Reader questions school management

To the Editor:

In the April 12 issue of the Tidings the 'Board Talks of School Bond' for 2008 for school construction and improvement.

It is very interesting to note there is no mention of the $29.6 million that the school district received from the sale of two unneeded parcels of property in May 2006.

The need for a school bond raises questions. 1) What is the intended use of the $29.6 million received by the school district in May 2006? 2) Has there been an accounting as to how the money has been invested and what it has been spent for? 3) What is the real need of the school district, is it to repair Sunset Elementary? If Sunset Elementary is in such poor condition, (antiquated fire alarm, suspected mold, roof leaks, etc.) as Tim Woodley states, why aren't those poor conditions being taken care of now?

It appears the sense of urgency of the school district as it relates to the safety of our students at Sunset Elementary is very suspect. The money is available. Why doesn't the school board and school district take the intermediate appropriate steps to protect the students and teachers from danger until a remodeling or a new school is constructed?

The whole issue of asset management plagues the school district and the school board. As taxpayers we need to have confidence that the dollars allocated to the school district are being used appropriately. The latest 'School Bond for 2008' proposal needs to be reviewed with specifics rather than some wish list.

Tim Woodley needs to start looking at specifics regarding the control of school district assets. The recent theft of $10,000 to $25,000 of computers, televisions, AV equipment, etc., since 2005 is an example of poor management. When and how often is an equipment inventory taken to ensure the control of valuable assets?

As school district director of operations, he has to be held accountable for the protection of school district property.

Brian Bittke

West Linn

Go to top
Template by JoomlaShine