From Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance

The Idaho Judicial Council (IJC) today will begin interviewing the 19 candidates for the upcoming vacant seat on the Idaho state Supreme Court. The IJC will whittle the list of 19 down to two to four names which will be forwarded on to Gov. Butch Otter, who in turn will appoint one candidate off that short list to be the next Supreme Court justice.

The IVA will deliver a letter to the governor’s office today, on behalf of all of us in the IVA, urging him to select a justice who will have high regard for the constitution and the original intent of Idaho’s founders.

The key paragraph in the letter:

“The role of a Supreme Court justice is an extremely important one in today’s litigious culture, and the Idaho Values Alliance urges you to appoint a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia on the federal bench and Dan Eismann on the Idaho bench, a judge who will base his deliberations on the original intent of the framers of the constitution, and refuse to use his judicial authority to legislate from the bench.”

We will attend the interviews today and tomorrow, and will have more information for you as the process develops.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

A brand new tool is available for those seeking information from government, from city to federal. WikiFoia is designed to start you on your quest for information with links to your state Freedom of Information laws and contacts and even templates for phrasing requests. Don’t miss the great quotes regarding open government, such as this gem from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

A fundamental premise of American democratic theory is that government exists to serve the people. … Public records are one portal through which the people observe their government, ensuring its accountability, integrity, and equity while minimizing sovereign mischief and malfeasance.

And when you’re successful with your FOIA request, be sure to return to WikiFoia to add your own experience and tips. That’s the beauty of a “wiki” site, of course.

You’ll also want to check out the associated blog, State Sunshine and Open Records for fascinating articles and links. If you wish, subscribe to their feed. Your eyes will be opened (if they aren’t already) by the ways government tries to conceal its actions and associated facts.

For instance, the State Sunshine and Open Records blog cites a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review report detailing the efforts of the student loan office employees, costing $409,000, to hide their expenditures on luxuries for board members.

The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency lost a 19-month legal battle in February and was forced to release records showing that its board, composed mostly of state lawmakers, spent $860,000 on expenses such as facials, pedicures, culinary classes, fly fishing, expensive wine, falconry lessons and a $491 limo ride to shopping outlets.

Of course, Pennsylvania taxpayers will be hit twice, as they pick up the tab for the luxuries and the cost of trying to conceal that figure.

With few exceptions, government officials will conceal their actions if possible. Even where FOIA laws are strong, the request for the information must be made before it becomes public and citizen action can be taken.

Make your government more transparent - access and utilize WikiFoia, a new tool for achieving open government.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance

Tomorrow, the Idaho Judicial Council will begin the process of whittling a list of 19 candidates for a soon-to-be-vacant spot on the Idaho Supreme Court down to a list of two to four names which will be sent to Gov. Otter. The governor will appoint retiring Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder’s replacement from that list.

The interview process is likely to be nothing more than a resume’ review, and we are likely to learn nothing more than the name, rank, and serial number of the candidates who want a seat on the five-member Court that issues rulings affecting the life of every Idahoan. The chance that we will learn anything substantive about the judicial philosophy of any of the candidates is remote at best.

The IVA sent a questionnaire to all 19 candidates, asking them quite simply if they agreed or disagreed with 20 specific declarations in our state constitution. None returned the questionnaire, some hiding behind judicial canons that supposedly prevent judicial candidates from filling out questionnaires.

Unfortunately for judges taking this tack, such judicial canons were ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in Wisconsin just last week.

Here are some verbatim excerpts from our state constitution, which these candidates are prepared to take a solemn and sacred oath to uphold. Ask yourself this simple question: why would a candidate for the state Supreme Court be unwilling to let the public know whether or not he agrees with these straightforward and important declarations in the supreme expression of state law?

KEY EXCERPTS FROM IDAHO’S STATE CONSTITUTION

Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.”

(Note: this is hugely significant for religious liberty disputes, since the acknowledgement of God, his sovereignty, and his gift of freedom is the very first thing we encounter in our state constitution. If the founders of the state of Idaho, as their first item of business, saw fit to publicly acknowledge God, it can hardly be impermissible for state, county, city, school officials or students to do the same.)

Art. I, Sec. 1: INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

(Note: you will notice clear echoes of the Declaration of Independence here. Particularly important here, with regard to eminent domain disputes, is the enshrinement of private property rights.)

Art. I, Sec. 2: POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary .

(Clearly, Idaho’s founders intended that all political power should belong to the people, not the courts. It’s important to know if a candidate to the Supreme Court accepts this. This echoes the sentiment of the Founding Fathers of the United States, who believed that governments derive their just powers only from the consent of the governed.)

Art. I, Sec. 4: GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed . but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, or excuse acts of licentiousness . Bigamy and polygamy are forever prohibited in the state .

(Note: “Liberty of conscience” cannot be used to “excuse acts of licentiousness.” It’s important to know whether our Supreme Court justices accept this and will be bound by it in their deliberations. In terms of maintaining public morality, there may be no provision in our state constitution that is more important than this one..)

Art. I, Sec. 9: FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Art. I, Sec. 11: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; . No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

(Question: What is it about “No law shall impose . registration . on the ownership or possession of firearms” that lawmakers and judges not understand? If that restriction is considered too lax, the solution should be to amend the state constitution rather than ignore it.)

Art. II, Sec. 1: DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT. The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.

(Note: this clearly prohibits judges from legislating from the bench, since to do so would be to exercise powers that belong to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. It’s vital for us to know if our next Supreme Court justice understands this and will allow this constitutional provision to guide his own deliberations.)

Art. III, Sec. 20: GAMBLING PROHIBITED. (1) Gambling is contrary to public policy and is strictly prohibited except for the following:

a. A state lottery which is authorized by the state if conducted in conformity with enabling legislation; and

b. Pari-mutuel betting if conducted in conformity with enabling legislation; and

c. Bingo and raffle games that are operated by qualified charitable organizations in the pursuit of charitable purposes if conducted in conformity with enabling legislation.

(2) No activities permitted by subsection (1) shall employ any form of casino gambling including . any electronic or electromechanical imitation of simulation of any form of casino gambling.

(Note: What this means is that virtually all the gaming machines on Indian reservations are illegal. Federal law only permits reservations to conduct gambling that is legal in a given state, and slot machines are clearly prohibited by the state constitution. The tribes try to do an end-run around this by saying their slot machines are really lottery devices, but this would do them no good without the cooperation of an activist judiciary, since only the state is constitutionally permitted to conduct a lottery. Thus the tribes are able to get away with conduct that would land ordinary citizens in jail. If you don’t believe that, try installing one of the reservation slot machines in your place of business.)

Art. III. Sec. 24: PROMOTION OF TEMPERANCE AND MORALITY. The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home. The legislature should further all wise and well directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.

(Note: Whoa! Who knew this was in there? Do any of these candidates know this is in there, and what’s more important, will they submit themselves to this constitutional standard? When we in the pro-family movement make the “purity of the home” and the “promotion of . morality” fundamental issues in legislation, we are hardly out on some fringe somewhere but rather acting in the same spirit that animated the founders of our state.)

Art. III. Sec. 28: MARRIAGE. A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

(Note: This clearly prohibits any political subdivision of the state - including cities such as Boise and state universities such as BSU and the U of I - from granting legal recognition to civil unions or domestic partnerships.)

Art. V, Sec. 6: SUPREME COURT. . The justices of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the state at large.

(Note: This is the provision that both Justice Schroeder and Justice Trout are seeking to eviscerate by retiring early for no other reason than to keep the choice of their successors out of the hands of the public. Thus two of our five Supreme Court justices have publicly confessed without shame to taking actions deliberately designed to circumvent the state constitution they took a sacred oath to uphold. If that is not the essence of judicial activism, it’s hard to imagine what would qualify.

We’ll have a report for you on the interview process conducted by the Idaho Judicial Council tomorrow.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Idaho Chooses Life

Perhaps the hottest political topic of the long and glorious Idaho summer is the question of how we select candidates for the state’s judiciary. The gross manipulation being employed by two justices of our Supreme Court is just the latest complication in a long standing strategy by liberals to seize control of this Third Branch in order to advance their social agenda.

