South St. Louis County News

St. Louis Call Newspapers

South St. Louis County News

St. Louis Call Newspapers

South St. Louis County News

St. Louis Call Newspapers

Reader questions board’s priorities on safety, plans to vote ‘no’ on Prop R

To the editor:

I agree with recent letters to the Call that school district boards do not respect the taxpayer and their “no” votes.

When the taxpayers said “no” on Lindbergh’s $14 million swimming pool, the board came back the following year with a $14 million proposition for safety improvements.

The district’s safety concerns did convince the public, and after the voters said “yes,” the board used the $14 million to build a new swimming pool, new parking lots and add new playground equipment. I wonder how any of those items have much to do with safety?

Last year, after Prop A failed by an overwhelming majority, the board cut teachers, classes and books — no cuts for salaries, pensions or benefits. During a public forum to discuss these educational budget cuts, board member Katie Wesselschmidt proposed spending $400,000 to install lights on the tennis courts.

After the board awarded the superintendent a $200,000 pay package — a 60-percent increase over the last five years — a new variety of safety issues have once again been discovered such as leaking roofs, doors that need locks and security surveillance all priced at $32 million.

I consider safety an important item, and it certainly comes ahead of a new swimming pool. The board chose the pool as a safety issue and chose to delay other needs until another day. The result is the $32 million for Prop R labeled as a “no-increase-in-taxes” issue for the taxpayer.

I certainly do not agree and I will be voting “no” on Prop R.

In the future, I hope the board will plan wisely.

Real safety issues come before swimming pools, playground equipment, lighting for tennis courts and excessive pay packages for the district superintendent.

Eugene Paszkiewicz

Concord

More to Discover