Letters to the Editor 12/12/2007

To the Editor:

The school board is to be commended for its open letter to the community explaining why the Sisters School District will have $1.2 million in funding withheld by the state. It's a letter that should have been presented two years ago. Or, at the very least, before the last election of board members.

It's painful to drag this issue out further, but the school board's letter left some key questions unanswered. The letter states: "When the program changed to involve Sonrise ... neither the changes in the program nor any details about the program was presented to or approved by the board."

Who changed the program to involve Sonrise? Did the board members know it was being changed to include Sonrise but simply chose not to ask for "details" when they were not automatically forthcoming? Who were the beneficiaries of the "initial version of this program" alluded to in the board's letter before the program was changed to include Sonrise?

The letter also states, "...the district's interpretation of the relevant rules and feedback from ODE led it to believe that Sonrise was an alternative school..." Which person(s) is the letter referring to here as "the district"? That is, who believed that Sonrise Christian School was not a private religious school? The word "Christian" denotes a direct association with Christianity. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Whoever couldn't figure out that Sonrise Christian School was a religious school has no place working for a school district where critical funding depends on an understanding of and adherence to the principle of separation of church and state.

Both as a taxpayer and someone who is concerned about education, I question why those responsible for this mess have not been dismissed from their jobs.

Most private enterprises would fire someone who cost them $1.2 million, especially where a mistake so elementary was made. This lack of oversight by some of our current board members, whether due to complicity or gross incompetency, has cost our district - and ultimately our community's children - dearly. We must take the necessary steps, not out of vindictiveness but for the sake of good management, to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Michael Cooper

•••

To the Editor:

Regarding the recent "Open Letter to Patrons of the Sisters School District:"

In my view, this is simply a continuation of the obfuscation and lack of responsibility for this debacle that we have seen along. We are told there is no effective way to get at the people who cause this because we will be suing ourselves. So we are to accept, "we apologize" and simply move on. This insults the intelligence of many of us in the district.

Have we learned anything from this experience?

How can an interpretation of the ODE rules tell anybody that a Christian school was in fact an alternative school? This smacks of extremely faulty thinking and a determination to push forward regardless of the consequences.

"We truly wish we had known of or had uncovered the nature of this program so that we could have prevented or stopped this mess." Board members Smith and Lasken were on this board. Why was there no knowlegdge of this by the board? There must have been discussion at some point.

Was this part of our previously unrecorded executive sessions? I simply don't believe this explanation. They would expect us to believe that an error of this colossal magnitude just sort of happened and it really is the fault of confusing ODE regulations.

The best thinking of the administration and the school board, at the time, got us here. There is no avoiding this conclusion. In the best interests of the district, those that were part of this faulty thinking should step down. This would at least allow us to divorce ourselves completely from the mental process that caused this and proceed with a completely clean slate.

I am amazed at the arrogance that would allow someone to continue when they were part of the worst mess this district has ever seen.

Now the present administration has found a way for the taxpayers of the district to pay for this gross mismanagement of district funds. Whoila, another tax! I agree with Bill Mintiens, "it just seems to be a way to pay back the $1.2 million that we owe the state."

Terry Burke

•••

To the Editor:

I support the school construction tax if there is a corresponding reduction in property taxes that results in no increased spending by the school district.

Property taxes disproportionately hurt our poor and elderly. The poor are renters, and tax increases result in higher rental costs. Some elderly on fixed incomes will lose the family home because they can't pay taxes.

Why does the school district need more money? Enrollment is down, and most new arrivals will not burden the district because local housing costs are too high for working families with school-aged children. Our schools will likely have more income per student than most districts in Oregon.

The district recently sold $2.1 million in construction bonds without voter approval. Representative Gene Whisnant has been unable to get an opinion from the Oregon Legislative Counsel. There could be a statewide lawsuit to stop this practice and to provide equitable relief for taxpayers who have been encumbered by increased property taxes to pay for school bonds they never approved.

There is also the $1.2 million ODE problem. Any new tax would be used to pay this back, unless there is a cap on spending and a reduction in other taxes. It is not mandatory that property taxes increase 3 percent per year. There should be public pressure on our school board to justify any tax increase. The school district should tighten its belt and reduce costs to pay for misdeeds, not raise taxes.

Mike Morgan

•••

To the Editor:

I am a licensed general contractor, also licensed in Sisters. One dollar per square foot may not seem like a lot, but add it to the costs already levied on contractors in the area and the cost of construction/remodeling to homeowners will be prohibitive.

This will lead to a lot of unlicensed and unapproved building in Sisters. It will drive away licensed contractors.

Jim Shaw

•••

To the Editor:

I love the whole concept of the annual Starry Nights program here in Sisters.

Although I taught at Newport High School for 30 years and was around lots of fund-raisers, I had never even heard of anything like it until moving here five years ago.

But I got thinking after listening to The Anvil Blasters (a Sisters music group) at Sisters Coffee Company on Sunday, why not tweak Starry Nights a bit? Why not add one night of local country music groups?

For example, I'd love to attend a night with John Grant and the Western Revue and The Anvil Blasters sponsored by Starry Nights. Throw in Brian Hansen if you can. Do this in addition to the four usual Starry Nights acts, not just as introductory acts to them.

Or maybe add a total of three local nights (everybody in Sisters loves locals nights, right?), one for jazz, one for folk and one for country, or whatever. Perhaps charge less, $25 for the local Starry Nights performance admissions.

If Starry Nights already raises as much as its goal for Sisters schools annually, use the additional money to set up a scholarship for the brightest, neediest SHS graduates.

My wife and I went to the CMA Fest in Nashville this summer, four days and nights of some of the best old and new country music performers in the US. It was outstanding, but honestly I'd rather listen to the two local groups above than who we listened to in Tennessee (...well maybe not Martina McBride & Alan Jackson!). And I think you'll find that many others feel the same way here.

If this is not something that Starry Nights wants to do (although they appear to already have the organization to it), why not the Sisters Rotary or the Sisters Rodeo Association or...? Why not?

Barry Clock