Residents should directly elect school boardThe school...


January 10, 1999

Residents should directly elect school board

The school board wields a significant amount of power (without taxing authority). It should be accountable to the citizens through elections. More than 90 percent of the school boards in the country are elected.

Few issues create as much controversy as redrawing school boundaries, merging schools and changing school policy. Certainly school board members have more effect on the lives of county citizens than some other elected posts such as the Register of Wills.

The current system, the school board nominating convention, is broken. Because the choices of the convention have been often ignored in the past, participation has dropped from more than 700 delegates 10 years ago to less than 200 in the past three conventions. (The last convention had less than 100 delegates). Low participation means that small groups with narrow issues have a large influence.

In 1997, four delegates were discovered to be "representing" an organization under a forged signature. An alert delegate, not the school board nominating committee, discovered the fraud. The committee said it does not have the resources to check credentials. This process lacks credibility.

The last election changed the landscape of Anne Arundel politics. I hope that with new leadership, the citizens of Anne Arundel will be given the right enjoyed by most of the country -- the right to directly elect their school board.

Richard S. Zipper


`War on drugs' is not working

The drug problem touches all of us, city dweller and suburbanite. Drug use fosters crime, which results in inner city decline and ultimately leads to suburban sprawl. Fifteen years of waging a "war on drugs" has proven an expensive failure.

We need to switch to a strategy of positive reinforcement. Incarceration provides the opportunity and incentive for drug treatment and rehabilitation. We have a captive audience whose lives can be transformed by learning work and living skills. Instead of war, we need "Schools for Living," both inside and outside our penal institutions.

Robert W. Corbett


Impeachment inconsistencies

I hope that the New Year will answer two questions that are confusing me.

First, if in the eyes of his opponents the president has committed crimes so heinous that he should be thrown out of office, why is the "loyal opposition" willing to settle for censure if he agrees to confess to those alleged crimes?

Second, if the House Republicans were so positive that the evidence presented in the Starr report was overwhelming enough to warrant impeachment without calling witnesses to resolve discrepancies in testimony, why are they now beating the drum to call witnesses before the Senate tribunal?

Am I the only one who finds these positions inconsistent?

W. Krohn


Free incentive plan: Work or be fired

Suggestion to Anne Arundel County Executive Janet S. Owens: Scrap the bonus and incentive program. The county is not in business to make a profit. When I see bonuses up to nearly $7,000 for people already making high salaries, I wonder. Many people work all year for an amount close to that bonus alone.

I have a free incentive plan. Work for the salary you agreed to or be fired. Teachers who did not get a satisfactory rating were not to get an in-step increment. Out of the thousands of teachers we have, how many were so affected? I do not want to see ex-principals at headquarters drawing close to $100,000 salaries and relegated to counting paper clips.

Why do we have more than 1,000 county cars given out for use. We even give one to the school superintendent -- while paying her more than $100,000 a year. This counts as education funding?

John Miara


Supreme Court caused this mess, too

On the dais of the U.S. Senate sits the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in all his black-robed solemnity presiding over a trial of the president for the high crime of lying about his sex life.

William Rehnquist, a hard-right Republican himself, will be looking down over a folly as much of his own making and that of his Supreme Court brethren as of the hard-right Republicans in Congress.

The founding fathers neglected to prevent opposition parties from maliciously abusing the civil process of federal courts to harass and discredit presidents.

In Clinton vs. Jones, the Supreme Court had a chance to correct this omission. But the court "was not persuaded" that allowing civil suits to proceed against a sitting president "will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation."

As he sits on his "Jerry Springer" throne, Mr. Rehnquist might consider that Clinton vs. Jones should be reversed, that it might be wiser to "stay all private actions against the president until he leaves office," that it might be wiser not to let Republicans abuse federal courts to abuse Democratic presidents.

James A. Hoage

Severna Park

A new administration, new concerns over track

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.