go ahead with it regardless.  However, when the CARE group of concerned citizens made a request to the County Elections Commission and they in turn pointed out the error of the way, the district reluctantly withdrew the proposal.

As to all bluster by the Board President and Superintendent about exploring other options, it has already been decided to submit the proposal again in the March 2016 election. This is particularly disturbing in light of the District having spent over $75,000.00 to have the proposal on the August ballot, as well as the cost already incurred for the doomed November election.

 Concerning the sinking fund millage of 2.87 replacing the retired 3.87 millage, one has absolutely nothing to do with other.  This is an attempt to mislead the tax payers of the district into thinking they were getting a 1 mill decrease in their taxes.

 Superintendent Williams stated, "We are taking the pulse of the community to see what concerns there are and what we can do better."  Well they've taken the pulse twice so far and both times the community has responded by telling them, "enough is enough, learn how to spend the money and assets you already have before you ask for more"

 The Superintendent went on to say, "We're continuing to reduce the deficit."  Using the districts own numbers, it's pretty easy to refute this statement. At the time of the state take over the district claimed to be $51.7 million in debt.  They claim to have paid the debt down by $12.6 million to a total of $39.1 million.  Nobody knows if this "pay down" includes the mismanagement and ultimate one time 3 mill tax levy ($7.8 million) for tax payers of the district to pay for the MESSA insurance mess.  Regardless, the district has gone to the State twice for $10 million "loans" each time interest free for 5 years each.  Simple addition would suggest that not only is the district not paying off their debt, but are more likely another $7.4 million in debt.