Take this poll.  CLICK HERE

Serisously, if a portable / modular classroom is acceptable for many thousands of students each year, I would expect no less for our honorable board members. But please, no fewer than 30 per trailer!

I’m sorry that no one has been able to answer my question regarding Catherine McGough’s statement about the Kettler school site, as it still concerns me.

Although it is probably not part of the job description for school board members, I see them as stewards of the sites they oversee. (My dictionary defines steward as “one called upon to exercise responsible care over possessions entrusted to him.”) When the school sites were established, we all thought they would be used as school buildings for our city school children. Now that our public school enrollment is lower than it once was, the district finds itself with more buildings than it currently needs. What is responsible care of these properties? If they are sold, then they can never again be used for our school children; that solution doesn’t seem to incorporate vision for the future. And if they are sold to a developer, that doesn’t seem to be at all responsible in terms of our environment. Shouldn’t we make an effort to use the buildings that we have for a useful purpose, instead of tearing them down and starting something new? I believe that the current thinking about “green” building involves making good use of what we have instead of simply destroying it or throwing it away. The board members probably never thought their job would include being good landlords or having to find suitable tenants, but it has evolved that way. Isn’t it nice that we already have some very good tenants, providing us with regular income? And why aren’t we looking for/or accepting tenants for the Kettler site, as well? It certainly seems that responsible care for that site would not allow that facility to stand vacant year after year.