School district spending questioned

June 14, 2006

EDITOR: In his June 7 column, Jack Balshaw writes about the loss of our Little League fields, due to the sale of the Kenilworth school site, with no negotiations for replacement facilities. He quotes a comment from a Press Democrat editorial: "Unfortunately, the city didn't use its leverage during the approval process to require the developer to find new locations for the fields."

Mr. Balshaw further considers that the city may be "more interested in maximizing its take from the property sales and future sales tax than providing replacement facilities for youth sports." Indeed.

Then, in another section of the paper, I read that all Petaluma schools and joint union high schools employees will receive a pay increase retroactive to a year ago, and that a larger share of school employees' health insurance costs will also be picked up by taxpayers. This school board decision adds $2.2 million a year to our school district's bottom line.

While it's not difficult to find consensus that teachers are underpaid, I wonder if this pay and benefits package increase is related to Mr. Balshaw's comments about the financial priorities of our public officials, including school district officials.

Many taxpayers might question whether there are more pressing needs for this $2.2 million a year, needs that are more directly related to providing the materials and services that are currently lacking in our local public school classrooms.

When put together, these two pieces of news may translate into the following: A voter unwillingness to wholeheartedly support further parcel tax funding for education, despite our recognition that schools are terribly underfunded, and despite our willingness to open up our pocketbooks for education, when the spending of education funds is transparent and supports widely held education priorities.

LINDA SEXAUER, Petaluma