Let's take some time to dig into the letter to the editor sent in by Grove City School Board member Leonard Clarke...
Point One: Criticizing the Critics - dealt with in the previous post. Case closed.
Point Two: Denegrating the School Board - Clarke thinks the critics are out the denegrate the successes of the school board. Sorry, but they have done that themselves. What are the successes? Take your time...think of something. Ultimately, what comes to mind? Tax hikes, big pay raises to administrators, hostility to critics.... Don't forget the $30 million in new spending that is comming! The teachers have been the success story - shame on the board for trying to take the credit.
Point Three: Students First - board member Bob Montgomery angrily asked then-candidate Jason Reeher if he would dare cut programs to help the budget. Then Montgomery, Clarke, and the rest of the board raised taxes AND cut programs. They didn't just eliminate "Yoga for Beginners" either - they eliminated crucial programs. Gotta pay for those pay raises somehow.
Point Four: Quality, Stable and Progressive Education Plan Needed - Odd that the quality programs from the last 100 years aren't good enough. Somehow, Clarke is trying to peg the board's problems on the teachers, students, and parents here. The same lessons that taught students for the last 100 years still hold relevance. Sure, some things have changed, but basic teaching principles haven't - and GC teachers are doing a fine job. Unfortunately, the board isn't.
Point Five: Waaaah! The State isn't Paying Us Enough! - It's an election year, and Governor Ed Rendell has just dolled out big money to school districts so they wouldn't have to raise taxes. The Grove City school board is raising taxes anyway. What a surprise! Let me guess...it's for the children.
Point Five: Using Seniors as Political Pawns - this is the one point that really irks me, and it proves that Clarke and his ilk are waaaaaaay out of touch. Us "watchdogs" have been saying for years that increased property taxes hurt those on fixed incomes and those with low wages (actually, they hurt everyone). This is a FACT. Just because Clarke has been in academia all his life and probably has a huge pension, doesn't mean that someone making $20,000 per year isn't affected. I have a relative who has lost his house by continually raised property taxes. If Clarke wants to close his eyes, plug his ears, and sing "la-la-la I can't hear you!" then that is his perogative. He has money. He isn't hit hard by his tax increases. He doesn't think anyone else is, either. Clarke is flat-out wrong. Again. If our commonwealth has the second amount of seniors in the country, quit taxing them senseless!
Point Six: Slots aren't the Way to School Money - congrats, Mr. Clarke, you guys got one right. Shooting down Act 72 was the right thing to do. Of course, you'll remember that I stood up and urged the school to vote that down, too.
Point Seven: School District Equal to Business - I can't believe I have to debunk this one again, but they must love it over there at the school board. They love to refer to Superintendent Robert Post as a CEO since he is over a $27 million budget and 300 employees. First of all, a school is non-profit. If a non-profit business were run the way the school is, they'd be out of business. If a non-profit wants money, they have to do fund raising. They have to ask the public for money. The school board (and administration) just takes money from the citizens without asking. A for-profit business couldn't work this way, either. They have to produce a good, market it, then sell it. If they want more money, they have to produce more goods. What has the school board sold you lately? If a business can't earn more money, they have to cut costs. When has the school board cut costs? In the real world, a CEO tells the employees, "sorry, we don't have any money this year, so no raises or extra expenditures."
Point Eight: Poor Post is Underpaid - who really cares what other administrators make across the state? This school board continually jumps off the bridge just because others do it. Maybe all of the other superintendents are overpaid! The school board never considers that one.... I would be willing to bet our district could find a superintendent for $80,000 per year - and he would love his job, love the students, and love the staff just as much. Giving Post $110,000 per year doesn't make him the best.
Point Nine: Post Keeps Saying, "I Don't Need a Raise" - yet the school board gives him huge raises, anyway. Post may sound altruistic, but for some reason, I keep missing the news story where he turns down the pay increase. That is an option, you know. Hey, school board - if you are looking for ways to cut costs, don't give a pay raise to a man who says he doesn't want one! Think of how many computers his annual raise would buy...wow.
Point Ten: I'm Proud to Raise Your Taxes - Clarke ends his letter by voicing his pride to serve on the school board. Good for him - he should be proud of community service. Let's just see if he's honest about it. Put that in your campaign flyer, Mr. Clarke: "I'm proud of raising your taxes. Someone who makes $110,000 per year needed it more than you. Don't forget the administrators who make $70,000...$80,000...even $90,000 per year. After all, you make enough money - I know this because I make enough and so do my friends. If you liked the last several tax hikes, wait until we drain $30 million from you for two unnecessary building projects. You'll feel proud, too! By the way...don't criticize me."