When the School Board's Capital Funding Request earned a 7-2 vote across party lines, I had hoped that the package would speak for itself as it made its way through the review process. As part of my commitment to being an honest broker, I will not advocate fiercely because the Board of Education respects that process. But before we allow rhetoric to completely choke out the merits of the Board request, I do feel compelled to react to 3 persistent myths that have dominated our conversations.

Myth 1: The bond package is mis-prioritized.

Facts:
A. The Board Request is a package of 53 projects that follow the prioritization of the Ten Year Capital Needs Analysis produced by Dr. Gorman and his staff.

B. There are 4 projects inserted into the package that have been labeled by some as unnecessary athletic facilities. Actually, those projects build classroom additions at 4 older high schools throughout the county that lack adequate space to conduct PE classes.

C. There are only 4 projects - accounting for less than 4.2% of the total package cost - that are marginally out of sync with the Ten Year Capital Needs Analysis. All 4 projects appear at the bottom of the package. All 4 would likely have broad appeal among the community.

D. The need continues to grow.

Myth 2: It's too much - people will not vote for more than they rejected in 2005.

Facts:
A. Unlike previous bond packages, this one includes $80 million to cover inflation and guarantee complete funding of all projects. Comparing the price tags of 2005 and 2007 is not an apples to apples comparison.

B. Construction costs are rising by 10% a year. Building now creates long term value.

C. CMS realizes immediate utilization of every new or renovated facility, which improves the delivery of our product.

D. A $600 million bond package may be a 3 year package, rather than a 2 year package, which would allow us to lock into a data-driven prioritization and take this divisive battle off the front burner.

E. The need continues to grow, and this package serves the areas of greatest need, including precincts that voted against bonds in 2005.

Myth 3: Nothing has changed.

Facts:
A. Since November 2005, CMS has charted a clear strategic direction under a new leadership team.

B. We have a new, responsive, visionary Superintendent.

C. One third of the Board of Education is new.

D. In response to the community, we are de-centralizing our operating structure.

E. The Board has approved new building standards that will significantly reduce costs.

F. The need continues to grow, as we have added 10,000 additional students in the past two years.

Regardless of which position one may advocate in the bond discussion, I hope that we will stick to the facts.

More important, we need to be careful about the way we communicate - about schools, bonds, or anything else. Increasingly, our public conversations are being destroyed by a new brand of greed - not in the traditional material sense, but in the way we think, feel, and talk about our money and other resources. Statesmanship is being replaced by extremist posturing without compassion, consideration, or sense of community.

Ultimately, greed is a form of ruthless arrogance that insists that everything exists for my own purposes, so I don't have to listen to anyone else's point of view. This epidemic transcends the convenient labels of zip code, race, or political party, yet nobody seems to recognize the disease in themselves.

We cannot allow this way of thinking to hijack our political system, poison our debate, or entice us to accept easy stereotypes, convenient myths, and simplistic solutions in place of truth. It is shredding our relationships and communities.

As a growing community, we need to challenge the tired and outdated frameworks of suburb vs. inner city, black vs. white, new construction vs. renovation, etc, etc ad nauseum. Those are false dichotomies that lead us to substitute emotion in place of reason. Since the default emotion is always anger, it only divides us further.

We must realize that righteous indignation is not the same as informed dissent. Electioneering is no replacement for sound public policy. Partisan heel-digging does not equate to responsible government.

Whether you know or care for your neighbor, he or she shares the same community that you do. If you do not at least consider your neighbor, you ultimately spite yourself because you damage your community.

We are standing on the mountaintop. Before we run off opposite sides of the same cliff, let's step back and consider our options based on the facts and merits, so we may make enlightened choices about today and tomorrow instead of aggravating the injuries caused by yesterday's fight.