After losing a bid for a $96 million bond in May by 340 votes, the McMinnville school board and staff spent several months reevaluating options. They still needed a bond, but the board questioned the community support.

The new plan was for a $62 million bond measure for more space and upgrades. It included an addition at the high school, classroom additions at three elementary schools, a new elementary school and upgrades at several schools.

We didn't have to start from scratch. Voter education from the first campaign gave us a head start for November.
Maryalice Russell, McMinnville Superintendent

Crowding and steady enrollment growth drove the bond measure proposal, which grew out of recommendations from a study by the Long-Term Facilities Task Force made up of more than 40 community members, students and staff. Appointed in September 2004, the task force reviewed school enrollment, projected enrollment and the condition and capacity of existing schools for almost a year. The result was a two-phase 20-year plan intended to meet immediate and future needs.

When the measure failed in May, the project list had to be pared down; however, voters now had a better understanding of the problem.

In addition, data from a survey last June allowed the board to rework the proposal to make it more appealing to voters who indicated they would support a lower price and no new high school campus.

Three surveys were commissioned throughout the course of the bond planning process: one after the task force recommendations in July 2005, one as part of the process to define the projects for the May bond in November 2005, and one after the May bond measure failed.

In August, the school board voted on the November proposal. The campaign started in earnest in September. The citizen's advocacy group added a prominent business owner to the committee as co-chair and some influential community members who had not supported the May bond.

Targeting supporters

The campaign plan called for a restrained, focused effort to identify and target supportive voters with personal contact. Information was produced by the district, but the primary campaign activities were coordinated by the advocacy committee. Three weeks of voter-identification phoning was conducted in September and October, and personalized postcards were sent to supportive voters. The identified voters, in combination with supportive voters from May who were not reachable, created a target of approximately 5,000 voters. Several mailings were sent to this group, parents and women-only households.

Returned ballots were tracked and "get out the vote" calls were made to the targeted voters in the last two weeks of the election.

"We knew we needed every supportive vote to win," said Russell.

Campaign fatigue affected volunteers

"After working so hard on the first campaign, people were tired and possibly skeptical about the outcome," said Russell.

Each of the district's nine schools helped fill phone banks on designated nights. Senior citizens volunteered for several nights of phoning. Incentives were offered to school PTAs. Volunteers came out for the main canvassing event in October.

Gay Campbell and Jeanne Magmer of C&M Communications wrote the campaign plan and analyzed the June voter survey. They were available for reviewing campaign materials and providing ongoing advice. Their expertise helped the campaign stick to the plan and provided reassurance that it would work.

There was anxiety, however, over the inability to measure campaign progress. Committee members grew concerned over the lack of visible presence in the community through lawn signs and newspaper ads. (Two other measures on the November ballot were more visible, yet unsuccessful.) In the end, our supporters realized that the key to winning this election by almost 1,500 votes was sticking to the targeted campaign plan in spite of the apprehension.