Letters and Comments for May 7, 2009

Letters and Comments for May 7, 2009

High moral standards

To the Editor:

I never really cared much for politics or campaign rhetoric, be it on the national level or right on down to the local positions, so I usually stay out of it all together and keep my thoughts to myself.

However, the recent big debate about the high school play and the school board being called into action to make a decision heightened my interest. When I read that John Sprenger was going to run for the

La Grande School Board, I wanted to give him my full support.

John has so many talents it is hard to name them all within the word restraints of The Observer, but I would say at the top of the list is his love and compassion for the youth of all ages everywhere.

Many readers may not be aware that after John’s many years of service to our local schools, he and his wife, Betty, took two years out of their lives to go to India to help build and run an orphanage for street children in that Third World country. To me that says a lot about the man.

In my opinion, our schools should not only be a place where our children can receive the best education possible, but also hold to the highest moral standards. John is a great communicator and has high moral standards, which I feel is a real asset when serving on the school board.

Teachers have a great deal of influence on their students and John was the best. He will also bring this asset to the school board.

If that is what you want for your children or grandchildren, then a vote for John Sprenger is the right choice.

Dick McClellan

La Grande

Collaborates, finds solutions

To the Editor:

Mike Berglund was one of the very first people who introduced himself and welcomed me to the Dayton, Wash., community when I became the new superintendent of the Dayton School District in the summer of 2004 . At that time Mike was our county sheriff and I couldn’t imagine why the sheriff would want to talk to me, as I believed that I hadn’t jay-walked or run the only light in town. Mike wanted to let me know that he and the sheriff’s department wanted to establish a positive working relationship with our school district and would I be interested?

For the next three years, we had an excellent relationship with our local law enforcement. Through the efforts of Mike, a grant provided the district with an officer to work on prevention of the use of drugs and alcohol.

We established clear protocols for our ongoing collaboration. Mike assigned two officers to help with discipline and investigation, and Mike communicated with me and our administrative staff regarding trends and observations that concerned the youth we served. What we noticed from our data was a significant drop of student abuse of alcohol and tobacco during this particular time. Since Mike left our community I am sorry to say this has risen again.

Beyond the school environment, Mike was highly involved in the Dayton community as the sheriff and as a community member.

I find Mike to be extremely intelligent, a person who likes to collaborate with others and has the uncanny ability to look at the large picture and develop actions to move toward that vision. As a school board member, Mike will bring his energy, passion for kids and the willingness to be part of the solution as he helps to make La Grande the best school district in Oregon.

Rich Stewart, superintendent,

Dayton (Wash.) School District

Different treatment

To the Editor:

When Joe Q. Public has done something to break the law he is arrested and in most cases is put in jail until arraigned. Then he goes before a judge and the judge makes a decision on whether to let him out on his own recognizance, or a bail is set and he has to pay to be released from jail with a security release agreement. Then there are many hoops Joe Q. Public must go through.

In Union County, there is the 60-day rule that must be dealt with. In most cases, Joe Q. Public will make a plea to a lesser charge. Then Joe Q. Public will have more hoops to jump through and more money to pay.

When all is said and done Joe Q. Public will hopefully get out of the system. But Joe Q. Public will have a criminal record and if put in prison, a felon criminal record, which will make it hard for Joe Q. Public to get back into and become a part of the working public, because felons very seldom can find permanent employment.

But if you are a police officer and you are investigated by DPSST, you can be on paid administrative leave for 10 months, go back to work for less than a week, then resign. And in the next week go to work for a federal agency. No harm done to your reputation and no criminal record and never brought before a judge.

Could someone please explain to me how this is right? Why have we seen police officers resigning during or after investigations? What is the difference between a police officer and Joe Q. Public?

I think the difference is Joe Q. Public does not get the chance to resign.

Robert A. Clark

La Grande