Moscow 'cannot afford' Chaney
Mayor Nancy Chaney has yet again proven she is only interested in her partisan agenda and making her Moscow Civic Association cohorts happy.
By her recent public and inappropriate firing of Jon Wheaton, chairman of the Board of Adjustment, she proved she is only interested in stacking city commissions with people who will agree with her and bend to the MCA agenda she espouses.
Jon always represented the best interest of all the residents of Moscow in a fair and balanced manner. To publicly embarrass him the way you did, Nancy, was inexcusable. Many of us question your ethics because you do not represent the wishes of the majority of the residents. The next two years cannot go by fast enough for me. I will work to make sure your first term is your last.
When you were running for office we heard you say you wanted to bring the community together. Well, you have created a chasm of divisiveness in Moscow the size of the Grand Canyon. You have proven to me that Moscow cannot afford to have you as mayor if we want to see our city survive.
Don Meyer, Moscow
Waste at Moscow School District
Now that MSD's $1.97 million per year eternal levy has passed, I'd like to address one of Sue Driskill's comments (Opinion, March 23).
Please take the time to read for yourself what the Idaho Department of Education says about Moscow School District at www.legislature.idaho.gov/ope/publications/reports/r0403.pdf
Driskill extols the decrease in staff during the Russell/West Park reconfiguration. However, IDE was tasked by the Idaho Legislature to perform a "School District Administration and Oversight" study. That study compares MSD to Preston Joint School District (Preston and MSD are within 73 students of each other).
This 2004 study was done after the reorganization that Driskill champions.
Pages 24-25 of the IDE report states:
* MSD had 11.6 business support staff; Preston had 1.8
* MSD had 66.3 students per administrator; Preston had 107.3
* MSD had a total of 35.8 support staff; Preston had 22.8
* MSD had 9.4 school support staff; Preston had 5.8
* MSD spent $7,891 per student per year. Preston spent $5,272.
* MSD got 44.5 percent of its funding from property taxes; Preston got 14.3 percent.
IDE reported startling waste at MSD. Page 23: "[w]hile Moscow and Preston had comparable enrollment, Moscow had more schools and a larger number of school administrators and support staff. District staffing decisions are influenced, in part, by the availability of local funding to supplement state staffing allocations. Districts with higher per pupil revenues and a larger share of funding from local sources tend to have higher levels of administrative staffing . Moscow had more administrative staff than districts with similar enrollment."
IDE makes the not-too-subtle point that districts can do without the extra administrative staff if they have to.
By passing the $2 million levy, Moscow taxpayers rewarded MSD for wastefulness. According to the IDE, we have just given MSD all the incentive they need to continue their profligate budgeting pattern.
Dale Courtney, Moscow