Over the past several years, the media have worked with powerful folks like Justice Trout and former Speaker Bruce Newcomb to create the impression that the public must remain largely ignorant of the views and prejudices of candidates. This “undercover” selection process has been equated with the pursuit of blind justice and impartiality once the candidate enters service.

But in reality – the key players in the judicial selection process have all the information they need to stack the bench with liberals. It is the vast majority of us who are expected to blindly follow their choices, hoping for the best. You can see how beautifully this supposed “judicial ethic” works for those trying to impose an illicit agenda upon the public.

Under intense pressure from the peer groups and the media, candidates for the judiciary have lately taken a position in which they refuse to answer public surveys about their political and judicial philosophies. Most recently, candidates for the Schroeder seat refused to answer questions posed by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance.

We believe they were wrong to do so. We believe that every candidate for the judiciary has a set of beliefs and values which will greatly influence how they conduct themselves on the bench; this qualifies them as members of the human race. And we believe that We the People have the right to know those prejudices before they are granted the mantle of public power.

A recent federal court decision in Wisconsin reminds us that the current propaganda about judicial candidates needing a sphinx-like posture to be considered serious judges is just plain hogwash.

Federal District Judge John Shabaz has granted a permanent injunction against provisions of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct that, here-to-fore, prohibited candidates from responding to public questionnaires. His ruling is in line with a previous one handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. That case was decided in 2002. It is known as Minnesota Republican Party v. White. A majority of justices found that rules which demand silence of judicial candidates violated their First Amendment rights; the ruling also found that the public has a right to inquire of candidates their views. Rules or statutes which prohibit public discussion interfere gravely with the public’s ability to make informed decisions when casting their ballot.

These rulings from federal courts help illuminate the dastardly con job now being perpetrated upon Idaho by the media and their powerful friends in the lawyers’ guild.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The following editorial by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance appeared in the May 27 Idaho Statesman

According to Idaho Supreme Court Justice Linda Copple Trout, ordinary Idahoans “don’t know how to make a choice on who would make a good judge.” This is oddly insulting to voters, for if Copple Trout is taken at her word, they didn’t know what they were doing when they returned her to the bench four times.

Copple Trout offered this elitist explanation for her decision to retire early, to avoid giving citizens the right to vote on her replacement. This is an astonishing admission of her part in a collaborative effort to do an end run around the Idaho Constitution, which she swore to uphold and which says unmistakably that, “The justices of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the state.”

According to Randy Stapilus of the Ridenbaugh Press, since 1950 no less than 68 percent of Idaho Supreme Court justices initially reached the bench through appointment rather than election.

Ostensibly, Copple Trout is retiring early because each judicial election has turned into a “popularity contest.” But the selection of her replacement may be just that, with the process now in the hands of the appointed Idaho Judicial Council rather than the people. The edge is likely to go to candidates who have done their best to become well-liked members of the clubby judicial establishment.

Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder is also retiring early, apparently sharing Copple Trout’s disdain for the electoral process. When the Idaho Values Alliance sent a questionnaire to all 19 candidates for his seat, not one came back.

This despite the fact that all 20 “agree/disagree” statements in the questionnaire were lifted virtually verbatim from the Idaho Constitution. Thus the alliance was doing nothing more than asking these candidates whether they agreed with the very document they are prepared to take a solemn and sacred oath to uphold.

This means either that the candidates did not recognize the constitution when they saw it, or did recognize it but were unwilling to let the public know whether they agree with it.

Remarkably, the Idaho Statesman, which clearly didn’t recognize the state constitution either, accused the alliance’s questionnaire of being “heavy-handed” and nothing more than a “gimmick,” “cynically” designed to “buttonhole the hopefuls on wedge issues such as gay marriage, eminent domain and gun ownership.”

Well, if the Statesman’s editors consider these “wedge issues,” their problem is not with the alliance but with the Idaho Constitution.

