Friday, May 17, 2024
52.0°F

Thanks for the help

| April 27, 2005 11:00 PM

To the editor,

The Blankenship Volunteer Fire Department would like to thank so very much those who helped us make the school bus disaster drill a complete successful training: The young men and women and the adults of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Columbia Falls Fire Department, Three River EMS, ALERT helicopter, Flathead County Sheriff's Department, Brad and Ed from the Columbia Falls school bus system, Dave Prunty from the Solid Waste Office, Columbia Falls Burger King and the U.S. Forest Service.

Diana Waldheim

Blankenship Fire Department training officer

The goose is cooked

To the editor,

This is my third letter to the editor in regards to the massive litter problem in Columbia Falls.

Mrs. Laura Bell, another concerned resident, and I hooked up to see what we could do about it. We attended a city council meeting on Jan. 3. I asked how much revenue was generated by the existing litter laws. Answer: None. Why? No signs.

Mrs. Bell and I said we would spend our own money for signs and do what we could to raise additional funds. We were assured that the city would find the funds. We were also informed that the fines would be increased from $100 to possibly $600, even possibly $1,000.

The superintendent of streets, Mr. John Lawler, had my name and number and knew after several phone calls that I wanted to be involved with the design of the signs and notified of any progress.

When no calls came, I attended another city council meeting on April 18 for a progress report. Bill Shaw, city manager and also my neighbor, said seven signs were made and ready to be installed when the ground thawed. In the mildest winter in recent years, I was unaware that the ground had frozen.

I went to see Mr. Lawler the morning of April 19 to see the signs. I was excited. I was told, "What signs? There are no signs." I was dismayed and disappointed and especially angry that I had been lied to in front of the mayor and the rest of the council members.

I later spoke to Mr. Shaw by phone and got no satisfaction. Is he socially inept? Absolutely yes. Would an apology or explanation have helped? Absolutely yes. Did I receive one? No.

Which leads me to wonder: Is Bill Shaw good for Columbia Falls? I doubt it. Is he as inept at managing our town as he is socially? Probably. Who would lie in front of witnesses and thus alienate an unpaid volunteer who wishes nothing more than to better her community?

The goose is cooked. I'm done. People don't get to "do" me that way. Pick up the litter yourself Mr. Shaw. I won't do it anymore.

Cindy Howell

Columbia Falls

The $100,000 teacher

To the editor,

On March 8, the West Glacier School Board voted to run yet another mill levy, this time for $25,868 and again asking district voters and taxpayers to again accept another financial burden.

Once again, I am compelled to ask: Why can't the board figure out how to "live within its means." I believe a major part of the answer is that this board seriously lacks the required business skills and budgeting knowledge required to do the right thing and/or to do the job right.

To this irresponsible and unnecessary board action, my response is no. To the district voters and taxpayers, I again say - do not accept this unreasonable tax burden. Vote smart, vote no on the levy.

At the March 8 board meeting, I was informed by the board chairperson Sharon Bengtson and district clerk Jill Kaufman that $10,000 of last year's $21,723 levy was not needed and was returned to the taxpayers.

By no coincidence, this was the exact "in excess" amount I had indicated in my letter to the Hungry Horse News dated April 26, 2004. My inquiry to the Flathead County Superintendent of School's office revealed that the $10,000 was not returned to taxpayers but instead went into a "cash reserve account."

So now the question is, "How much of this $25,868 levy amount is really needed, or is it needed at all?" Especially in view of the fact that House Bill 63 will be providing "substantially more money to schools in Montana" and that the district already has $10,000 in a cash reserve account.

Currently two teachers at West Glacier School earn in excess of $102,000. I consider this a gross overpayment and inefficient use of taxpayers dollars, especially when you consider the board's dire financial claims.

For the 2002-2003 school year, the board offered $21,114 per year for a Montana-licensed teacher. So why do we need to pay any teacher more than $50,000 to work 180 days a year to teach such a small number of students?

Of great interest here is Article IX of the 2001-2003 West Glacier teachers contract that allows the reduction of any certified staff member due to a decrease in enrollment or reduction of funds.

Why doesn't the board either hire two new teachers at a greatly reduced rate of pay or ask the two existing teachers to accept a reduction in their pay in order to meet the allotted budget? If they accepted reduced pay, they would still have a great job, and the school could easily remain open and be within its budget.

With the proposal of this levy, this board is doing absolutely nothing to "live within its means" and has also not taken any action to lower the abnormally high cost per pupil or to find any "balanced" budget solutions.

According to the Montana Department of Public Instruction, the cost per pupil at West Glacier School for 2003 was $10,079. The Flathead County Superintendent of School puts that figure at $8,510.15 for 2003. Either figure is way above the average cost per pupil of $5,400 in 2003 for school districts throughout Flathead County.

Do I believe in paying my fair share? Absolutely. In the last three years, my wife and I have paid $3,638 in taxes for "education." Do I believe in supporting mismanagement of taxpayer dollars - no. Did my taxes increase by $8.37 as a result of last year's levy - no they increased by $68.

If School District 8 taxpayers support this upcoming levy for unnecessary and wasteful dollars, then they need to prepare themselves for a similar action each and every year to come as long as the current board exists.

My true belief, as a result of all the levies proposed, is that there are too many staff members, too few students to justify current staffing levels, and that two teachers are actually directing the West Glacier School operations, not the elected board.

I therefore strongly urge all School District 8 taxpayers to vote smart and vote no on the May 3 West Glacier School District levy.

Larry Mackin,

West Glacier

Editor's note: The School District 8 mill levy election was canceled as the newspaper went to press.