At a packed and tense board meeting on 10/19/10 Denise Bohman attempted to kill the Larsen Creek restoration project. The project was the brainchild of parents from both the Waldorf Inspired and Montessori programs and included a campus watershed education component. This was truly inter-program cooperation at its finest and yet Denise tried to axe it. If you have had a chance to walk across the fantastic bridge (which Richard Sloan helped build) you will see that area cleaned up, restored and cleared of several unsightly storage containers.
Yet, although this project cost the District nothing Denise vehemently denounced the sponsor organization at the meeting and was clearly working on behalf of a competing local organization at the meeting. This non-issue was n extension of an on-going clash between the watershed conservation group SPAWN and the Valley Stewards that is rampant throughout the Valley.
By attempting to can the project Denise was politicizing not only the school board but the classroom by attempting to deny the expertise of trained watershed biologists to our children, parents and teachers. SPAWN has raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Valley for about a decade restoring creeks, culverts, and roads in an effort to save the now probably extinct coho salmon.
We have been fortunate that until the past few years coho were found spawning in our very own watershed. I once saw coho jumping at the Inkwells when I used to work in the Valley. It was truly one of the wonders of my existence. It moved me to awe. Sadly, my daughter has yet to see them even after years of taking her in winter rain storms to find them. We have an extinction crisis happening right before our eyes and it's a tragedy.
Voting to allow the Larsen Creek project to go forward Richard put it succinctly that the District would not be initiating a relationship with SPAWN since it has long had one. That included, he pointed out, its sponsorship of the rain catchment structure at the upper campus, an amazing system that yet again Richard helped build.
I write about this because it raises a number of crucial questions about the incumbents' endorsement of one another for re-election.
1. If Denise really represents all the programs and the principle of parent choice as she repeatedly claims why did she try so hard to kill the Larsen Creek project?
2. Does Denise have an ideological opposition to environmental education and watershed conservation? If so, what is it? What does she think about the crisis facing our ecosystems?
3. If Denise really works to raise funds for the entire District and all its programs why did she vote against this grant funded program? Does she favor certain fundraising over others? The Larsen Creek project saved the District invaluable thousands of dollars on facilities and grounds maintenance that was freed up to be used to educate the children. That's much more effective than funding it by further indebting the District to Wall Street by borrowing at a 100% interest rate over 20-30 years.
4. Lastly, how can Richard and Denise, who stand on opposite sides on issues revolving around environmental education endorse one another? This is not just about SPAWN and the Stewards but a reflection of how they manage the District. They each represent interests which have bitterly factionalized our schools. Do we really want this to continue another 4 years? Could their mutual endorsement be an expression of just how willing they are to compromise their own principles just to stay in office? What else have they and will they continue to compromise on?
Of course, this also begs the question as to why Richard in early 2009 unsuccessfully attempted to cut SPAWN's parent organization's parcel tax by 80%.
These are crucial questions I hope voters will ask before casting their votes for either of the incumbents. A vote that is given away is a wasted vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment