District 833 + Kraus-Anderson = LOVE

Roses are Red

Violets are Blue

District 833 

Loves

Kraus-Anderson
But
Do
YOU?

Pay-to-Play is used in a variety of situations.  One definition of pay-to-play is when money is exchanged for the privilege of engaging in business or contract opportunities.  Did Kraus-Anderson donate to the South Washington County School District, Vote Yes Committee, to get in the game?  You be the judge.

Vote Yes committees are informational campaigns set up with the help of school districts to promote a referendum. They receive donations from powerful teachers unions and other special interest groups. The following is the Campaign Finance Report from the Vote Yes Committee dated November 11, 2013:

 As you can see from the slide above, Kraus-Anderson donated $2,500 to the Vote Yes campaign to support the referendum.  District 833 was asking voters for $8.5 million to purchase land for a new school.  The ballot question failed.

Kraus-Anderson has an extensive portfolio and has completed many construction projects in District 833 and 834 using taxpayer dollars:

Both the South Washington County Bulletin and the Woodbury Bulletin published the story above.  District 833 is retaining Kraus-Anderson for construction management for projects planned in the coming years.  Based on the evidence we at MN Hockey Mama have presented; what do you think?  Did Kraus-Anderson donate to the Vote Yes Committee to obtain an extensive, multimillion dollar contract?

 We at MN Hockey Mama pride ourselves on "connecting the dots" for you and posing the tough questions others are afraid to ask. Please subscribe for the latest news in South Washington County and the State of Minnesota.

Let's "Talk About Issues," But Only If We Like What You Say

Recently, Kirk Burback (South Washington County School District 833 parent), attempted to make comments on the District 833 Vote Yes committee's campaign page on Facebook.  He posted two comments, the first one on the committee's assertion that the district isn't planning to spend taxpayer money on iPads (the district has already bought approximately 1100 iPads for five schools and all the district preschools, and plans for all 17,300+ students to have district-provided iPads is in the district's "T3" Plan, but that isn't the reason why the district NEEDS "Q2" to pass...), but on "boring stuff" like servers and switches and the like:

Nothing combative or attacking in these comments; just some good questions, right?  

Then Kirk left a comment on a second post by the Vote Yes committee:

Apparently, contrary to the assertion by the Vote Yes committee in the above post that they want to "talk about the issues," they only want to talk about issues with people who agree with them as demonstrated by the fact that Kirk's comments were deleted and he was blocked from the page:

So, do the Vote Yes committee leaders really want to "talk about issues"? Or do they want to talk about issues, but only if what is being said furthers their agenda of selling the community on why they need to give up more of their hard-earned money to the insatiable education machine?  What does this say about the Vote Yes people?  Many of the those on the Vote Yes committee serve on various district committees and are very friendly with the administration: if the Vote Yes people actively censor legitimate questions and comments from their Facebook page, does it show that they really want to "talk about issues"? And what does that say about the administration that is hoping that the Vote Yes committee succeeds in convincing the taxpayers to approve the levy and bond referendums on November 5?  Experience has shown that this administration is not fond of actually listening to the people, unless it is to discover what the community truly cares about and then doing the opposite (busing/walking distances, last year's budget cuts, iPads all come to mind...).  

 My mama always told me, "Show me your friends, and I'll show you who you are..."