Dear Editor,

This correspondence is in response to a letter published in the Sunday edition of the Daily News dated March 25, 2015.

Currently serving as president of the Bogalusa City School Board, I have cause to refute the claims of Mr. John N. Gallaspy concerning the validity of the proposed “PROPOSITION MILLAGE RENEWAL.”

In his Letter to the Editor, Mr. Gallaspy accuses the Bogalusa City School System and the Board of subversive tactics in the presentation of the notice to the voters of this district concerning the Proposition Millage Renewal.

I offer this explanation based of factual information:

• Giving additional support for construction, maintaining, operating and improving the public elementary and secondary schools – 22.060 mills

• Constitutional Tax – 6.430 mills

• Supports paying salaries and benefits for all school personnel – 12.000 mills

• Maintenance of schools – 7.760 mills

• Improving, maintaining and operating schools – 3.110 mills

• Maintenance and operations – 5.020 mills

• Giving additional support for the current operations of public elementary and secondary schools – 6.430 mills

TOTAL – 62.81 mills

As a point of information, all of the above listed millages are “RENEWABLE” by the voting public with the exception of the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX of 6.430 mills as prescribed by the Louisiana State Constitution. The remaining portions of the total 56.380 mills are renewed on a 10-year cycle depending on the date that they were first approved for levy by the voting public.

The 6.430 mills (giving additional support for the current operations of public elementary and secondary schools) that Mr. Gallaspy claims to be a “new tax” was last renewed on April 23, 2005.

To quote Mr. Gallaspy “The use of the word ‘RENEWAL’ is a purposeful untruth on someone’s part.” I have to disagree because the facts presented show that it is exactly that, a RENEWAL.

– Curtis Creel

President

Bogalusa City School Board

 

Dear Editor, 

Regarding the proposed school tax, let me make full disclosure stating that I worked to help found the Charter School and am presently a member of its board. A small pro-rated part of existing taxes goes to this school.

When the city systems ad came over, seeking passage of 6.43 mills, I told a friend I could not remember their having this tax. Court house records showed then as having two taxes: 40.75mills+22.06 mills=62.81 mills.

The ad referred to this proposal as being a “Special Tax”… for the purpose of giving ADDITIONAL support for the current operations…” it would have been difficult not to conclude that this was to be an additional tax, and I was not the only one confused.

Digging deeper today into the records, there is currently a special tax of 6.43 mills that was imposed a number of years ago, and the present proposal, despite confusing language, can be interpreted as a renewal, and I gather from the School Board’s remarks as reported in the “Sunday News” that it is intended that way. 

 I am relieved to be able to apologize to the School Board and to The Daily News for this error. 

The city system has had its travails, and I hope I can be forgiven for walking along with them and observing their peregrinations.

I wish all school well, and I wish them improvement. 

– Sincerely 

John N. Gallaspy