Letters to the Editor 02/18/2009

To the Editor:

The Sisters School Board and proponents of the local option for the school district are living in a fantasy world far removed from reality. Now is the absolute wrong time to ask for more money for the school district.

Our country is entering a second Great Depression. Oregon ranks among the very worst states in terms of unemployment, with Central Oregon's unemployment figures soaring well into the double digits. President Obama soberly warned us in his first press conference that the unemployment trend is accelerating and will be worse in coming months. Many people lost over half their retirement savings during the stock market's crash, leaving those on a fixed income especially vulnerable.

Nobody knows if the President's stimulus plan will work; if it does, it will take years, not months. Against this backdrop of nearly unprecedented uncertainty and sustained economic freefall, the school board has the audacity to ask voters for a long-term commitment to spending more money - before the full extent of the damage to our economy is even known.

This flies in the face of what personal-finance experts are telling us in the media. Without exception, they are all urging us to cut back spending now in any way possible in order to survive this deep and protracted downturn.

It's one thing to advocate voluntary donations to the school district, a worthy cause. But to attempt to mandate increased financial strain on families already struggling to survive is arrogant and destabilizing for our community.

If the local option passes, classroom sizes will be smaller. But not because of increased funding. No, it will be because more people who are struggling on the razor-thin edge of solvency will be forced to move out of Sisters, taking their kids with them.

Michael Cooper

•••

To the Editor:

I am a relatively new resident of Sisters (three years) with four children in the district and a professional who recently became unemployed after 31 years with the same company. Here is what I think about the Sisters Local School option:

We will do ourselves a major disservice if we do not renew the local option. Staff will be laid off. Class sizes will increase. Teachers and staff will be stretched thin and not be as available to teach and mentor students. Programs will be cut. Students will have fewer options. We will lose the positive momentum that exists here in our school system. This is not the direction I want for our schools or community.

The local school option has been in place for eight years and, thanks to Sisters taxpayers, we have had the funding to create a very strong school district. This community will continue to stand strong with public schools where all students get the best education possible, where students are prepared to see the possibilities and pursue their dreams to contribute and find their productive place in the adult world.

Strong, effective public schools are the cornerstone of this wonderful community. We need to maintain that local school option financial support more now than ever. As we struggle with the economy, job loss, less money to support our families, let's not lose sight of what we want our community to be. Let's not lose sight of how important our school district is to our community. Let's not shortchange our students or this community.

Vote yes on keeping the Sisters local school option.

Dan Stewart

•••

To the Editor:

I'm voting against the local option tax initiative. I value good schools but I'm annoyed and frustrated by the insidious pressure to support this program and the half-truths used to justify it.

The tax was an increase (a substantial one) when it was enacted the first time and it's still an increase and will be for as long as it's in place.

Good schools contribute to the overall value of a community but unlike the fear merchants that predict the demise of Sisters and the education system if the tax is not continued, I think we can get along fine without Mandarin Chinese and electronic blackboards.

We have excellent education facilities that are the envy of most towns in the state, if not the country. Any dissatisfaction with the public education system should be directed at the State or Federal level not at the town level - that's where the problem started and that's where the solution is.

The advocates of the tax continuation claim it was defeated on the last ballot because the voters didn't understand the contents. They also would like you to believe that if you are not for the option then you are un-American, don't like children or a little stupid. I'm none of these and I don't support the tax with a declining school enrollment and a very sick economy.

John Di Chiara

•••

To the Editor:

We moved to Sisters last summer from Pennsylvania. The summer we made the decision to search for a home in Sisters, we met some of the local teachers. They told us of programs such as "outdoor school", the "Americana Project" and competitive sports programs.

It was then that we knew we had to move rapidly to find a home and re-locate in time for our son to start middle school here. Since our move, he has not missed a beat! He loves the middle school and is immersed in all it has to offer.

A "Local Option" levy is a very creative and "out-of-the-box" approach to supplementing school funding. Even with the best stimulus package, the economy will not turn around immediately. Therefore, the states and local communities will have to fill in the gaps where funding falls short. The Sisters community has already been doing this very well.

There are many economic reasons to keep supporting the levy. Good schools attract new residents and businesses who buy homes and contribute to the local economy. Schools with facilities like our high school attract events that bring visitors to town. The school system is a large employer of local residents.

The Sisters community is in competition with others in Central Oregon for attracting new businesses and residents. We need to be ready when the lending markets open up and people begin buying properties and re-locating their businesses. Our investment now will pay huge dividends in the short and long term. If local option fails, people may reconsider investing here. I know these are financially challenging times, but "Local Option" must be supported now! Please vote YES!

Bette and Dave Johnson

•••

To the Editor:

Luckily for the people of Sisters, we were ahead of the curve. By the narrowest of margins we voted a few months ago to trim funding for our schools. Little did we know at the time that we were right on!

Since that time we have been hit hard with a global recession! People of all sectors are being forced to cut back. Meanwhile, our Sisters School District is pressing to ignore these strenuous times.

We were ahead of the curve last time. Let's honor our previous foresight. Vote NO on March 10.

Doug Wood

•••

To the Editor:

When my husband and I were looking to move out of southern Nevada three years ago, the final decision on which community to raise our family in was based on school districts.

You know which school district stood out to us.

I wasn't here to vote for local option in 2000, and 2004. Fortunately, people understood the value and voted in favor of it.

I have a kindergartener in the elementary school now and will have a kindergartener and first grader next year. I'm voting in favor of the local option not just for my children, but for the common good of all the kids in the district.

Even in difficult economic times, it is important to remember the importance of education, and that it is something that can never be taken away, and never lost. What a gift to all of the children in our district, the gift of education. Let us all continue to give them the best head start we can. Remember that this is not a new tax. This tax has been approved before, and education is no less important now than it was in 2000, and 2004.

Brady Patterson

•••

To the Editor:

Proponents of the local option obviously slept through Economics 101. They think they alone can maintain the status quo, while the economy crumbles around them. That's ignorant, arrogant, egocentric and, above all, irresponsible. Recessions/depressions don't ask politely for cutbacks, they demand them. "The rules apply to everybody, but me" is the attitude that got us into this debacle; let's not perpetuate it.

Let's dismiss the guilt trip. Generous funding in the past has proven that we, in Sisters, obviously care about education and our kids. However, some of us face some very difficult choices. My household income was cut 70 percent last year. I can't muster much sympathy for the district's nine percent cut, or much guilt over imposing it.

Let's lay the fear mongering and threats of devastation to rest. Every school district in the state (and beyond) faces the same crisis (or worse). Sisters schools are among the best. They're still going to be, without the option. Teach our kids about the American spirit rather than about whining for entitlements.

Be creative! Donate cash; double up, if you're feeling flush, to cover your less-fortunate neighbors. Volunteer your time and expertise (teach, coach, clean, mow lawns, cook, fund-raise - the possibilities are limitless). Cut sports and organize kids into a "student conservation corps" to build team and social skills while contributing to their school and community.

Tell Salem to stop legislating programs and suspend existing ones unless they fund them. Negotiate with unions (including the teachers' union) - it's their responsibility to both the district and their constituents to make some concessions.

Only when the money stops flowing will innovation begin. The "double majority" applies to this election. It requires 50 percent voter turnout to pass. Toss your ballot to deliver this message: "We've already voted." No vote is a "NO" vote.

Allyn Hardman

•••

To the Editor:

Just say "no" on the school tax levy...again.

Dave Kane's well-crafted 'Letter to the Editor' of February 11 certainly is on target!

Economics have changed, folks. Costs on everything have skyrocketed in the last couple of years but income has not. When taxpayers are forced to prioritize where their money will be spent on basic living expenses, it seems to be time for the School District to scale back as well. Of course, we'd love to see every child be enriched with extracurricular activities; however, not on the backs of citizens just holding their own in tough times.

As Mr. Kane suggested, those who would support the levy can voluntarily contribute directly to the schools. With a new administration in Washington D.C. the future economic climate is unknown. Please vote no, again, on the levy, which is a long-term commitment into an unknown future.

We addressed this issue just four months ago. We're voting again because the school district did not get the answer they wanted; how can this even be right? Realistically, the students will not become delinquents or suffer long term damaging effects if the taxpayers get a little relief until the economy is better.

Also, we should remember that taxpayers are still on the hook to the state for inappropriate funding to the school district through poor management and dishonorable conduct by the Sisters School District.

Debra Wagner

•••

To the Editor:

One statement at last Wednesday evening's meeting regarding development in the Metolius Basin has continued to gnaw at me.

Jerry Bogart identified himself as a Sisters City Council member and proceeded to state, truculently to my ears, that it's flat out wrong to change the rules that were in place when the two entities with a financial interest in the outcome made their investment. This bothers me on two levels:

Followed to a logical conclusion it says it's never appropriate to change rules on behalf of the larger public welfare in the light of new understanding, attitudes, insights: "Mr. Lincoln, when the slave-holders bought their slaves they followed the rules in place. It's too late to issue an emancipation proclamation."

The interests of developers and the larger public welfare aren't always in conflict by any stretch, but sometimes they are. If Jerry Bogart's statement represents the position of the City Council, I'm concerned that when such conflicts arise, the council will favor the narrow interest over the larger one, which is definitely not what I hope for from my government at any level.

I understand that there's been a long-running, frequently bitter argument over land use in Oregon, which is I presume where the truculence comes from. But I sincerely hope the discussion about development in the Metolius Basin can be about the particular costs, risks, etc. associated specifically with it.

Trying to shut down the discussion with "you can't change the rules" does both sides a disservice and treats the whole matter as just another point in an ideological debate. Several of the speakers who came later raised important, clearly valid concerns about the particular matter under consideration. Let's talk about those, please.

David Grady

•••

To the Editor:

Hopefully the stimulus package will pass today (Friday). Certainly not with the help of our Representative Walden. Does that mean that he does not want central Oregon to receive any of the stimulus money? It sounds like it!

Sue Edgerton

•••

To the Editor:

Saylor (Sy) Ennis of Sisters will celebrate his 99th birthday on March 2.

Greetings may be sent to him at PO Box 902, Sisters, OR 97759.

Thank you,

Darwin Ennis