Comment history

Lawrence teachers ratify contract

Weatherwatcher’s misunderstanding is perpetuated by sources like the Journal World, or at least their editorial writer. At least for operating expenses they don’t understand how school finance works. In their mind, if teacher salaries go up, then the board must have increased taxes. In reality the district gets a relatively fixed amount, and the board just decides how to divide it up. You can’t apply city and county taxes and spending to schools because they are fundamentally different.

So KSM is quite right and WW is quite wrong.

August 26, 2013 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Public process

If the "public" (i.e., the one person who showed up) asked a question and got an answer than De facto the public hearing was not closed. The statement that "there was no further opportunity for questions" is flat out wrong. If you have an actual question about whether "school districts are using their tax dollars wisely and frugally" than ask it. That would be a refreshing change from the another vague, and in this case, misleading editorial.

August 19, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Public process

Sorry, the guy asked his question after the budget presentation. And he got an answer. So, no not after public comment was closed. Watching these meetings on TV is not exciting, but if the editorial writer cares enough to write an editorial, then maybe he or she should watch and, I don't know, become informed. Otherwise, he or she is no more informed than broken record wilbur.

August 18, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

School board adopts $148.8 million budget

Article to kansastm = apples to apples. Article to skags = apples to oranges.

August 13, 2013 at 9:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Details, details

I think the point was that facts matter. Comparing the city and county budgeting process to school district budgeting is truly comparing apples to oranges.

July 24, 2013 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Voters to have their say on future of Lawrence schools

Where was he? Not sure, but he was not on the school board. A new majority (4 members) was elected in 2011.

March 30, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

Now you are just making things up.

March 24, 2013 at 11:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

Some of the portables have been around for 20 years, and this board is the first to try to get rid of them. But you cannot just take them away, they need to be replaced, which costs money. You can vote no, and if the bond does not pass then kids will continue to go to school in portables. The bond is planning ahead and based on growth projections for down the road.

March 24, 2013 at 10:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

Telling who is was okay? These are 7 different people. No one on this board voted for sports fields.

March 24, 2013 at 9:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Bond reservations

I hope you will not deny children upgraded buildings because of what the previous board did. Not the current board, the previous board. We have children going to class in unsafe portables, and they deserve real classrooms. The bond is not 96 mil and school enrollments are in fact increasing. Even if Brownback gives education less money, kids still need a place to go to class, and should have 21st century facilities, not the mid 20th century facilities they have now.

March 24, 2013 at 9:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )