Editor:
Going back through the recent news pertaining to the Sweet Home charter school, I noticed an article published on May 17. I would address this person’s comments except that (unlike others) he or she wished to keep their name a secret. I can certainly understand the reasoning behind that after reading the article and attending some of the recent school board meetings.
This person is obviously out of touch with the present community of Sweet Home. Does this person live in Sweet Home? Have they gone to the recent school board meetings or just heard about them? I would vote for the former and hope that their opinions were not based on the latter.
Here are excerpts from May 17 article, in italics:
If the district wanted complete protection, it would demand a completely new corporation, without ties to PIE, to run the school; but that’s not what the board demanded.
It is an interesting statement since the board and their lawyer publicly stated that the requirement to form a separate corporation “did not” completely protect the school system but just added an “extra layer.”
That means that the new corporation could be a subsidiary of PIE, still granting a layer of protection to the school district and the Sweet Home Charter School.
Another interesting statement. Especially considering that when the school board’s lawyer sketched out and explained the new requirement for everyone he stated that it would be a new corporation with a “different board of directors.” If PIE forms a separate corporation as the Sweet Home board has requested will this be the “new” bargaining point? Where and when do the added requirements deemed necessary by the Sweet Home school board quit? Dr. Horton stated that before the latest requirement of a new corporation that they were within “hours” of completing the contract. Did that scare them? Is that why they suddenly passed a new requirement?
PIE needs to follow the law as should the Sweet Home School Board.
My understanding of this issue is that PIE prepared and submitted a charter school proposal to the district. What is included in this proposal is defined by statue and is very detailed and demanding. Only minor details and minor points are left out of the requirements.
If the proposal is accepted, which did happen, then the two boards are to work out the contract “based on the proposal.” Nowhere is there anything about forming separate corporations.
The proposal was made by PIE and accepted by the Sweet Home school board. The contract is between those two parties. To try to impose other requirements in my opinion is both ludicrous and unlawful. It is time for the Sweet Home board to start listening to their constituents, to sit down, finish this contract in a fair and timely manner and give the people of Sweet Home a choice!
Lloyd Braunberger
PIE vice-president
Brownsville