| OCR Text |
Show A4 Sanpete Messenger/Gunnison Valley Edition TO THE EDITOR... FOR LETTERS-TO-THE-EDITOR POLICY GO TO WWW.SANPETEMESSENGER.COM, CLICK ON ‘OPINIONS’ THEN ‘LETTERS TO THE EDITOR’ New courts building needed to meet new challenges As a 45-year resident of Sanpete County and an employee of the Utah State Courts, I have to ask myself why the citizens of this great area would not welcome and embrace a new court facility. While the existing building has served the courts well for many years, it was not constructed to meet the challenges and needs of today including security, technology, increased population, increased case filings, public access, parking, seating, amplification and recording. As both a Sanpete County resident and a court employee, I believe a new court facility will benefit all residents. Security—We need a location that will provide a safe, secure environment for those with cases before the court, and also for court staff. While we all hope to never experience an incident of violence, we also need to do what we can to prevent one from occurring. Privacy—Even though many of the filings before the court are public record, a person has a right to expect some privacy. The new building will offer attorney-client conference rooms, witness waiting rooms, and separate areas for public seating. The person waiting for a marriage license, the person from the title company, the person requesting voter information will not be standing in line listening to answers asked on a divorce filing. Technology—The technology available to assist attorneys, witnesses, parties, judges, and staff far exceeds what is available in our existing courtroom. The ability to increase technology is limited in the existing facility. Space—The court shares office space with the county clerk’s office, where records are often not readily available and space for persons filing documents is limited. Public terminals located in hallways have no privacy and no workspace. The new facility will have all records in a central location; there will be ample space to assist persons coming into the court; and public terminals will be out of the main flow of traffic with privacy and workspace available. There will be private conference rooms available for groups such as Utah Legal Services, which provides legal assistance as well as private space for court clients to complete paperwork such as requests for protective orders. Families coming in to meet with juvenile probation will have a waiting room out of the public area. Building access—The existing building is a beautiful, historic building; however, the parking and public access is limited. This court facility will be paid for through a lease agreement with the state, and the state courts will operate, maintain, secure, and staff this facility. A revenue bond cannot be charged back to the county residents through taxes. As a resident of Sanpete, I have often felt the burden of living on less in order to have the opportunity to live here. I also believe this building will be built without cost to the citizens. For all these reasons, I encourage you to vote for the revenue bond on the November ballot. Peggy K. Johnson Clerk of 6th District Court ‘Right place’ for courts building is where it already is In a newspaper ad from supporters of the bond for the new courts building, it mentions “the right place.” Where is the right place? From a recent newspaper article about the south site, we read the words, “tentative court site identified.” Notice the word “tentative.” Do we have a signed, written guarantee that the proposed building will go on that site and not on the fairgrounds property? In the Sanpete Messenger, Oct. 3, it tells about the “tentative” site and it says: talks are underway with “interested parties.” On KMTI Table Talk, Oct. 9, Mark Anderson mentioned that “...we are in the process of negotiating for five acres of land and at the south end of Manti City...” Then he says, “...we are in negotiations, trying to complete that,” and “We have an initial indication that they’re willing to sell/the owners of the property and it’s just in the negotiation and fine-tuning.” On Oct. 11, I looked into all of those so-called negotiations and talked to the owner of the property that they are referring to. He said that they have had only one call from Claudia Jarrett, and he said that he has no idea even where the property is that they are talking about. He guaranteed that nothing will happen until after the first of the year and then if it all worked out, it wouldn’t happen until late 2008 because it would have to be approved with federal people in Denver. So, do you think that we will have this land secured before the election? No! Our fairgrounds are still in trouble. Look at the new road cutting into our fairgrounds. From the official maps of the new road and a map of the fairgrounds, you can see that the road was designed to empty right into the courts building plan. When a change in location was announced, why didn’t the commissioners re-evaluate the design of that road? And why did the commissioners make an agreement to pay almost $200,000, plus engineering costs, for an unnecessary road on county property? They must have wanted that road pretty bad. Why? We can’t be naive and think that all is well in Sanpete County. If that bond is passed, who knows if the fairgrounds will again be the location. What’s to stop them? The commissioners said they decided, in order to win the bond election, they would have to change location. The commissioners haven’t said they changed the location because people fought to protect the children from a dangerous situation and because citizens wanted to save the fairgrounds. It was to win the election. Where are their priorities? Our courthouse is a beautiful facility for the courts. The fairgrounds are a wonderful place for the county to come together with family and friends. Let’s stop trying to change everything, and protect and take care of what we already have. Where is the “right place” for a courts facility? Where it is right now. Bruce Bown Manti Conversations with ... Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Vouchers seek to shift funding for education to private sector When one considers the continued support of vouchers by our Legislature over the past few years, one has to seriously question what the specific reason is for their support of an educational voucher program. I have come to believe that it is not because they wish to improve education, nor that their main concern is to provide choice for parents in the state. Rather, I believe the voucher legislation (like charter legislation) is proposed to allow state lawmakers to shift funding responsibility of education from the Legislature to private industry and parents. This seems to be the conclusion of others, as we see new advertisements coming forward suggesting that the voucher proposal will save the taxpayers money. This may be a reasonable idea. However, as we have found with charter schools over the past few years, there are really no cost savings and it is not cost-effective to provide small pockets of varied and specific educational offerings. Charter schools each year come back to the State Board and the Legislature asking for funding to cover buildings, administration and the lack of district-supported items. I believe that the larger districts and school programs have come into being to more cost-effectively provide a wider variance of offerings for students, while holding the schools and districts accountable for expenditure of tax dollars and student success. If we truly wish to provide a quality education system for “all” Space argument doesn’t work for courts building When will the commissioners and supporters of the proposed courts building understand that space is not an issue? The commissioners’ main campaign, including fliers and ads, go into great lengths telling the public that we will have all of this space if we vote for the courthouse. The truth of the matter is the office and storage space will be remedied when the jail is built and all of the jail space becomes available, not with a new courts building. No county offices would be moving over to the new facility and the justice court will remain in our present courthouse. The proposed courts building is for state employees only. Moving the state courts out to a new facility would only free up a courtroom, judge’s chambers and a jury room. It would be bad judgment to turn the beautiful, historical courtroom into an office space. The courthouse is on the National Historic Register and some of that area needs to be used and preserved for what it was originally used for. So, commissioners, talk about space issues all you want. It just isn’t so. As far as the juvenile-court offices go, when they talk about the need to co-locate with the courtroom, they can do just that in our present courthouse, when the jail moves to their new facility. Since the state did such a beautiful job renovating the Manti City Hall for the juvenile-courts office, they can do the same with the vacated jail space. We must make sure that the jail space be reserved for county needs and not rent space out to other entities. The top floor of the present courthouse is a beautiful facility for the courts. The top floor should be used, exclusively, for the courts. That floor could be secured and the commission room and election storage room could be moved into the jail space, leaving two conference rooms for consultations with law- Daily Lunch & Dinner Specials! Kids eat free Family Night: Monday, between 5 & 8 p.m. 61 S. Main, Ephraim 283-FOOD (3663) 2 Kids eight and under eat FREE with each “one” paid adult entree. Large dining room for wedding luncheons/ dinners. Several menu options to fit your budget. Call Don’s Reservation line at 8353663, ask for Gus or Don. Additional parking in back, with a back door, for your convenience yers and their clients. The courts area has been kept in top condition. The safety issues and remodeling of the jail and other areas need to be addressed, whether a new courts building is built or not. We should look at these county needs, instead of letting the state use us to build their building. On KMTI Table Talk, Commissioner Jarrett mentioned that refurbishing costs are prohibitive, remodeling being higher than the cost of a new building. In the recording of minutes for the May 15 commission meeting, Commissioner Blackham quotes the last estimate for remodeling as $1.8 million. That is a lot better than $8.5 million or more. Why are we “sticking our neck out” to build a state facility? It definitely isn’t for space. Vote against the lease revenue bond. Dave Smith Mt. Pleasant Exercise your rights-vote ‘no’ on courts building bond I really feel that it is important for citizens to take the time and take advantage of their right to vote. This is a wonderful privilege and a wonderful freedom in our country. The Concerned Citizens of Sanpete County and people signing a petition made it possible for voters, to vote on a bond for a new courts facility, when otherwise, without the petition, we wouldn’t have been given that right. I would like to remind all qualified registered voters to exercise that right and go to the polls on Nov. 6. If you are not registered, do it now, because you have less than a week left to register for this election. When you go to register at the county clerk’s office, you will need to have a driver’s license or state identification. The following information was printed in a handout from the county clerk’s office, the county website, www.sanpetecounty.org/ pages/clerk, and information submitted by the county clerk to local newspapers, “Notice of Special Bond Election.” I would like to relay specific information. Remember that early voting can be done before the election at three locations: Sanpete County Clerk’s Office, 160 N. Main, Rm. 202, Manti, Oct.23-26, Oct. 29-Nov. 2, 8 a.m.– 5 p.m.; Mt. Pleasant City Building, 115 West Main St., Mt. Pleasant, Oct. 25, 9 a.m.–4 p.m.; Gunnison Senior Center, 38 West Center St., Gunnison, Oct. 30, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Absentee-ballot applications are available at the county clerk’s office and on the website listed above. After you fill out the application and send or deliver it to the clerk’s office, an absentee ballot will be sent or given to you. The absentee ballots must be received no later than Friday before the election, but if a person is voting an absentee ballot in the clerk’s office, he/she can do so up until Monday before the election. Nov. 6 is the date of the election, from 7 a.m.-8 p.m. The polling places are listed in the “Notice of Special Bond Election” in the newspaper, or you can check with the county clerk to find out where to vote. It would be wonderful to have a large turnout so that we can get a true picture of what the people want in Sanpete County. I helped with the petition drive last year to put Proposition No. 1 to the vote of the people, and I would like to thank the thousands of citizens who signed that petition to give us this vote. I encourage all of those citizens and every Sanpete County citizen to now exercise that right and vote against the issuance of bonds for the new courts building. Arla Otten Sterling Utah State University – Ephraim POSTMASTERS EXCITEMENT T! We was drivin’ by the bank the other day and some fool backed out from the grocery store and if I hadn’t swerved I’d be dealin’ with insurance companies right now. Verl started swearin’ cause they was on his side and he had his windows down and he wasn’t hard to hear. I saw some ladies who work at the temple and they looked at each other like he was out of his mind. Verl felt pretty bad after we got across the road and things settled down. He said swearin’ don’t do any good and if he hadn’t spent time around sheep he never woulda picked up them words. students, do we want to trust that private industry and individual parents can and will provide the necessary funding to educate “all” students and be accountable for the tax dollars they receive? Also, do you as a parent trust that the private educational programs will accept your child, regardless of status, ability or special needs? Do we believe that rural areas of the state will have the same availability as urban areas of the state? There are many questions regarding funding, accountability and equability surrounding the voucher proposal. Do we trust it will be worth the tax dollars you provide? Dixie Allen State Board Representative, District 14 USU’s distance-delivered Education Doctorate (EdD) and Education Specialist (EdS) degrees are scheduled to begin Fall semester, 2008. Visit http://distance.usu.edu and follow the “degrees” link to explore how to qualify. y. To attend an information seminar, contact Dann Adams at 283-7590 or 1-888-547-4994 dan.adams@usu.edu |
