EDITOR: Help our students. When your employer is a California school district, and all you've heard for the past three years is "cut, cut, cut," you become a little frustrated when you learn that the district has amassed $6.3 million in reserve savings.
We're asked to make sacrifices to the detriment of our students' school experiences due to our district's annual budget projections. Yet for some reason, the surplus funds find their way not to the schools and students but into the bank to be spent at the district's discretion.
As an educator for one of the schools in the Bellevue Union School District, I've seen our district cut instructional assistants, computer techs, music programs, school nurses, recess supervisors, parent liaisons and instructional supplies, not to mention having been asked each year to cut five instructional days from our school calendar.
With everything that has been cut, do you think the district has reinstated any of the programs or positions that benefit the children they were taken from? We're still waiting.
Teacher, Bellevue Elementary
EDITOR: It takes a lot to make me angry, but I am angry now. I full-heartedly supported Proposition 30, encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Like most people in the state, I believe in public education, and I am conscious of the way it is failing our children in many ways.
A couple of days ago, my grandson received a letter from Santa Rosa City Schools saying that he qualified for the Gifted and Talented Education program, but, unfortunately, there was no funding for it. I was hoping the extra taxes would help all students, but it looks like it will not be so.
It is right to help the disadvantaged students and try to raise their academic level, but we must not forget the gifted and talented students, lest they fall through the cracks to boredom, apathy and mediocrity. If we don't foster and stimulate our bright students, we will keep on needing to import talent and wonder why we cannot get it from our own schools.
CECILIA N.B. HUBER
EDITOR: Brian L. Martin ("Lake County recall," letters, Monday) was correct about one thing. A recall election is unsettling — in its orchestration and in its deception. He failed to disclose his interest (campaigning for sheriff); he implied the sheriff wrongly fired people when, in truth, our weak Board of Supervisors overruled him. He wrote that the district attorney placed Sheriff Frank Rivero on the Brady list for dishonesty when the truth is the sheriff was cleared in 2008, and this action was not done in court with representation.
Rivero is a strong leader with an equally strong management style. That's necessary to turn things around. But that's not an ethics issue, the reason Martin said he left. The department was in chaos due to poor management. Martin knew that but chose to walk rather than help clean up the mess.
As for the supervisors, they appear to be politically motivated, and they timed their action to sway public opinion. Consider there was no action when the former sheriff was embroiled in controversy. When a deputy drove over a sailboat while speeding in a motorboat in the dark, the deputy was never charged, and our board didn't vote no confidence then.