The more I read the less I understand

time spent: 10 minutes

As I picked up the voter's pamplet today to continue my journey, I glanced at the second proposition, the operations levy. A summary of the levy indicates that the funds are used for salaries, books and other day-to-day operations. Once again, on the surface this seems reasonable, although the devil is in the details, which are not addressed in a voter's guide. My task is to research how the district has managed these funds in the past and whether I can cast a vote of confidence that the funds will be managed responsibly.

Hoping to get a jump on my research, I turned once again to the statement of opposition. Unfortunately, the message of the opposition only introduced further confusion. The opposition, it appears to me, is rejecting the proposition on principle. Their primary argument is to support racial balance across the district. I understand their position, but it only leaves me - the voter - with more dots to connect. The opening statement of the argument against the levy was intriguing:

"Citizens of a democracy on occasion have the firm but lucky opportunity and duty to refuse funding for especialy harmful government actions. Threatening to segregate a full one-quarter of Seattle's public schools is a call to exercise this duty."

The group in opposition is claiming that the SPS "will take away school choice, split communities and segregate schools." I moved within the SPS just five years ago by which time my children were beyond high school age. In a nutshell as I understand it, SPS had allowed parents to indicate school preference for their children, regardless of whether they lived within the traditional school boundaries. I don't think everyone got their first or maybe even second choice, but it had been apparently working out for some who felt their children were benefitting from a better education.

The way I read the statement, the opposing group is either saying that this operations levy will directly impact this choice, or to my point earlier, they are rejecting this measure as leverage against the program they are arguing to preserve.

Either way, this only leaves me with more research.