Opposing The School Bond

Dear Editor,

I am opposed to the 8-million dollar school bond, for several reasons. Combining "nearly emergency" measures for roof and boiler maintenance with a multi-million sports facility overhaul is disingenuous in the least. I do not appreciate my loyalty and community spirit used as a tool of manipulation. The plant repairs are a need. The artificial turf football field is a luxury; they should be separated.

The bond is money borrowed against my (and everyone else's) real property, which I am obligated to repay for the length of the bond. That is the reality. I do not think a new football field is worthy of that obligation.

I am also concerned that we are focusing on the wrong things. Standardized test scores, competency rates and outcomes have not improved since the New Irle School was built. How will a new football field improve student outcomes?

Currently, only about half of our students meet or exceed academic standards. I think that issue deserves our attention, not a new sports facility used for extracurricular activities.

In addition, the political, cultural, and economic reality we are living in is unstable, to say the least. It is impossible not to recognize the fact that many of us are struggling. The middle class in our own community is disappearing right in front of our eyes. Look around, things are breaking. It may be advisable to be careful with limited resources we could need later for a real emergency. Football and track will go on. Trust me.

The bond needs to fail and when it does, a more practical and realistic proposal will be formulated. Think swimming pool. Voting "No" will instigate and drive that process.

Sincerely,

Scott E. Cassel

Glasgow, Mont.