Current Justice Dan Eismann filled out a much more extensive questionnaire than ours when he ran against an incumbent in 2000, while his opponent did not. The public so appreciated his candor and his convictions they elected him 59 percent to 41 percent. In other words, Idahoans do in fact know how to choose good judges. They just need adequate information.

Eismann’s example shows that it is absurd for candidates to hide behind the conceit that it is inappropriate for potential judges to give the public information about their judicial philosophy because it might compromise future rulings.

Imagine league officials interviewing a prospective umpire. “Will you faithfully enforce the rules of baseball?” “Of course.” “What about the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule?” “Well, I can’t comment on that because I might actually have to call a game someday.” It’s no less ridiculous when a prospective judge says he will uphold the whole constitution but refuses to commit to upholding its parts. But in the judge’s case, the stakes are far higher.

Perhaps the day will come when the information blackout that shrouds this process is lifted, but apparently - with the Idaho Statesman reinforcing the cone of silence - that day is not today.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Idaho Chooses Life

The day after Justice Linda Copple Trout dropped her bomb on Idaho, the Liberal Media swooped in to provide fighter cover.

The Idaho Statesman defended Trout’s decision to flout the state’s Constitution. They wrote, “[Trout] performs one more service for Idahoans…” by deciding that she will try to rig things for her successor by circumventing the Constitution’s provision for electing members of the state’s highest court.

Editors at this liberal institution protected Trout’s rear by validating her claims that elections were simply too difficult for important folks like Justice Trout. They sought to legitimize the notion that candidates for the state’s highest court ought not be held accountable, nor should they be scrutinized by the general public.

The Statesman simply overlooked the very troubling breach of faith which underlies Trout’s resignation.

When she ran for office, Trout made a commitment to the people of Idaho that she would seek to fulfill her duties – including a commitment to finish her elected term. Now things happen – physical or family problems – which may make such a commitment difficult or even impossible to deliver. But Trout was blatant in telling Idahoans that she was resigning, not for good cause, or for reasons beyond her control – but because she wanted to crudely manipulate events in order to secure a successor to her personal liking. Such behavior betrays a gross arrogance; the Statesman is wrong in letting this slide.

Trout’s resignation presents a bold breach of faith on yet another, deeper, level. When she assumed this position of high trust, she publicly swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of Idaho. This end-run of its provisions demonstrates clearly that Justice Trout does not take that oath very seriously.

Which brings us to the heart of the problem: Idaho is fortunate to have inherited from our forebears a Constitution providing for a public check upon judicial abuse of power. We see first-hand the great problems created by a runaway federal judiciary. Unless we rise up and jealously defend our right to elect members of the Supreme Court, one day soon Idaho’s courts will reflect the imperial attitude dominant in San Francisco.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

David Tuthill, director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, has issued a list of potential recipients of water curtailment letters. Included in that list are a number of cities, including Idaho Falls, Ammon, Blackfoot, American Falls, Shelley.

As Tuthill states in his letter containing the “Notice of Potential Curtailment of Ground Water Rights”,

This letter is provided to inform you that I am preparing a curtailment order for issuance on May 24, 2007, that may affect the above identified water right or rights.

We must wonder what will happen in the city of Idaho Falls (or Blackfoot, Paul, Chubbuck, or Iona, for that matter) on May 24? There are a number of possibilities.

First we ask: when residents of Idaho Falls turn on the kitchen faucet on the morning of May 24, will anything come out, or will the “well run dry”?

Will Idaho Falls finally be forced to meter residential water? Most non-residents cannot comprehend the current system, which is a flat monthly charge for unlimited potable water. As one sage observed, Idaho Falls residents can open every faucet inside or outside their home and leave them 24/7 - with never an additional charge. Of course, to the dispassionate observer this makes no sense in an area prone to drought, locked in a prolonged drought cycle.

And should meters be installed in every residence, who will foot the large bill? You can bet home owners will pick up the tab, one way or another.

Finally, might Idaho Falls leaders simply ignore a curtailment order? And if they choose that route, will a judge intervene? Or even the Idaho State Police?

