Editor: In your Feb. 24 ''Speaker Mitchell Is Wrong'' editorial, you state: ''Marylanders want solutions from their political leaders that don't leave state and local governments in tatters. And they are willing to pay what it takes -- if the money is spent wisely.''
Do you really think the political leaders will actually spend the money wisely? Their past spending performance (including the governor's) would not merit the kind of mandate of which you write in your editorial. Why should we trust them now?
Thomas Krauth. Easton.
Editor: I am amazed in that in this time of crime and violence, the general public is willing to tolerate inadequacy in our government structure. Specifically, I am referring to the dilemma of the school police officers employed by Baltimore City public schools.
There are approximately 180 schools in our public school system. The city currently employs approximately 85 school police officers who perform their jobs at a serious disadvantage. Those officers who are employed at the schools are not allowed to be armed with guns or batons. In addition, the officers are not provided bullet-proof vests. To make matters even worse they operate with faulty, very old communications equipment.
Are not our children in school as precious to us as the average citizen? Aren't school police officers deserving of proper safety equipment and communications equipment? We would not think tolerating such a ludicrous situation with our Baltimore City police officers. Imagine calling 911 for a murder incident or a drug crime and the police officers arrive with no weapons.
We always say that ''our children are our future.'' What will be the quality of our future if the education of our children is hampered by the unsafe environment of our learning institutions?
The parents and citizens of our ''All American City'' should be telling our mayor and City Council to make safety in our schools the priority it should be. Spend Baltimore's general funds in a wiser way. Hire enough school police officers to patrol each school, and give them the proper equipment for the job of protecting our children. Let's not wait for the next incident to be ,, a fatality -- remember it could be your child or mine or even a teacher or administrator. ''An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''
$ Cheryl D. Glenn. Baltimore.
The writer is president, City Union of Baltimore Local 800, AFT, AFL-CIO.
Editor: I am writing in response to the ''Talk Or Sue?'' editorial in the Feb. 27 issue of the newspaper about the Maryland Disability Law Center (MDLC). I would like to share my experience as an advocate in the mental health field in working with MDLC.
I have worked extensively with several MDLC attorneys and paralegals on complaints of patients in hospitals. I have found them to be dedicated to their profession and to go the extra mile to protect the rights of disabled persons. In the year and half I have worked with MDLC, they have never asked for legal fees from On Our Own.
By the one-sided nature of the editorial, it is apparent that while you listened to the side of the Schaefer administration, you did not take the time to get MDLC's side of the story. If you had, you might have come to a different conclusion. Next time, as your editorial says, ''Let's talk about it first.''
$ Nathaniel Jaffe. Baltimore.
Editor: As a recent transfer to the Baltimore area, I have been heading The Sun faithfully and have been a fairly satisfied reader. However, I was disappointed in the headline and article in the Feb. 28 edition, which read, "House passes Democratic tax-cut plan."
The headline should have read, "House passes Democrat tax-cut plan" because there was nothing democratic about this process. The majority party did not permit members to offer amendments to any of the three proposals which were considered.
There were a number of members on both sides of the aisle who had very credible amendments which certainly would have improved the package, but they were not permitted to offer them. The legislation was considered under a king-of-the-hill format in which the last to pass wins. Even if either of the first
two proposals had passed, the majority plan was considered last and had the best chance to be approved by the House.
Perhaps if newspapers such as yours would report on the abuses of the majority, resulting from more than 40 years of control, we might see more legislators elected dedicated to legislating. It is this unrestrained control by the majority which, as retiring Rep. Lawrence Couglin stated, has led to "an arrogance of power that begets practices which have demeaned the institution."
` Pete Tartline. Bel Air.
Abortion Opinion in Maryland and Elsewhere