Issues should go to voters

To the editor:

In response to Scott Brooks’ letter to the editor of April 5 regarding possible proposed sales taxes, I must respond to his assumptions.

As residents of Osceola County, we use our roads daily. Growth does impact the system, but for the past four years and probably for the next four, growth does not appear to be a contributing factor. Also, growth hasn’t slowed tourism and the fact cannot be ignored that tourism contributes to almost one-half of the traffic generated on our roads.

Before the “bubble burst,” many were calling for a moratorium on new development until our infrastructure (roads) were brought up to par. Well, now we have that “non-self-imposed moratorium” and it is time for our commissioners to address the situation.

The costs for road repair and maintenance exceed revenue and our commissioners deserve kudos for looking outside the box for alternate funding. They could have taken government’s simple path of adding taxes or raise property tax, however, they chose to present the situation to the citizens and give us the opportunity to vote.

Commissioner Fred Hawkins Jr. has stated that he would only support additional funding if the taxpayers of the county received savings elsewhere – such as reducing property taxes for as long as the sales tax is in effect and that any future tax increase must be voter approved.  I know Fred personally and will attest to the fulfillment of his word.

Mr. Brooks stated, “A vote by any commissioner to send this to the voters is a vote in favor of raising taxes, and that message should be heard loud and clear by the voters come November.” So, if I read this correctly, I should vote against my commissioner for giving the public the option of voting on an important issue?

I may not agree with all decisions made by our commissioners, but I will totally support their decision to place important issues on a referendum.  After all, they are elected to represent us, and how better to represent than listen to citizens through the ballot box.

Robert Bass

St. Cloud

Disappointed over criticism

To the editor:

As the chairperson of the Osceola County School Board, I am disappointed that the superintendent, without prior notice, criticized the School Board at the meeting on April 17.

Mr. Terry Andrews distributed a prepared statement and made a public statement that was harshly critical of the board. It is ironic that the superintendent made these statements while at the same time advocating a more harmonious interaction between the Board and himself.

Particularly disappointing was the fact that parents and students were in the room to hear this. It is also distressing that several of the statements were untrue or distorted.

For example, Mr. Andrews claimed that the School Board attorney told him there were three votes to terminate his contract. That isn’t true. The attorney only suggested that if Mr. Andrews was ready for a change in position, he could request a transfer to another position.

A transfer would allow the superintendent to keep his current pay and benefits until his scheduled retirement in June 2013. At no time did I tell anyone that I wanted to terminate Mr. Andrews, and I would not support buying out his contract. I would, however, seriously consider a request he might make for a transfer.

Based on his frequent criticism of the board, it is obvious Mr. Andrews doesn’t like working with us as the superintendent. A transfer to a position in which he doesn’t report to the Board, with full salary and benefits, is not a termination, contrary to Mr. Andrews’ statement.

I, and not any other board member to my knowledge never discussed termination. Mr. Andrews accused some board members of not reading the materials. But, he didn’t point to a single example of when a member of the board hasn’t been prepared.

Generally, the business sections of our agendas move very quickly. Unless an item is controversial or more information is requested, the votes are often 5-0 or 4-1, and the members act promptly because they’ve read the materials and are prepared.

Contrary to Mr. Andrews’ assertion that we are unprepared, on several occasions I’ve caught errors in the agenda materials, staff agrees that I’ve caught a mistake and the item is pulled so staff can correct the paperwork. All of this is evidence that we are prepared and we do our work, so it was disappointing that Mr. Andrews would publicly make a statement without offering any specific examples to support his assertion.

I have frequently asked staff to re-examine more closely certain items that I believe are important. For example, although we ultimately approved the E-Rate and Solar Power grant projects, several of us did express concerns and we asked staff to brief us more thoroughly before we approved these projects. (Our concerns related to safety regarding the solar power cells on elementary school campuses, and fiscal responsibility regarding E-Rate).

It is my opinion that Mr. Andrews may not effectively distinguish an active and interested board from micromanagement. Rather than respond positively, his response to an engaged board is to try and criticize us into complacency. For myself and a majority of this board, we are not merely rubber-stamps for whatever staff presents.

This Board is responsive to the public and not to an entrenched bureaucracy that wishes we’d be quiet and let them do whatever they’d like to do. When citizens contact us and complain about how they’ve been treated by the system, we do want the staff to look hard at the concern and report back whether the concern is valid, and if it is a valid complaint, how the problem may be alleviated.

This Board wants the administration to constantly seek out ways to improve efficiency, improve the quality of our service to students and parents, and assure the public that taxes are being wisely spent.

We have insisted on an audit of procedures in our facilities department. The audit report came back with numerous findings on how we can improve our business practices. One simple example: Previously, applications for payments to contractors were not required to have any backup. A pay-application on a large construction project could request a payment of several hundred thousand dollars or more, yet there would be no supporting documents.

Because of that, contractors were spending money on things that I consider to be a waste of tax dollars. Things like large catered barbecue dinners costing thousands of dollars, or novelty items branded with the contractor’s logo for thousands of dollars. If the Board hadn’t pushed for an examination of these business practices, it would have been status quo – business as usual. We want to do better than that.

In conclusion, I think what you have is a classic situation of an involved board that wants the staff to work hard in the public interest, and “push back” by some in administration who want us to leave them alone so they can maintain status quo. I hope high-level administrators can’t succeed in maintaining their status quo through tactics of intimidation.

We support our teachers and support personnel, and they do a great job for the students. But they need a superintendent who will conduct himself or herself with the highest degree of professionalism, and will be a positive force for effective and innovative administration of our school system.

Cindy Lou Hartig

Kissimmee

School Board chairperson