ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

LETTER: Don't spend excess school bond money

To The Telegram, Imagine purchasing a new car from your car dealer, and that dealer being the only place where you can buy a car. Now imagine that the car dealer dictates when you need to buy a new car, and sets the price. Further, imagine the ca...

To The Telegram,

Imagine purchasing a new car from your car dealer, and that dealer being the only place where you can buy a car. Now imagine that the car dealer dictates when you need to buy a new car, and sets the price. Further, imagine the car dealer calls you and tells you that they have charged you about 10 percent too much, and they are now trying to decide what additional options they are going to put on "your" new car, ensuring they spend all your money.

My guess is that you would be just a bit upset at that process.

How does that process differ from the Maple School Board and its struggles to decide how to spend extra bonding money left over from construction estimates?

Reporter Anna Kurth's Tuesday article in The Daily Telegram indicates the controversial bonding issue of the Maple School District is running a parallel course with the "car purchase" scenario. Of course, if you accept bids that are higher than reasonable, you will be faced with the dilemma of what to do with your windfall. Outside of a governmental agency, that behavior could be considered theft by deception. As responsible stewards of the Maple School District's funds, funds that ultimately come from the individual taxpayer, I would opine that the only honest option is to reduce the tax burden on the voters who approved a particular project, and don't create new projects with left-over funds.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kurth's story also indicated that the board agreed not to replace a board member who resigned. It seems to me that the board's charter calls for it to have seven members. The charter also includes mechanisms for replacing "lost" members. But, as stated by board member Evonne Zosel, "(We have) a good working board." I guess there is no room for dissension, differing opinions, or other points of view. I now wonder if the revisionist history omits "The Boston Tea Party" in their lessons.

-- Paul Stein,

Maple

Editor's note: For the sake of full disclosure, readers should know the letterwriter's spouse is The Daily Telegram's circulation director. Her work, however, is not involved with the Telegram's news or opinion decisions.

What To Read Next