|
|
|
MailTribune.com
  • Letters to the Editor

  • The Medford School Board has some new members and a mandate to continue moving in the same direction, thus the board should extend the superintendent's contract.
    • email print
      Comment
  • The Medford School Board has some new members and a mandate to continue moving in the same direction, thus the board should extend the superintendent's contract.
    Those who voted elected members who can work favorably with Phil Long. The 83 percent who didn't vote demonstrated that there was no groundswell against the school's direction and Superintendent Long.
    After the school board elections, a member played politics in trying to terminate Long's contract before July when the new board would be seated. This member should resign. A school board member should not play politics.
    The majority of voters cast their votes against those who did not support Superintendent Long. This political member ignored the wishes of the voters. Is this the same member who was bossy toward a teacher?
    Ninety percent of those who started school in the Medford School District graduate. This means that the district has standards that are met, thus, the district has an excellent group of teachers.
    Sixty-four percent of high school students graduate. Most new students are far behind in reading and writing. Even a 100 percent effort by the teachers is not enough to keep low-skilled students from becoming frustrated and quitting. — Bill Hartley, Medford
    In your MT editorial Sunday, you criticized our commissioners for wanting to put the proposed surcharge (new tax) on the ballot instead of using their power to implement it.
    Wouldn't that be easy — every time they needed more money, they simply raise the monthly fee until it reaches its limit, then just add another surcharge (new tax). Don't think for a minute that it wouldn't happen.
    You also supported the idea of letting our elected leaders make these decisions on the people's behalf no matter what the people want. Remember, the poll was 57 percent against the surcharge (new tax).
    Breidenthal and Rachor did what they should be doing, asking the people. You said that without new sources of revenue some county services will disappear or will be drastically cut. The people already know that and still are against the surcharge (new tax).
    You should be pointing out the real reasons why we will have to cut our services. Look at how much the county paid in to PERS for starters. — Greg Egan, Medford
    In Carl Prufer's letter (June 30) reference is made to "international insurance agencies" and his contention is supported by advertisements in EOS (Transactions of American Geophysical Union, 18 June 2013). Swiss Re and Munich Re are concerned about the costs of extreme weather and other climate-related losses for which they "reinsure" insurance companies worldwide.
    In the same issue of EOS, there are two technical articles on climate change and an advertisement by the Nature Publishing Group (a Macmillan subsidiary) about a new journal titled "Nature Climate Change."
    Global private enterprises are taking climate change seriously. SOCAN (Southern Oregon Climate Action Network, www.soclimate.org) does also, and so can you. Commit to action in some way. Let's not find our response to all the adverse aspects of climate change being too late. — Ed Danehy, Central Point
Reader Reaction

      calendar