Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

In his letter of April 17, Howard Paine expressed his concern about use of taxpayers dollars by the Sisters School District. While he had the courtesy of writing to me asking for information about his questions, he has neglected to include all the facts relating to the issues he raised in his letter.

When the high school was being designed, the district was faced with the challenge of obtaining water. The first idea was to drill a well and operate our own water system. As part of that proposal the fire safety requirements would have demanded a huge pump with standby generator and a reservoir for fire protection. The initial cost of the well, pump, generator and reservoir as well as the ongoing costs of operating our own water system caused the district to look at other alternatives.

An option to hook into the city system was explored. This would allow the district to save money by down-sizing the pump and eliminating the generator and reservoir as well as not incurring the ongoing costs of operating the water system with all the required regulations and tests. This option was chosen and the city was deeded the well and has operated it since the school opened.

As a user of city water, the district is very concerned -- as are all the users in the city -- about the increased costs that have occurred due to the metering and new rates. The district has spent $13,859 for water in the first nine months of this school year. We are budgeting $30,000 for the 1996-97 year.

While this is not a big problem during the school year, during the irrigation season we are irrigating all the fields in the district and the costs have escalated.

We are looking into installing a well for irrigation purposes only. Initial numbers tell us this could be a cost effective way to keep our fields intact as well as reduce costs to the district.

In regard to the classified benefit package. The district employees 53 classified staff. Seventeen of these employees work less than four hours a day and receive no benefits. Of the remaining 36, 30 are considered full-time employees and receive a benefit package. Six employees work between four and 6.5 hours per day and by contract receive full or partial benefits.

Those employees hired before July 1, 1994 receive full benefits while those hired after that date have benefits prorated.

The district has made great efforts to control costs in this area by having employees receiving benefits take extra duties, such as a four-hour bus driver picking up four hours of custodial time thus reducing the need for another employee, and not hiring employees for more than four hours when possible, thus not requiring a benefit package.

The Sisters School District continues to look for ways to control costs and maximize the effectiveness of the dollars it receives. We urge patrons to offer suggestions and get involved in this effort.

Earl P. Armbruster

Business Manager

Sisters School District

The upcoming vote on the school bond issue presents a dilemma for some conscientious supporters of the Sisters schools. We want to be supportive.

In this instance, however, there are reasons why the best thing one might do to support the schools is to vote against the bond proposal. That's because a second rejection of the bond should prompt the school board and administration to seek more imaginative solutions to the funding problem.

Efforts to deal with the physical aspects of an expanding student population have yielded a number of fine suggestions. But the bond is the only solution being offered for the financial side of the problem. Surely there are other possibilities. For instance, there are elements included under the bond which might qualify for foundation grant aid, thus sparing the local taxpayer a portion of the burden.

So here's a suggestion: When the school district business manager was transferred into that position it was announced that one of his duties would be to locate funding for the district. I'd suggest that he, or another senior district employee, now be charged with organizing a task force effort to aggressively attempt to identify alternate funding. The idea would be to strive to unearth money that does not require placing an additional tax burden on local property owners.

If this good faith effort failed, then it would be appropriate to approach the voters with the request to approve a bond issue. Right now the proposal seems premature.

There is another reason to suspend action on the bond proposal. A new superintendent is about to come aboard. While the present administration has been unable to solve the school overcrowding problems without asking the voters for more money, the new manager of the Sisters School District may have some creative solutions not previously considered.

I suggest we await his input.

Sincerely,

Jim McWilliams

I am writing to express my support for public education in our community and to encourage the patrons of our School District to vote for passage of the upcoming school bond issue.

I recognize that the argument could be raised that the bond as presented offers neither a permanent solution to the problems raised by growth, nor is it a perfect solution in the present.

Indeed, aside from the collapse of the national economy, it appears that people will continue to move to our area, so growth is with us to stay. This necessitates that we continue to build to support that growth. Thus this building program will not be a permanent solution. And, if money were no issue, we could construct a building and staff it so as to have a better program than passage of the current bond will allow.

However, money is an issue. In fact, if were able to build just exactly the facility that we might most desire (probably a fully dedicated middle school), we would be unable to staff it, based upon the current levels of state school support. The cost of operation per square foot would be such that we might well end up with a facility that we could not open or operate.

I cannot bring myself to believe that such a construction program is in the best interest of the patrons of the school district, of which I am one.

This is in addition to the fact that the construction bond would need to be nearly twice as much as is currently being presented, if we were to pursue the middle school option.

Therefore I am in full support of the proposed course of action to address the needs raised by continued growth in our student population.

After careful study on my part, I am convinced that the bond proposal is a reasonable approach to our current needs. It is a prudent use of the resources that are provided by you, the tax-paying public. It gets the most for our district for the fewest number of dollars. It comes on line more quickly than other options that were considered, which is a critical concern given the overcrowding crisis that exists in our middle/high school facility. It spends money where we most need to spend it, and is a wise investment in the future.

Certainly there are problems with the proposal, but there are fewer difficulties raised by this proposal than accompany the alternatives.

For the above reasons, and more, I am in support of the proposed bond, and urge your support as well. It is, I believe, a wise step in the process of providing a quality education for our children, who are our future. Sincerely,

Harold Gott

How low can we go?

What is the level when children are coached to ask taxpayers for more money for a system that is floundering?

Are we part of a system that is guided by NEA-OEA-OSBA-NSBA-COSA and others, all of which are directly or indirectly supported by taxpayers and are growing steadily? That system may include lawyers, lobbyist, architects and others who get fat because it is a floundering system.

Are there leeches in the system who are poor or mediocre employees on tenure who are receiving the same salaries and benefits as the top-quality employees?

Property taxation is the simplest and easiest method for politicians, trustees and administrators whether elected or appointed to freely spend other people's money. One of the end results over the past half century is confiscatory taxation that could be destroying the liberty and justice we talk about.

Fortunately, there are many fine professional people in the system, especially among the teachers. I am sure they are as frustrated as many interested caring people are.

Short-sighted, Band-Aid planning has no place in school spending. Two-million dollar slush funds are not appropriate and very rigid priorities should be established on how they are to be spent. Let's get our new superintendent on the job before we create any more mistakes that we will have to live with.

Clifton Clemens