Letters

Schools

No solutions until

full transparency

Despite numerous requests from staff, parents, community and students, we do not have transparency vis-a-vis the assorted “self-balancing accounts” e.g. Shoreline Children’s Center, Community Relations and Conference Center etc.

How much revenue or debt has been generated by these accounts is still a mystery.

Critical budget decisions are being made without this information.

In every meeting of Group C (parents, PTA, students, and staff), the District’s own report suggests they cut 5.4 FTE from the Administrative Center; yet, no mention is made of where those specific cuts are coming from.

There is a well-known saying that goes, “Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get… (when you don’t).” As I said at a previous school board meeting, the purpose of education is to promote critical thinking. The objective is to produce a citizen who can think for him or herself so they are qualified to vote for their collective self-interest and not be swayed by populists.

This great experiment in self-government, the United States of America, can only endure if “we the people”ensure that government works for the common good as prescribed in the Preamble of our Federal Constitution.

Citizens must become political activists who don’t settle for less than full accountability for those who hold positions which directly impact our lives and the lives of our posterity.

Citizens not only have a right but a responsibility to make public disclosure requests to find out who is using public funds and what they are using it for.

As Molly Ivins succinctly put it in an op-ed in the Seattle Times April 29: “Jack Anderson was right: The people in government work for us. What they do is our responsibility because they do it with our money — that’s why we have a right to know about it.”

CHUCK LEONE

Seattle

City politics

If petitioners aren’t honorable, who is?

Regrettably Bronston Kenney has his facts wrong again. In his recent letter in the Enterprise he notes that “four of the five individuals filing for the recall (of DeputyMayor Maggie Fimia and Mayor Bob Ransom) are members of Progress (Shoreline).” The Petition for Recall is put forth by six Shoreline residents not five, three of whom happen to be members of Progress Shoreline.

Kenney goes on to say that both the recall and the lawsuit, which has also been brought against them, are a result of action by its members. I say now as I have said before that we six petitioners for recall are not, nor have we ever been, a part of the lawsuit.

Then Kenney goes on to note that our actions are “less than admirable.” He should take the time to inform himself as to the contents of the petition. Included therein are no less than six violations of the city of Shoreline code of Ethics and seven violations of the Rules of Procedure for the Shoreline City Council. Both the Code and the Rules were approved and passed by the council.

If we, the petitioners, are less than admirable, then what do the actions of Fimia and Ransom constitute? Surely not integrity.

FRANK MOLL

Shoreline

Specialized care

Editorial a welcome reminder of duties

Thank you for your recent editorial regarding choices in care for children and adults with lifetime specialized care needs. As children with special needs are increasingly educated alongside their non-disabled peers in school — and not isolated from view or interaction with others — I see a new generation of peers who will become supportive neighbors, coworkers, and bosses who share the grocery store line without discomfort or judgment.

The choices for people with developmental disabilities increase every day with family-supported care, medical advances, and special education. That means their choices for living, working, and recreating in our communities must change to meet their needs. Cost-effective and quality supports and services should be the priority — not the facilities that services are contained within.

We suffer from our state’s institutional history, and we must continue to evaluate the cost and role of large scale congregate care. We must also recognize that a very small number of those in need are actually served in separate facilities by our state — most individuals with developmental disabilities live with their families for many years into adulthood. These are families that with a little bit of help are perfectly capable and willing to provide the majority of care for their family member.

“Undoing” a system dependent on expensive state union employee wages and benefits is difficult and emotional. We must also respect the consequences of change for those who remain institutionalized. We have an obligation to fulfill our promises to the families that made this painful choice so many years ago.

STACY GILLETT

Shoreline