Reply to Eric Schertzing "Compromise is hard"

Yes, compromise is hard. So is sacrifice. When we talk compromise, the ideal is that everyone gives a little and no one is completely satisfied. That is clearly not the case with this bond. Mr. Schertzing waxes poetically about civic compromise, but not a word about shared civic sacrifice.

A no vote is not a punishment. It means that we go back to the drawing board. Is that feasible? Of course it is. People, schools, governments do it all the time. There is no permanent doom in the case of a no vote.

Mr. Schertzing presents the false choices of the board simply acting or not acting, and then does a little finger wagging that all of us complaining if there had been no action by the board. There were and are choices. The implication that this particular bond action was and is our only choice, the only action that could have been taken, is a tiresome and untrue refrain.

And finally, for those of us "wishful thinking folks" who have followed the process from the start and see how difficult it has been, please fully explain the complexity of process - including the politics - so that we may understand and appreciate what we are missing. The politics of this bond are often alluded to, but rarely put out in the open. The only person who has been open about the politics in a public forum is Konrad Hittner. At a Red Cedar school candidates forum before the school board election he stated that if Glencarin and White Hills were slated to close a bond would not pass. In that political reality, the formula was not keep five schools open and close a school. The only truly viable formula was to keep five schools open and to close Red Cedar specifically. I am pretty politically naive so if that is not the politics that you are inferring, please explain otherwise. If that scenario is the real politic of this bond offering, please be open about it.

Thoughts? Questions? Email me: