Letters, letters, letters

To the Editor:

I first learned of home schooling when my children were toddlers. A very religious family who lived next door to us were home schooling their son.

The idea of sending my five year old into an institutional type setting like public school in a large urban area didn't really appeal to me, so the home schooling approach caught my interest. I also did not consider academics important in early childhood and public school seemed to emphasize it, even in kindergarten. I wanted an environment for my young children that encouraged the development of wonder and imagination.

My home schooling neighbor did not share my reasons for wanting to keep her children out of the public school system. Her reasons compared very similarly to the reasons stated by the home school parents in the January 21 article in The Nugget ("Sister families pursue education alternatives").

She did not want her child to be tainted by the influences of children from families with different beliefs and value systems. She asked me if I would consider allowing my children to associate with a "rabid dog" as exposing one's child to these children of sordid environments was the same thing.

I did not agree. While I do agree that home schooling can be an enriching experience for younger children and their parents, I do not agree with the fear based attitude that drives many parents to do it.

If we are so certain that the values and beliefs we are teaching our children are substantial, why not put them to the test? Christ got right out and mingled with the sinners, he didn't hide himself behind closed doors with the righteous and fear the rest of the world.

Yes, your child may come home repeating some undesirable language they overheard or pretend to have a girl/boy friend in sixth grade much like first graders pretend to play house. But I would like to think that we could correct these matters at home and maybe somebody else's child will take home some of the healthier teachings that your child exposed him or her to.

Peer pressure is an issue, but kids need to learn to deal with it and parents need to serve to aid and guide, not shelter and control.

The real world is a battle ground of challenges, and who do we trust to send out to battle and succeed, the coddled and inexperienced, or the seasoned warrior?

Sharilyn Leonardi

To the Editor:

I suppose it's no great surprise that the Chamber of Commerce would unanimously endorse a large-scale sewer system.

But the City Council and the voters must insist that supporters of the sewer system identify just who will benefit from sewers before approving the project.

Sewers are apparently not necessary for the proposed Pine Meadow and Barclay Ranch developments.

My suspicion is that the chief beneficiaries of large-scale sewers will be new developments not yet proposed, especially new restaurants.

It may be that it is time for Sisters to have a McDonald's or a Denny's but, if so, those developments should pay the lion's share of the cost of the sewer system.

If the benefits will be broadly shared by the business community, then a sales tax would be the fairest way to finance the sewers.

That way local residents would be spared the costs of subsidizing new development through increased property taxes and special assessments.

Thus, the Chamber of Commerce should be called upon not only to explain why the sewer system is needed, but why financing it with a sales tax isn't the best method of ensuring that those who stand to benefit pay the cost.

Another question that ought to be answered concerns the effects of sewer-induced developments on traffic flow and congestion in the city.

It may strike some as unwise to follow the recommendations of a chamber whose members have been unable to support a couplet to alleviate existing congestion.

Won't sewers make a bad situation worse?

The fact that Ben Westlund, who has one of the worst environmental voting records in the legislature (earning a 7 percent rating in the 1997 legislature from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, including votes to allow mining in scenic waterways and in salmon streams), is promising to obtain clean water funding for the sewer system, only adds irony to an issue that demands a good deal more public information before it goes forward.

Michael Blumm

To the Editor:

As a parent of two basketball players from Woodburn High School, I would like to congratulate Sisters on an outstanding basketball team. The boys are a pleasure to watch and a credit to your community.

Unfortunately, the student body and the school administrators showed an appalling lack of good sportsmanship to match the talent of their team.

Nowhere else in this state have I seen teachers and administrators allow their student body to jeer and taunt the opposing team from the sidelines - much less build into their gym facility a "jeering pit" under the basket to encourage it.

When Woodburn parents protested the jeering Friday night, the response from the Sisters administrator in charge of the game was "It's not illegal." Is that the Sisters High School standard of sportsmanship? Anything goes as long as it's not illegal?