And just to “muddy the water” further, remember that the Idaho Constitution stipulates,

“when the waters of any natural stream are not
sufficient for the service of all those desiring the use of the same, those
using the water for domestic purposes shall (subject to such limitations as
may be prescribed by law) have the preference over those claiming for any
other purpose”

In other words, water use in homes has the highest priority of all. What is Mr. Tuthill thinking?

But the Idaho Constitution notwithstanding, make no mistake about it: if you live in the curtailment area, you will be affected.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance

IVA IN THE NEWS: PROMOTING JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

One of the four specific goals of the IVA - in addition to promoting and defending religious liberty, the sanctity of the family, and the sanctity of life - is promoting and defending judicial restraint.

We received national attention for the Citizen Information Questionnaire we sent out to all 19 candidates for the soon-to-be vacant seat on the Idaho Supreme Court (WorldNetDaily: Judge wannabes refuse to endorse constitution).

For our effort to give candidates the chance to let the public know something about their judicial philosophy, we have already been attacked once by the Lewiston Morning Tribune, in a recent Tom Henderson column. Yesterday morning, it was Jim Fisher’s turn to go after us in print.

His column appears below. After using words like “rotten,” “preposterous,” “boorish,” and “impertinent” (this from someone who no doubt fancies himself to be the very voice of tolerance) to describe our effort, he then accuses us of “cherry-picking” our questions from the constitution.

The only example he gives is when we asked candidates whether they agreed or disagreed with the constitution’s mandate that, “The legislature should further all wise and well directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.”

Well, it’s in there, and if a judge is going to take an oath to uphold the entire constitution, then he’s taking an oath to support that mandate like every other. It’s perfectly appropriate for the people to know whether his oath applies to the entire constitution or just to the parts that happen to be politically in vogue at the moment.

Further, he accuses us of doing something inappropriate by reminding the public that Dan Eismann filled out a much more extensive questionnaire when he ran against sitting judge Cathy Silak in 2000. His opponent did what all 19 current candidates have done - refused to answer it at all. (Silak’s questionnaire was in fact returned, but with no response other than a profanity scrawled across the first page, the same profanity Sen. John McCain used last week in a heated argument with a fellow senator over the amnesty bill.)

But despite what Fisher considers some kind of horrible breach of judicial etiquette, which included his rejection of the scientifically bankrupt theory of evolution, Eismann won that race 59-41, which in political circles is like Custer at the Little Big Horn. Current candidates could only hope that filling out our questionnaire would do as much damage to their hopes as Eismann’s response did to his.

A justice who did what court applicants didn’t

Jim Fisher
May 20, 2007

What a rotten thing Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance has done to Idaho Supreme Court Justice Daniel Eismann. After all 19 applicants for a vacancy on the state’s highest court refused to fill out the alliance’s questionnaire about their judicial and political leanings, Fischer issued a reminder that Eismann was not so cautious.

“When Judge Dan Eismann ran for a seat on the Idaho Supreme Court in 2000, he filled out a much more extensive questionnaire than this one,” Fischer, a former Boise preacher, says in a news release. The headline over the release says “All 19 Supreme Court candidates flunk constitutional questionnaire.”

Fischer doesn’t say how refusing to participate in his test constitutes flunking it. But he does venture two reasons why they did not say whether they agreed with his list of propositions, which he says were derived from the Idaho Constitution.

“One possibility is that the candidates didn’t even recognize that these statements come word for word from the state constitution, which is pretty alarming,” he says.

It is also preposterous. The people who want to succeed Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder, who is retiring from the bench, include current judges, veteran deputy attorneys general, the majority leader of the state Senate and at least one former president of the Idaho State Bar. The suggestion they do not recognize provisions of the state constitution is as boorish as it is impertinent.

“The second possibility, “Fischer continues, “is that they did recognize them as coming from the constitution, but weren’t willing to let the public know whether they agree with it. That’s even worse.”

