To the Gazette:

I would like to thank Bruce Bourget for his well reasoned and well written letter concerning the school bond proposal.

I believe we have seven school buildings, a building used for meal preparation for a year or two, along with a bus storage and maintenance facility presently under construction.

Are we not able to expand and remodel the basic structures to meet changing and expanding needs?  If we are not, why are the buildings not planned so they can be?

While I understand schools are public buildings that experience heavy traffic nine months of the year, I have trouble understanding how we wear a building out every 50 to 60 years to the extent they must be replaced.

I attended one of the public planning sessions to inquire as to how the maintenance budget is spent.  The answer:  I saw nothing to be accomplished talking business with an entity (the school district) who apparently think they can administer nine buildings without a maintenance budget.

There is a building on Fort Leavenworth built in 1847 (not a mis-print) to be used as a warehouse.  Today it is used as a warehouse.  That’s a maintenance budget properly spent!

I am rapidly approaching the conclusion that we need to restrict educators to teaching and devise another system for managing education’s finances.

I am also leaning very strongly toward a change to permit only the property owners, who fund education, to vote on school bond issues.

I am not against meeting valid needs, and planning as far forward as possible.  I?do think we should do so very carefully and reasonably.

It might not be inappropriate to recall School District 402 spent $111,098 of their funding provided to educate their children in 2006 to sue the legislature for a bigger portion of the tax pie at the state level. 

As Bruce pointed out, it really doesn’t make a lot of difference to me which of my pockets they take money from -- it all feels the same.  I believe that sum would have been better spent on educational pursuits.

Charles Hanna