Again, Sisters should be proud of the basketball program it has built. However, I suggest that the several Sisters parents I talked with after the game who are also uncomfortable with the jeering pit, speak up. This is not the kind of poor sportsmanship I want to sanction in high school sports, nor the kind of sportsmanship I want teams subjected to under the guise of "home court advantage."

Jody Daniels Fischer

Chair, Woodburn School Board

To the Editor;

This letter is in response to the concerns of Jody Fischer.

It is important to note that my comments represent the opinion of only one Sisters School Board member and I am not speaking for the entire school board.

While I can appreciate this mother's frustration with her two sons losing to our powerful Outlaws basketball team, she needs to put the facts in their proper perspective.

I happened to attend last Friday's game and I want to assure the community of Sisters that our students were absolutely in no way acting in an unsportsman-like fashion. Quite to the contrary, they were excited and showing good school spirit.

It is true that singling out players to harass or using artificial noisemakers is not allowed by the OSAA. However, this did not occur on our part.

I will not stand idly by and allow this sort of false accusation to go unanswered when the truth of the matter is that our students, players and coaches have always exercised the highest level of sportsmanship, despite the behavior of opposing teams' players, coaches and parents.

Keep up the good work Outlaws and continue to set high standards for good sportsmanship.

Sincerely,

Bill Reed, Chariman

Sisters School Board

To the Editor:

Even a cursory analysis of what occurred when the Legislature chose to rewrite Measure 47 makes it abundantly clear that what was originally called "cut and cap" measure was significantly altered to benefit the State Government. We still got the "cap," what is missing is the "cut"!

Those same Legislators approved of a 20.9 percent increase in state revenue even while considering the rewrite of Measure 47. The question that begs asking is, "What happened to the voice of the people?"

How much am I talking about in terms of a windfall to the state...approximately $40,000,000. Do they intend on giving it back... I doubt it!

Fact: Deschutes County is working with a 15.3 percent cut due to Measure 50. That's OK, because we believe it was the will of the people

To quote a real visionary, former Governor Voinovich of Ohio who said, "Gone are the days when public officials are measured by how much they spend on a problem. The new realities dictate that public officials are now judged by whether they can work harder and smarter, and do more with less."

That is exactly the philosophy of the current Deschutes County Commission.

Bob Nipper

Deschutes County Commissioner

To the Editor:

Who would have ever thought that it would be illegal for local government officials to return property tax dollars to the taxpayer?

Deschutes and Linn County officials were recently told that it would take legislative action in order for them to return $11 million of unanticipated revenue.

What Oregonians didn't realize when they passed Ballot Measure 50 was that all expiring tax levy's would become a permanent part of the tax rate. I guess the drafters of Measure 50 figured that Oregonians wouldn't notice and that local officials wouldn't complain about the increased tax revenue.

According to state revenue officials, 20 counties are in a similar position. However, the taxpayer overcharge is much smaller in the other counties.

Why is the legislature refusing to convene a special session to correct this?

Legislative leaders do not want to deal with other issues that would be brought up during the session.

Second, by allowing the expiring levies to become a permanent part of the tax rate, local school districts collect a greater amount of their school funding from local property taxpayers, reducing the amount that the state contributes to local school districts. State revenue officials recently revealed that the state will spend $40 million less on basic school support this biennium due to higher than anticipated property tax dollars.

It is no wonder that Oregonian's distrust government and their elected officials. We give them every reason to believe that we are not interested in justice, fairness and just doing the "right thing" for the "right reason."

Linda Swearingen

Deschutes County Commissioner

To the Editor:

Local snowboarder, Chris Klug, is on his way to Nagano, Japan to represent the U.S. in the snowboard competition.

Best of luck to you Chris on your quest for gold. No athlete deserves it more. My family and friends will be watching your race on February 7 to see how this story begins.

Jackie Erickson & Family