Union's Apology Message

As promised, here is Union's apology  message that was sent out tonight.

This is Lisa Griffin, Union’s Child Nutrition Director. I want to apologize for the phone call and e-mail regarding the notice of expiration of free and reduced status sent out Monday night. This message was inadvertently sent out to some families that should not have received it, including your family. I am sorry for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused. If you have any questions about this, please call 918-357-6132 or 918-357-6136. Thank you.

Did Union Make a Free Lunch Email Mistake?

Monday night, whether it applied or not, most if not all Union parents revived the following robo-call/email

This is Lisa Griffin, Union’s Director of Child Nutrition, calling to tell you about an important deadline. Your student has been receiving free or reduced meals since qualifying last school year. However, effective Wednesday, October 3, your student will need to pay for his or her meals unless a new application is completed and approved by Child Nutrition. To apply online, go to the district web site, unionps.org. Choose Departments, then Child Nutrition, and click on Free and Reduced Meal Application.

If you prefer to fill out a paper application you may call us at 918-357-6136 to request a form, or you may obtain one at your child’s school. Thank you!

For my part, my children not only don't qualify for reduced/free lunch, they take a packed lunch to school.  In an attempt to understand how I could have received such a message I came up with two theories

1.  Union was too lazy to figure out to whom this message applied so they sent it to everyone.
2.  Union wanted to trick as many parents as they can into applying for free lunch so they can get their sweet Title 1 federal money.

I spoke with a gentleman with the Union nutrition program regarding this email.  He seemed exasperated with talking to parents about this email (I'm guessing that it had taken up most of his morning).  I was told that it was a mistake and that it should have been targeted.  But something leaves me feeling unconvinced.

Now, I'm sure that it was a mistake for them to send this notice to parents who had children that were already successfully enrolled into the 2012/2013 program, but I'm not entirely convinced that it was a mistake to send it to the rest of us.
 
I've seen Union get really excited when one of their schools qualified for Federal Title 1 funding.  For an entire school to qualify for Title 1 funds, at least 40% of students must enroll in the free and reduced lunch program.  I'm convinced the maps they draw to determine which neighborhoods go to which schools are specifically designed to maximize free/reduced school lunch enrollees as if they were a commodity spent as wisely as possibly.   I believe Union would like to find a way to make all of their elementary schools qualify for Title 1. So I wouldn't put it past them to send out a note to all the parents that didn't enroll this year that was designed to maximize enrollment even if it was slightly misleading.

As soon as I get the forthcoming apology note from Union I'll post it  Hopefully it will shead light on this "mistake."

Final Tulsa Vision2 Forum Tulsan's say no

Vision 2 is a proposed $748.8 million Tulsa County tax package that would extend the current Vision 2025 sales tax rate of 0.6 cents for another 13 years starting in 2016.  Before voters vote on vision 2 in November, citizens from all over Tulsa County are providing their input for Vision 2 to their local elected officials.  

Friday night saw the final of five forums held for the citizens of Tulsa to give their input on Vision 2

The top 5 topics of conversation  with the numer of speakers were:

Opposition to Vision 2 - 22.  

Water in the river or some sort of river development - 13.  

The Tulsa Zoo - 4

The Thornton Y's wellness program - 3

A children's museum - 3

Other ideas of note included improvments to the Central libarary, parks improvements and improvements to the Botanical garden.

For a forum that was suppsoed to be about what people wanted to see in the Vision2 package to have nearly a third of the speakrs voice oposisiton to the proposal entereily was fairly impressive.

I was one of the speakers in opposition to Vision2.  Generally, although not always, I'm opposed to county wide sales taxes. Local municipalities like Tulsa are largely restricted in the manner in which they fund themselves.  Sale taxes are their life blood.  Every tenth of a cent that the county levees represents a loss of flexibility for a city in that county.

More specifically, I don't support extending a tax 4 years before it expires and I don't support the short amount of time we have to evaluate, debate, and discuss this issue before voters are asked to vote on it. I don't like the "We have to do something now" mentality.  If something is a good idea now, it will be a good idea later after sober thought and debate.

I would be more amenable to putting this off for a couple of years and to then bring this back as a possible city tax with a shorter length, and a smaller scope.

Michael Bates has done quite a bit of analysis on Vision2 over on his blog batesline.com
here
here
here
here


Below are some pictures I took at the Friday night Vision2 meeting.