DASSEL-COKATO – The idea of the Dassel-Cokato School Board adopting a new logo has been a hot topic around the community recently.
At its December regular meeting, the board decided the logo would be discussed at it Thursday, Jan. 28 meeting. But due to the amount of discussion the logo has generated, the board chose to be responsive sooner rather than later.
The board took the time during its Thursday meeting to discuss the logo and whether or not it would be placed on the agenda for the upcoming meeting.
Students in grades seven through 12 voted Dec. 17 on the current logo and three other logos designed by Brett Olson of Overtime Ink in Cokato.
The majority of the votes (344) went to the logo with a horse head, and 287 votes went to keeping the current logo.
School Board Chair Kevin Dahlman clarified some misinformation that had been circulating within the community.
Among the clarifications was that Activities Director Perry Thinesen was simply responding to the citizens’ requests to looking into a new Charger logo. He was not leading the effort, Dahlman said.
“He brought it forth as any administrator should,” Dahlman said in Thinesen’s defense.
Dahlman told his fellow board members there were things of higher priority that the district should take care of and advised the discussion of a new logo should not be placed on the Jan. 28 agenda.
Board members Richard Tormanen, Mark Linder, and Tracy McConkey agreed with Dahlman.
“No one contacted me who was in favor of it,” Linder said.
“We need to be respectful of the taxpayers,” he added, saying not only for the financial aspect, but what the logo represents.
Board member Irene Bender said that tradition is important, however, the students did vote to change the logo (486 for a new logo and 287 to keep the current logo) and “their voice should be heard.”
“Evidently, this is important . . . and I feel we need to respond,” Bender said.
Dahlman added to Bender’s comment saying he was surprised at the amount of response to a possible logo change and that it was hard to find a positive side to this particular change.
McConkey commented on the inaccuracies he has heard about what a new logo would cost the district, but was concerned about the board’s impression to district taxpayers.
Superintendent Jeff Powers spoke to the board saying, “This never would have been brought to you if it were a high cost item.”
Nor was the idea of a new logo meant to be divisive in any way, Powers said, adding he wouldn’t want to see something as “inconsequential as a logo” split the community.
Bender agreed with Powers, but was concerned about what message the board was sending to the students who voted.
Dahlman noted that this logo change was “building legs out there . . . and not in the right direction.”
Bender made a motion to have the logo be placed on the Jan. 28 agenda, but it died for lack of a second.
As the new story about the logo mentioned and as I understood it; this was not supposed to be a high dollar item for the school. It was going to be a gradual turnover when things were up for replacement in the schedule of such items. Such as when uniforms were replaced (I think that is a four to six year cycle perhaps)…they would then have the new logo on them. The changeover was to occur over that 4 to 6 year period of time. Nothing was ever mentioned that said that they were going to repaint everything and replace every scrap of material at the school that had the old logo.
The name of the school mascot would not change…just the logo that goes with that name. It was a question of which logo is preferred. The school children voted for a change…but it was a close vote. The public seems to overwhealmingly be voting to retain the old logo. I question how much of that sentiment is coming from perceived costs with making a change and how much is which logo is best liked.