Letter to the Editor

Open Forum

Friday, August 22, 2003

Tooooo much!

Dear Editor,

Question: When did religion become illegal? OK, maybe not illegal -- but let's say "forbidden."

I think the taxpayers should weigh in on this Item. Maybe, the time is right for some more tax appropriation reductions. I think less money to spend will allow the judicial people to focus on the right issues.

What is so wrong with "our" Constitution and Bill of Rights that we taxpayers require so much adjudicating and so much legislating? I submit "simpler" is better.

Do taxpayers want our judicial system spending tax dollars in this manner? And not to mention efficiency -- with how crowded the court docket is already.

Also; I think the legislative people need to reduce their "appropriating" activity and come back to their real job. Oh, maybe that is the real job for some folks. You know, maybe this "career" politician thing is not a good idea. Who said you have to be "experienced" to serve in an elected capacity -- Oh, Yeah; probably a career politician.

You see "Congress may from time to time ordain and establish (appropriate funds for) such inferior Courts" from Constitution Article III.

That is what this article (Judge gives chief justice 15 days to remove monument) makes me think about?

Maybe taxpayers should inform legislators and adjudicators what the real "law" should be. As long as you pay, they get to play.

Thoughts, anyone! - Especially those of you footing the bill.

Mike Klein

McCook

Gotta have art! Dear Editor,

As the former art instructor at McCook High School, I am quite concerned that due to my retirement, the entire art offerings at the MHS have been cut in half, and junior high (art) offerings dropped completely.

When the junior high instructor took over my position at the high school, the school board and administration didn't hire a replacement for his job. The junior high position included teaching five high school art classes and two junior high art classes. The administration also decided to omit one class for the teaching load for the 2003-04 school year.The high school art instructors' teaching toad is to be six classes instead of seven as in the past. Which would make it teaching six of the 12 art classes that were taught last year.

Hence, the art program at the high school would have been cut in half for the upcoming school year.

This concerns me, since the last 31 years have been spent trying to build a program that would survive long after I retired.

Under the present cutting of this program, I can only see the decline in this art program. They are already cutting approximately 125 (9-12) students by not having the additional art classes that were already in place last shcool year. Is this worth the budget balancing that it takes to make the scales of budgethood in the school system right? A program which was serving approximately 250 (9-12) art students ... who is suffering by this dollar-for-dollar balancing act? Was it all for naught? All those years spent building and trying to reach as many students as possible. Was this a convenience cut, without consideration of how many students it will affect? Will there ever be an art teacher for the junior high classes?

Will they ever have as many art classes in the high school as it had in the past? ...