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