You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Ann Peconie says:

    YES! Finally reason has spoken clear…crystal……now that’s true journalism or editorialism, is that a word?

  2. P. K. Dick says:

    Normally I enjoy criticizing the Board of Education. This editorial is unfair. First it does not suggest what should have been cut in place of modified sports. At this point the Board has few options.
    Sure they could have done a better job building support for their budget. This fault and others deserve criticism.
    The Recorder could have done a better job educating the voters. If the voters must vote on the budget the process doesn’t work if the press drops the ball. This is a fumble by the Recorder as well as the Board.

  3. bethany says:

    I’m just stunned they bothered to write their own editorial; they usually just pirate it from other papers.

  4. Norman says:

    Yeah, where was the Recorder when both it and the BOE “gave the …” to Bacon parents? They did not even bother to write an editorial on the museum vote. Quite frankly, I think the Recorder took the low road here with its obvious pandering and threatens to become low brow with its locker room language.

  5. w murphy says:

    Not sure if Gina DeRossi still reads the blog, but if so I’d question the Board’s assertion that they are required by State law to charge for use of facilities during a contingency budget.
    I say that because I believe the law they refer to basically states that the District must charge for expenses incurred for non-educational activities during a contingency budget. It does not specifically state that you must charge for outside use of buildings- unless it added an extra expense.
    Technically, if the schools were open regardless (for say cleaning, tutoring, etc)- keeping them open for CYO to use the Gym is not an extra expense. Now on the other hand if they’re saying a janitor must be otherwise paid (or given OT) to man the buildings for the CYO game- then that makes sense to have to charge a fee.
    But even in that instance, I notice in today’s Gazette article they intend to charge a fee AND janitor’s costs- this doesn’t seem correct. I’m just wondering if this law is being misinterpreted perhaps.
    At the very least they should push the boundaries to see that there are no undue affects on the outside groups- the community pays for all these facilities- they should bend over backwards (within regulation) to accommodate us.

Leave a Reply