Page 2
The INDEPENDENT, June 17, 2004
The
INDEPENDENT
Serving the upper Nehalem River valley. Published on the
first and third Thursdays of each month, by Public Opinion
Laboratory Ltd., 725 Bridge St., Vernonia, OR 97064, as a
free newspaper. Publishers, Dirk & Noni Andersen. Editor,
Noni Andersen. Phone/Fax: 503-429-9410, email: noni@
the-independent.net Display Advertising, Clark McGaugh,
email: clark@the-independent.net Classified Advertising,
Rebecca McGaugh, email: rebecca@the-independent.net
Opinion
School board clarification
doesn’t solve the situation
We are glad to provide the Vernonia School Board
with space for objections to what has been written here
(see Letters). We’re only sorry they don’t think that peo-
ple on a budget committee should read and understand
what they were appointed to review. It makes no differ-
ence what OSBA policy is because they are not respon-
sible for local spending.
When 85 percent of a budget must be used for per-
sonnel, as it is in most school districts, that remaining 15
percent should be very carefully reviewed to cover as
many needs as possible.
The district must send an adopted budget to the state
by June 30, but there is no law requiring the budget
committee to meet only once a month. If more meetings
are needed, they should be scheduled. That would be
inconvenient for the administrative staff because they
live out of town, but that should not be a consideration.
Going back to space provided, The INDEPENDENT has
given 47J a monthly column with no limits on either
space or content. Within the limits of our 3.5 person
staff, we cover as many school functions as we can. We
have had very little cooperation in getting information
from the district about positive student activities, regard-
less of how often we have offered more publicity. It’s re-
ally too bad that one letter (written by a student), one
cartoon and one editorial are all that the board has no-
ticed.
Adequate reasons should
exist for recall elections
Petitions are being circulated for the recall of Colum-
bia County Commissioner Rita Bernhard for “willful
negligence” and “fiscal irresponsibility.” Unfortunately,
there are no specifics and no examples of these
charges are included.
Equally unfortunate is the apparent unwillingness of
the petition sponsors to speak publicly of their reason-
ing. They won’t explain why they think county taxpay-
ers should pay $25,000, or so, to recall someone for
“fiscal irresponsibility.”
Unless there is something more specific – and prov-
able – it is probably best to ignore these petitions.
Letters
47J board objects to
critical viewpoints
To the Editor:
Recently two articles and a
drawing appeared in the Inde-
pendent that criticized the
budget committee, school
board and administration of the
Vernonia School system.
The Oregon School Board
Association (OSBA) provides
guidelines for school budget
committees that assist districts
in complying with the intent of
the law. OSBA states clearly
that it is not the charge of the
budget committee or its mem-
bers to determine what dollar
amounts or items should be on
a particular line. These detailed
issues are the responsibility of
the school administration with
over sight from the board of ed-
ucation. It is the responsibility
of the budget committee in a
broad prospective (sic) to look
at the budget and recommend
the total amount of dollars that
will be spent by the district.
Any citizens may ask any ques-
tions at any time about the
budget, it is a public document.
Superintendent Mike Fun-
derburg created a budget as-
sistance team (BAT) when he
arrived two years ago. This is a
sub committee of the budget
committee. This group of budg-
et committee members have
additional meetings and review
all aspects of the budget. In ad-
dition the BAT team gets input
from staff, administration, citi-
zens and state officials to de-
velop the most accurate budget
possible. This occurs in a very
detailed fashion and takes a
considerable amount of time for
those who volunteer to be on
this sub committee. This sub
committee serves in an adviso-
ry role only.
The following are some ad-
ditional facts concerning Ver-
nonia’s budget process:
On the April 22, 2004 budget
committee meeting (the first
meeting) Superintendent Mike
Funderburg made it clear due
to contract negotiations with
the two staff unions a complet-
ed budget document might not
be available until late in the
budget process, or until the
contracts were settled.
The budget proposal was
developed by the budget assis-
tance team and the administra-
tion, with information from a
multitude of sources, such as
school staff, school administra-
tion, school district citizens,
budget committee members,
school board members and
state officials.
The following is what oc-
curred on the May 20, 2004
budget committee meeting:
The proposed budget was
handed out. This was the earliest
this document could have been
put together as two staff unions
and the board was negotiating
contracts.
Discussion was called for re-
lating to the proposed budget
that was handed out.
One person asked to have
another meeting. The commit-
tee members were then asked
if they desired to have another
budget meeting, committee
members expressed their con-
fidence in the results of the
process that had occurred.
The agenda for the May 22,
2004 meeting was very clear as
it stated the budget committee
could pass the budget on to the
board of education or another
Please see page 3