If a government asks voters to approve a tax increase to fund certain specific things, it had better follow through. That ought to be as basic as motherhood, the golden rule and anything else considered decent in a civilized society.
It also ought to make the Salt Lake School Board's upcoming decision about how to rearrange boundaries, including whether to close Beacon Heights Elementary, a no-brainer. Last May, the board persuaded voters to approve a whopping $136 million bond to, among other things, rebuild Beacon Heights.How many voters decided to swallow hard and accept a tax increase based on that promise? Even if it was only a handful, the promise now is a sacred trust. The time for reviewing the school's future was before the bond election, not after.
Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson took heat last weekend for defending the school, with district officials saying they are merely gathering information at this time and it doesn't help to have the mayor act as if a decision has been made. They don't seem to understand. Now that they have reached deep into the pockets of taxpayers, they have no business gathering information that may make fundamental changes in what they do with the money -- at least not without substantial reasons.
By all accounts, Beacon Heights brings the district about as close to a truly competitive environment as it could get without vouchers or tuition tax credits. Its SAT scores are high, and it has a reputation for excellence that draws students from across the city and beyond. Only 130 of the school's 527 students live within its boundaries. The rest come willingly from other neighborhoods because they believe the school has something to offer their children. That type of excellence ought to push other schools to compete.
Sure, district officials never have said they intend to close the school. But the PTA president and others, including the mayor, have sensed movement in that direction. Enrollment figures show student populations are growing on the west side and shrinking in the east. One wonders why these projections were not more carefully considered before the bond election or why the district didn't hedge more on what it told voters it planned to do with the money. The district now says its pre-bond promises were "conceptual."
In any event, it is proper for the mayor and others to send warnings to head off what would be a breach of trust. Elected representatives should have the freedom to administer as they see fit, even if that means changing their minds from time to time. But the rules of propriety are not so broad when promises are made in return for tax assessments.