DW Letter
"The first is what was formerly called the M&O, and is intended to help pay for items such as: salaries and benefits for coaches, counselors, nurses and substitutes; utilities, transportation of our teams and clubs; curriculum; building maintenance; and technology...."

Am I alone in being put off on how they promote these levies? What is the fist thing they mention when promoting it, salaries and benefits for coaches. Substitutes was mentioned last when talking about jobs. Maybe they were listing by alphabetical order, but then they go on and curriculum was mentioned after utilities, sports, and clubs. Technology was mentioned dead last. This is the first time I'm considering voting no on these. This is a SCHOOL levy where I assume kids are being taught how to read and write, not how to throw a football or play chess. After school activities are great, but I remember going to MHS as a kid and having old text books and antique computers to work on while the sports teams had brand new equipment.

Levy Info

Montesano School levies pay for programs such as:
• Vocal Music
• Advanced Placement, College Prep & Career & Technical classes
• Curriculum Upgrades (books & materials)
• Extra-curricular Programs: Drama, Pep Band, Athletics,
• Clubs: Math Olympiad, Knowledge Bowl, etc.
• Athletics
• Transportation for Teams, Clubs & Activities
• Professional Development
• Technology: Support
• Library Materials
• Food Service
• Custodial & Maintenance
• School Nurses & Counselors
• Transportation Operations

Salaries & Benefits including extra-curricular personnel and activities, vocal music, drama, and athletics as well as nurses, counselors and substitutes $873,000
Technology $150,000
Non-employee related costs such as utilities, Transportation (athletics & clubs) $125,000
supplies and services $325,000
New Curriculum Adoptions $150,000
Operations/Transportation & Maintenance $300,000
Extra Time for Professional Development $ 95,000

Am I reading this wrong or did they put aside $150,000 for tech support? Why do they make teachers part time network admins? They could get two very competent IT professionals to work 9 months a year for $50,000 and still have another $50,000 for school related state tech questions. They dropped the only tech that knew a PS2 port from a hole in the ground and gave Tim his job back.

I lost all faith when I started paying attention to what the Administration was doing with my money. The School Board seems to do whatever Marti tells them to do, harsh I know, but that is my perception. I am frustrated that the District appears to be more concerned with how there buildings look than how they function. Simpson has smaller classrooms because the architect wanted curved hallways, come on! I have two kids in the District and I am on the fence on this vote where I have never questioned a levy before. The core business is academics, they need to remember that. I think the District would get a lot of community support back if they dumped the Superintendent and the High School Principal who never should have been hired anyway. Everyone needs to read Dan Wood's guest editorial in the Vidette.

I'm torn.

I grew up in a school in which chronic levy failures combined with teacher strikes really disrupted learning. As a 7th grader, my school hours were 6:30am to noon, because the school was operated in shifts. 7th graders took the morning shift, and 8th graders the afternoon. It was problematic to say the least asking 12 and 13 year olds to get up at 4:45 to catch the 5:30 bus.

A failed levy because of a perception of mismanagement can easily create a self-destructive precedent.

I really hate agreeing with Dan about anything, but in this case, I think he's largely right.

I am right there with you, as far as agreeing with Dan, it can be painful. I think when it comes down to it I will vote in favor just because of the potential impact. I just wish the school board would show more back bone and ask the tough questions. The response I have received from them is to blame it on the teachers, not management. They need to remember teachers are the life blood of the District and need the support of the board.

Neither you nor Lumberjack should let it bother you. I've agreed with Dan a couple times in my life. There! My secret is out.

I consider Dan a friend. Aside from good taste in wives, wonderful children, and a sense of humor, we have nothing in common, except we like each other. He is usually on the wrong side of issues, but he is always researched. He may, often come to a really warped intepretation of the facts, but I've never found him to be off on his facts.

There are worse things you can do than admit Dan is right... but, not many.

I'm optimistic about the new batch of commissioners. I think they understand their job and take it seriously.

I with you guys, I have friends who are teachers and have you young ones that will be MHS students. I don't like the current administration, but don't want to setup a poor system for when my kids will be using it.

Castle Rock? At least, that's where it sounds like you're describing...

Silverdale

Ah...

I take it Silverdale wasn't as prosperous then as it appears to be today.

Prosperous? I dunno. Cheap? definitely.

I think the school board did the two-shifts thing to punish the community.

It sucked to be a kid in those days.

I just meant that I was under the impression that it was a prosperous community with lots of high-paid nuclear personnel living there and good property values. Just seems like the type of community that would support education. Maybe it wasn't that way back in the stone age when you went to school?

Yup. Then it was populated by highly-paid coal-fired boiler engineers, and buggy whip makers.

I think the property values were part of the problem. Back in those days of the first oil crisis and the beginning of rampant inflation, property values began to climb. Those climbing property values led to climbing tax bills.

I see...cheap-ass buggy whip makers, eh?

DW Link

I am among the many frustrated parents and taxpayers living in the Montesano School District, and I am one who just voted “no” on the levy propositions.

My main reason in doing so has nothing to do with the children or teachers in the district. Instead, it has everything to do with continuing to demand accountability of the people in charge of running the daily affairs of the district.

I have grown tired of the seemingly constant requests for money coming from the school district. Over the past five years, the district has had to borrow money more often than not just to make payroll. Now the district is under a mandatory financial watch from the state government, and the district is asking for taxpayers to help bail them out again.

Granted, the rate for the proposed levy is less than the current rate. However, property values have risen, meaning that assessments will be higher. People will end up paying more to the school district than they currently do.

While we hear that we “need” more money for buses, why are local taxpayers being hit with an extra bill for those buses when the state has been reimbursing the district for years? Why is it that neighboring districts can make this work and Montesano cannot?

Finally, I am frustrated with the editor’s suggestion last week that voting against the levy would be punishing the children. Does this mean that voters should automatically say yes to everything the school board asks? If so, why even have an election?

Voting for the levy is merely enabling the poor management that has brought us to this point. I am confident that over the long-term the new school board will be able to work out many of these issues that have been left unaddressed for several years. Perhaps if enough progress is made, they can earn support for future levies.

Meanwhile, I encourage voters to reject this excessive levy and ask the board to come back with a more reasonable offer in April or May.



The best lesson to teach our children now is discretion — not how to engineer a quick fix. It is time to stand up for accountability and restraint.

Scott Dilley

Montesano

I hadn't decided until today, after reading Jack Dwyer's OP-ed in the Vidette, how I'm going to vote.

It's going to cost me more than $1000 per year, and my student probably won't participate in many (if any) of the main programs funded by the levy but I'm voting yes. I think the new board in general, and Jack particularly, have their heads on straight. I guess for me it's almost entirely a matter of trust.

That said, it is absolutely not an easy decision. I do not fault anyone for coming to a different conclusion.

And it was called Stonedale.

Besides, you know what happens when you feed stray animals...