Letters - Thursday

FISCAL FOLLIES
D-20 close-mouthed about use of possible tax revenue

After spending around $170 million of taxpayers' hard-earned money on school expansion, supposedly to accommodate inevitable growth, the District 20 school board is contemplating asking voters for a mill levy override ("Money on schools' minds," Metro, June 4). If you read the district's online propaganda, you will undoubtedly conclude that if the override is not approved, the district will rapidly slip into disorder. The truth, however, paints a different picture.

The district claims it wants the override to bridge a supposed revenue gap, a difference of $376 in D-20's per-pupil allocation and the state's average allocation. The district says that this gap, which totals about $7.5 million annually, is preventing it from attracting and retaining good teachers. Reading on, though, one discovers that if an override is approved, the anticipated annual gain in operating funds is actually $14 million, or nearly double the amount of the gap.

But what does D-20 plan to do with this money? Does it intend to spend it on teachers? Would you be surprised if I told you that the board anticipates spending as little as one-third of that money on teachers? What will happen to the rest? We may never know; the district is not obligated to reveal this.

The district also claims that it has a "savings account" from which it will take the money authorized by the override and apply it to operations (as opposed to using it to repay bonds) and that this action will be revenue-neutral to taxpayers. That may true in bureaucrat-speak, but a mill levy override is a tax increase. In other words, the district will keep and spend more tax dollars than it otherwise would.

By the way, three of the district's newest schools have operated well below full capacity. These three new schools are what taxpayers got in exchange for about $100 million worth of those bonds the district now wants to take longer to pay off.

The school board says it will wait until August to make its decision to place the question on the ballot. It doesn't say why it is waiting, but I think it's safe to assume that by waiting, it hopes to reduce its exposure to scrutiny and criticism.

Ivo Fronzaglia, Colorado Springs

SHE'S A GRAND OLD FLAG
Disagreeing with president no reason for lack of respect

This is in response to Bruce Hamilton's letter, "Protesting against unjust government the right move," in the June 6 Gazette.

Although you may not agree with everything that goes on within government, if you don't like it you can always go somewhere else and just see how far you get bad-mouthing the government.

He should also read the Constitution and international law before accusing our government of violating anything or calling our nation a faltering nation.

Having served my country for close to 30 years I still get an emotional high from the flag and find it deplorable that we have individuals who do not appear to respect the flag. I did not agree with the Clinton presidency but at no time would I show disrespect to the flag.

LeRoy Gray, Lt. Col., Air Force, retired, Larkspur

5TH DISTRICT
Rayburn no guarantee of more local military jobs

So, Mayor Lionel Rivera has endorsed Bentley Rayburn for the 5th Congressional District in opposition to our incumbent Republican, Doug Lamborn ("Rivera endorses Rayburn for House," Metro, June 5). He cites Rayburn's status as a retired military officer as his reason. Theoretically, Rayburn will be able to convince the military to move more operations here and thus create more civilian military contractor business and more jobs and commerce in Colorado Springs. I disagree with the mayor.

It is not the constitutional responsibility of a congressman to develop jobs and commerce for a city. That is the duty of the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Corp.

I have heard this argument about retired military folks serving in public office as a draw for military business for more than 20 years here in Colorado Springs. This is more myth than reality. They have no more clout and influence than anyone else, particularly as a freshman congressman. Lamborn already serves on the Armed Forces Committee and there is no guarantee a new freshman would be appointed to that committee, even if he is a retired officer.

Lastly, according to reports, the military comprises about a third of our local economy. I don't think it's prudent to try to boost that to 40 percent or 50 percent. What the government gives, the government can take away. That is a very precarious marriage. I would rather see our chamber and EDC work on developing other types of commerce such as light manufacturing (appliances, furniture, etc.) rather than putting all of our eggs in the military basket.

We have a solid conservative congressman in Lamborn. Let's send him back to Washington.

Kyle C. Akers, Colorado Springs

ORGAN DONORS
Education of families would increase donations

In response to The Gazette's June 9 Our View, "Compensation due organ donors," I would like to offer some thoughts as a volunteer hospital chaplain who deals with organ/tissue donation issues on a regular basis.

Yes, there is a severe shortage of organ donations across the United States. However offering compensation is not the answer. Education is the answer. Families need to have this conversation before the need arises. There are many myths about the organ donation process. I would encourage folks to contact Donor Alliance which services Colorado and Wyoming at its Web site, www. donoralliance.org, or call 1-888-868-4747 for information. Interested persons may also speak with staff hospital chaplains at our local hospitals.

Joan Lucia-Treese, Colorado Springs

DISCRIMINATION
Writer's logic would allow religion to dictate actions

Rev. Bill Carmody argued that SB200 discriminates against "God-abiding people" by requiring them to give equal treatment to citizens whose private lives they deem morally objectionable ("Law discriminates against those who follow God's law," Letters, June 7). He fails to grasp the distinction between religious convictions and civic principles. He thus ends up advocating that one's personal faith should grant permission to discriminate against fellow citizens in the public sphere.

By that logic, we would also have to allow members of churches with neo-Nazi-based tenets to subject fellow citizens to anti-Semitic and racist discrimination, since that's what their God-abiding demands.

It's vital to remember that morality and public policy are separate entities. When religious institutions assume the burden of defining moral rights and wrongs, they do so only for individuals who choose to subscribe to their given faith traditions. In a religiously free society such as ours, religion's imposition cannot extend to non-adherents.

The state, by contrast, assumes the burden of ensuring civic attributes such as law and order, fairness and equal treatment. This is what SB200 is about. The state is not in the business of promoting selective moral positions, nor of favoring one faith tradition over another. Our founders recognized the distinction between the religious and the civic.
They knew firsthand the dangers of intermingling them. This is why they purposefully separated church and state.

Ken Burrows, Manitou Springs