But is it? Another thing Fischer neglects to mention is that his cherry-picked provisions from the constitution - including the promotion of “temperance and sobriety” and permitting school levy elections to be restricted to property owners - are not his only questions. It also asks candidates to identify which U.S. Supreme Court justices most reflect their judicial philosophies and which U.S. presidents most reflect their political philosophies.

Those questions alone provide good reason for anyone seeking a Supreme Court seat to shun the questionnaire. Justices are not legislators, and are expected to deal with cases before them on their legal and constitutional, not their political, merits.

But Fischer is correct that Eismann did what these candidates did not. When he successfully challenged incumbent Justice Cathy Silak seven years ago, he responded to a questionnaire from the Christian Coalition, proclaiming, for example, that he was pro-life on the abortion issue. On another issue, he wrote this: “I think you can prove scientifically that evolution has not and cannot occur.”

That would, of course, be news to scientists. But it was no doubt music to Bryan Fischer’s ears.

Good for the current band of court candidates that they refused to play his tune. - J.F.

Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance designed a very interesting questionnaire for the 19 candidates vying for an appointed position on the Idaho Supreme Court. All 19 have refused to answer the questionnaire, but must now be ruing the day.

Fischer recently revealed that all questions on the form were taken directly from the Idaho State Constitution, the document all members of the Idaho Supreme Court must swear to uphold. We should not be surprised that national media have picked up on the story!

Read more about this issue at the Idaho Values Alliance website, and at WorldNetDaily.com.

Read previous posts on this subject, including Guest Post: Idaho Values Alliance Produces Idaho Supreme Court Questionnaire, and Guest Post: Disturbing Leanings of Members of the Idaho Judicial Council
.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full feed RSS.

Yes, once again District 93 taxpayers are being asked to tax themselves even more to pay for the growth in the area. Just one problem - district administration and trustees don’t really want ALL taxpayers to weigh in.

With barely a mention in local media until today, the District targets only those voters most likely to vote “yes”. For a more complete list of District 93 tax levy tactics, see Bonneville School District 93: Another Bond Election Coup.

And don’t forget that year after year school districts help defeat legislation that would consolidate all elections on common days throughout the year. If that were to happen, passage of bonds and supplemental levies would be in jeopardy from more taxpayer participation. See Time to Consolidate Elections.

Expect each school to have crowded parking lots all day as parents attend special lunches, musical programs, and other special events designed to get all those “automatic yes-vote” folks in to the polling places, conveniently located only at schools.

At least Supt. Chuck Shackett allowed the Idaho Falls newspaper to subject him to a (propaganda-filled) Q & A which appears on page A7 of today’s edition. He recites the usual - dire predictions of severe cutbacks should the supplemental levy fail. He doesn’t fail to play the ever-present “your taxes won’t go up if it passes” card. Can’t fool me - I’d be paying less if it went down in flames.

I’ll bet the District 93 board isn’t even the tiniest bit sorry they included a second gym at Bonneville High School, a dozen lighted tennis courts, an expensive replacement of an almost brand-new H-VAC system at Rocky Mountain Jr. High, and an auditorium at Hillcrest High School in a past bond election. And now that that money is all spent they’re telling us they can’t deliver a good education to “our children” without more money.

Why is it that the school board members forget that we sent them to the head office to represent the taxpayers, to be wise stewards of our tax dollars, to provide an “adequate” education. Invariably (with the exception of trustee Wendy Horman, a lone voice of reason) board members somehow become part of the bureaucracy once they see how easy it is to extract more dollars from gullible tax payers whenever they have a new idea.

No wonder Shackett and Board Chairman Craig Lords are so opposed to additional public charter schools in the area. Charter schools use NO PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS AT ALL. Yet they pay their teachers more, build new schools, and in general return better educational results than traditional public schools.

So, taxpayers of District 93, you’re faced with several choices. Do you brave the hordes of Yes-men crowding the schools today? If so, do you once again sign a check to the district administration by voting “yes”? And for those of you with children still in the education system, is it finally time to put them on the waiting list (yes, WAITING LIST) at the local public charter school, where you know they will receive a quality education without impoverishing taxpayers?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.