Beyond the Ballot

One thing I’ve learned over the years as an educator, citizen, and now in business-development is that communities are at their best when people show up, ask questions, and get involved. Today, as I work with school districts throughout our region, I continue to see how important community participation is when decisions about schools and facilities are being discussed.

Whenever a facility project is proposed, the same questions often surface. Why are we addressing this now? Why wasn't this done years ago? Why doesn't the state pay for school buildings? These are legitimate questions, and they deserve thoughtful answers.

The truth is that school districts are constantly changing. The needs of students evolve. Safety expectations increase. Accessibility laws change. Educational programs expand. Buildings age. What worked well twenty or thirty years ago may no longer meet the needs of today's students, staff, or the community. The public often feels that school leaders have just ignored the problems of the previous generations, however it’s more often that they are just responding to the circumstances that have changed over time and making decisions based on the information available today.

The question of why something wasn't done years ago is one I have heard throughout my career. It is a fair question, but the answer is often more complex than it appears. Every generation of school board members and administrators is faced with competing priorities. Communities navigate economic downturns, enrollment shifts, staffing challenges, changing educational expectations, and budget limitations. Decisions are made based on the needs, resources, and information available at the time.

In many cases, previous leaders made thoughtful decisions that served their communities well for years. A roof expected to last twenty years may have lasted thirty. Mechanical systems may have been maintained and repaired beyond their original life expectancy. Spaces that once met the needs of students may have continued serving generations longer than anyone anticipated. What may appear today as a delayed decision is often the result of leaders stretching taxpayer investments as far as possible.

At the same time, there comes a point when maintenance alone is no longer enough. Every building has a life cycle. Every system eventually reaches the end of its useful life. The challenge for today's leaders is determining when continued repairs no longer represent the best use of public resources.

That leads to another important consideration: the cost of doing nothing.

When facility discussions occur, attention naturally focuses on the price tag associated with moving forward. What often receives less attention is the cost of waiting. Deferred maintenance does not disappear. In most cases, it grows. A roofing issue that might be manageable today can become a much larger and more expensive problem tomorrow. Mechanical systems continue to age. Infrastructure continues to deteriorate. Small concerns can become major repairs.

Construction costs provide another challenge. While no one can predict future markets with certainty, history has shown that labor, materials, and construction costs generally increase over time. Communities that delay addressing needs often find themselves facing the same challenges years later, but at a higher cost. The problem rarely goes away on its own.

That does not mean every project should move forward immediately or that every proposal is the right solution. It does mean communities should carefully consider not only the cost of action, but also the potential cost of inaction.

The question about state funding is one I hear frequently as well. While states provide some funding for education, school facilities have traditionally been supported through a combination of state and local resources, with local communities often carrying a significant share of the responsibility. Whether that approach should look different in the future is a conversation worth having (and people are certainly having it at many levels today). However, the reality facing communities today is that decisions about facilities often come down to local priorities and local choices.

What concerns me most is not whether people support or oppose a project. Educated “yes” or “no” votes are our true goal, with an emphasis on the word “educated.” Reasonable people can look at the same information and reach different conclusions. It is when people choose not to participate at all – that’s when I get concerned.

Over the years, I have witnessed elections decided by only a few votes.  I also have watched many important decisions being made by a relatively small percentage of eligible voters. Too often, people convince themselves that their vote does not matter or that someone else will make the decision for them. The result is that a handful of voices end up speaking for an entire community.  And in North Dakota it’s important to know that many of these elections require a super majority of 60% to pass.  Quite honestly, it takes less voter support to amend the state’s constitution than it does to pass a school referendum.

Strong communities are not built because everyone agrees. They are built because people engage in the process. They attend meetings. They seek information. They ask difficult questions. They listen to different perspectives. Most importantly, they vote.

School facility discussions are about much more than bricks, mortar, and tax statements. They are conversations about the future of a community. They are discussions about stewardship, opportunity, and the kind of legacy we want to leave for the next generation.

Whether you support a proposal or oppose it is your decision. My hope is simply that you participate. The most important conversations happen beyond the ballot itself, when citizens choose to engage, ask questions, and take an active role in shaping the future of their community. That future deserves more than apathy. It deserves our attention, our involvement, and our voice.

Travis Jordan Educational Development Advocate ICON Architectural Group