Thank you

Police Explorer post gets support

On Monday, April 28, we, the Shoreline Police Explorers, received a proclamation from the City Council in recognition of our countless hours of service to the City of Shoreline. As young people from ages 14 to 21, most of us in the program have aspirations of pursuing careers in law enforcement.

We are given the opportunity to explore the field of law enforcement by volunteering with the Shoreline Police Department. Through the King County Sheriff’s Office we constantly receive training at no cost that gears us towards careers in law enforcement. In addition, we are given the chance to ride along with officers on patrol and assist in some investigations. And in return, we provide service to the community.

We would like to extend our gratitude for the tremendous support from the City of Shoreline and the City Council. Also, we want to thank the Chief of Police, Denise Pentony, for her consistent support and dedication towards the Explorer Program. Lastly, we want to recognize our advisors for their hard work and continuous involvement with the Program: Sergeant M. Bennett, Deputy J. Donner, Deputy C. Anderson, Deputy S. Marshall, and Community Service Officer S. Kelly.

We appreciate the support from everyone from the City of Shoreline to the people of Shoreline. Thank you.

Shoreline Police Explorer Post

Public comment

Action against

America’s grain

The foundation of the United States of America is a representative government. It is a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

The importance of the public comment periods during council meetings is to learn the needs of the people. To limit public comment is to rob the public of it’s voice. A voice which you, as the council, are supposed to represent. This is the only time we the people have to address our concerns in front of the council, on the public record, for the whole public to see and hear.

In taking this action you seem to be saying that you, the elected official, think that the people’s opinion is of little or no importance. In reality, the most important opinion is the people’s.

It is unconscionable to remove public comment at action items. This is the most important time to hear the people’s opinion, when you are about to vote on an issue that affects the people. The actions of the majority of the council show that staff and council opinions are more important than the views and opinions of the citizens..

It takes courage to stand up in front of people, to bring facts, opinions and different points of view to light. E-mails are hidden and unknown by the people. Unless council and staff plan to post all e-mails on a website, at council meetings or make hand-outs of these e-mails available to the public, e-mails cannot be considered public comment.

As a citizen of the United States of America, I am shocked, outraged and dismayed that the council would even consider removing the voice of the people. I stand for the right to address my government at action items, before you vote, when my opinion should matter, when facts can be given, when a difference of opinion should be discussed.

The move for changing public comment time is bad for America, bad for the people and bad for Shoreline. The only people it is good for are those who lack the courage to listen and hear the voice of the people who may disagree with them.

RICK STEPHENS

Shoreline

School district

Cutting nurses’ hours will hurt

Shoreline School District. On Tuesday, the Shoreline nurses were informed of the possibility of having their hours of work cut by one hour per day starting in September. That may seem like a small cut to some but it amounts to 1/6 of a nurse’s salary, about $400 per month, plus benefits. This cut potentially has the effect of leaving health rooms unstaffed as nurses leave their positions to seek work elsewhere because they cannot afford the decrease in salary and benefits.

The present proposal has the potential of leaving children who are medically fragile without medical support and will effect the health and safety of all children in our schools. All of this comes at a time when the state legislature is stating that to provide for children’s health and safety a health plan MUST be in place for children with left threatening illnesses.

Does this make sense? Who will be there to create and distribute these plans to other school personnel?

The reduction of hours for nurses hurt those who benefit most from the present model, children and their teachers. The nurses in shoreline schools know the families and the children in their schools well. They act as connectors to community resources. They do the work of communicating with parents when a child is in need. They are an important part of the backbone of support to teachers. The health rooms in our schools are the one place children can go when they have a need that cannot be addressed in the hustle and bustle of typical classrooms.

What will replace this model when nurses who cannot afford the cuts leave the positions? Given the shortage of nurses right now it will be difficult to fill these vacancies at half of what one could earn in another nursing position.

Many on the administrative team state, “Well, other districts are doing without nurses, why can’t we?” These same school districts are now shouldering the costs of lawsuits. Decreasing the nursing hours in Shoreline is a short-sighted way to balance a budget.

Mary Ann Rohrer, R.N.

Shoreline School nurse

Fire station

Replacing station Council goal

Some things need to be explained about the Mountlake Terrace Fire Station 19, located in the Civic Center at 232nd Street and 58th Avenue.

The station was first built in 1961, as part of the Civic Center, for a volunteer fire department when the City’s population was 9,122. In the 1970s, when the population had grown to 16,750, paid firefighters were hired to work 12-hour shifts, with volunteer “sleepers” at night. Renovations were made at that time, near the apparatus bay, for sleeping quarters.

In 1990, the department went to 24-hour shifts for paid personnel and minor modifications were made to the station in 1993 to accommodate male and female firefighters to serve a City of a population of 19,320.

Recently the sleeping quarters were found to be unsafe due to a lack of a 1-hour fire separation wall and outside egress, based upon a 1997 change in the law. This unsafe condition has been remedied temporarily with a trailer to serve as a dormitory for the sleeping quarters.

It is very fortunate that in 2001 we decided to put a new station into our 5-year Capital Improvement Program. The decision was based on structural and a variety of other deficiencies in the 40-year old building. The funding was identified and each year it has remained in the plan for construction in 2003. The replacement of Station 19 is one of our Council goals, adopted in May 2002, and the Council approved the construction project in the 2003 budget. We will have an adequate fire station for our protection and to accommodate our firefighters, and at no increase in property taxes. That is what five-year financial planning is all about.

MAYOR PAT CORDOVA

Mountlake Terrace

Just ask the voters what they want

Whew! This Fire Station 19 thing is hard to understand. Firefighters and city management certainly don’t want to suggest that they have been in imminent danger every day for 10 years and that professional firefighters and competent city management just discovered it – do they?

Wow! If it is only those safety issues and not firefighters’ opinions on the comfort of Fire Station 19 that is at issue, secondary egress should be relatively easy to construct and a one-hour firewall is merely a double thickness of 5/8 inch plasterboard. So, is it only “these conditions” that put them in a “temporary trailer” upon which the firefighters want the city to “make a decision”?

This isn’t just part of a well-orchestrated PR campaign intended to convince unsuspecting taxpayers of the need for a new fire house – is it? This couldn’t possibly be just the latest in a string of escalating pretexts to justify a new building – could it? In the midst a stubborn economic recession, is it possible that a “dangerous building” might somehow avoid asking voters’ permission to spend money on a new firehouse? My suggestion – quit beating around the bush. Rather than engineering a media campaign and placing a trailer in front of the firehouse like a big neon sign pleading for sympathy, put the issue to a vote. Let the firefighters go door-to-door making their case. Maybe the city manager could come with them. Whether they then discover that our undiminished support for public safety translates into support for a new fire house or not, we can at least all move on to more important matters.

LEONARD FRENCH

Mountlake Terrace