Critics of Stan Mack Weigh In

To The Editor:

The SOS I refer to is “Save our Snacks.” The Robbinsdale schools have cut for the 2009 budget over $8,000 for “snacks for routine meetings.”

This means that it is still in the budget for this year and likely has been for previous years. Funny thing is, the Vote Yes person was not aware of this when I mentioned it; he interrupted my dinner this evening to stress the importance of voting yes for the upcoming referendums.

Oh, he knew all the talking points and assured me that everything has been cut to the bone. He did not know the superintendent did not even take his proposed bonus this year, a bit over $3,000. I told him not to worry. I bet he still has some left over from the $8,300 bonus that he took last year.

Between the bonus, his car allowance, 50 days of vacation and over $160,000 salary, I think he can buy something out of a vending machine before a meeting.

OK, some of you are fuming at the levity, but all the above is true. The school district is not a business; it is a public entity and is paid for by the taxpayers. So until they truly get costs under control, stop viewing themselves as a corporation, and address the performance issues they have in the schools, we should deny them the money that they are claiming is so necessary.

Or you could vote yes and truly “Save our Snacks.”

Shane P


To the editor:

Every lawn sign I see about the new funding increase proposed for District 281 is a reminder to me of something Superintendent Stan Mack said a year ago, when the funding referendum failed.

He referred to the majority who voted against the referendum as “adults behaving badly.”

If the referendum fails on Nov. 4, perhaps the school district should look for a new leader, who will rally, rather than chastise the taxpayers in this district.

David M

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Critics of Stan Mack Weigh In”

  1. give2get Says:

    Please reference the context of Stan Mack’s comments.

    He was talking about the folks who used incorrect statements during phone calls to scare and mislead voters. Not the voters or citizens of the district.

    By the way, silly as it sounds, occasional celebratory snacks matter to employees. I often provide rolls for early morning meetings with great results. (must be the sugar rush…) And since we are talking about ~$4/yr/employee, it seems pretty small to focus on.

  2. maryjanedoh Says:

    Speaking of taking things out of context:

    1. What incorrect statements during phone calls? Provide facts, not hysteria.
    2. What makes you think we’re not voters and citizens? Provide facts, not hysteria.
    3. Don’t try to minimize the expense by breaking it down per employee-that’s silly-it’s still over $8000 in unnecessary spending.
    4. You claim to provide treats for your meetings-good for you-that’s voluntary, and has nothing to do with the tax grab-or does it?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: