Letters to the Editor 12/01/2010

To the Editor:

I already knew from his last two Nugget pieces that John Griffith and I definitely don't sing from the same songbook when it comes to schools and education. So I was delighted to read all the positive comments he heard when he went out to talk to the local parents and students about how they felt about the schools and the education they're providing ("How do Sisters families see school excellence," The Nugget, November 24, page 3).

And still he's concerned that they don't take test score comparisons to other schools as seriously as he apparently does. (See the paragraph that starts with "Despite all the test scores...")

Test score comparisons are at best a crude measure of school effectiveness. They can flag situations that are seriously out of whack in systems that are corrupt or badly run or just too large to manage face-to-face, but imagining that the difference between, say, 650 and 700 is as precise as all the digits in between imply is just wrong.

The members of the community that Griffith talked to aren't worried about test scores because they know with their own eyes, ears, hearts, and educated minds that we have the kind of school system that's worth moving to get into, and that the ongoing conversations among staff, parents and students provide the roadmap to how to keep getting better, which test scores do not.

Finally, there's nothing reported in the piece to support the warning in the last paragraph. Values vs. Basics is simply a false dichotomy. The connection between our educated community and our schools is much rarer than it should be and the most valuable thing we have. It's sustaining one of the best little school systems Kay and I have seen, and we've seen some excellent ones up close and personal.

It's a treasure worth nurturing, and if we have to trim the budget, let us do so locally based on what we know personally about helping our kids - and not on abstract measures and distant debates only maybe even helpful for others not lucky enough to have yet what we have already.

David Grady

•••

To the Editor:

Every city resident should pay close attention to the council vote on the water rate issue. The Nugget article last week made clear that residential users have been subsidizing commercial users for decades. Currently, more than half of the cost of water to the average city resident is to subsidize a much larger user; that is, many low-income families are paying part of the water bill for commercial users.

The local gas tax was considered the fair way to get visitors to pay for some of the road maintenance caused by their use of city streets. Likewise, if commercial users pay more for water, that increase will be passed on to customers and many, if not most, are visitors to Sisters.

Why should low income city residents pay for water use by out-of-town visitors to city restaurants, car washes, spas, FivePine, Best Western, the athletic club, etc.?

The gas tax was passed by the city council because no councilor liked the alternative of a utility tax that would have forced all cost of road maintenance to be paid by city residents.

The fair solution is to rework the water billing structure so that all pay for actual water used. In Sisters, water should be treated the same as gasoline; no person or business should be forced to pay for another. If that does not happen then ask yourself if the councilors that voted otherwise are representing you or the special interests that got them elected.

Mike Morgan

•••

To the Editor:

Not to be a smarty pants or anything...but from opening day the signs at the post office have been there and have been clear, people just needed to read and obey.

I am really happy to see that The Nugget and the police are taking a moment to bring attention to this and perhaps make my neighbors accountable for their errant driving behavior. While I follow the rules, frankly I am tired of having some imbecile almost hit me because they think they are more special and get to come in where the rest of us don't.

Michelle Poutre

•••

To the Editor:

It's time for dinner, so you stop in at the Sisters Waterworks Restaurant. You order a burger and a beer, eat your dinner, and ask for the check. On your check is a small charge, say $1, and it says "Commercial Table." You ask your waitperson about it and s/he says, as s/he points to a large table with many people, "Those are the commercial business owners, and in this restaurant you residential folks pay for what you eat, and a part of what they eat as well. That is the way it has always

worked."

That sounds silly, doesn't it?

In Sisters, every residential water user pays for a part of the water used by every commercial business; and you have been doing so for years. It seems reasonable and equitable that everybody should pay for only what they use. Tell the city council you want to pay for only the water you use, and nothing more. Tell them to charge the businesses for the water they use, and nothing less. Tell them it's time to stop the subsidy residential customers pay every month for the benefit of the commercial customers.

Pay attention to the way each councilor votes on this issue; it will tell you who their friends are.

Ed Protas