I don't usually do a follow-up on earlier posts but did anyone see the clip on Channel 11 last night on the 11 o'clock news about the grant rejected by the Swanton school board?
This is what caught my attention: at the very end of the clip, Neil Toeppe (Executive Director of the SACC) was shown stating, "“there was a lot going to kids, the administration was a small component that (the board) is using as a smoke screen to cover their unwillingness to address the issue publicly.”
Is he serious? Is he actually stating that an annual amount of $4,705 out of a total $511,000 constitutes "a lot going to kids" while $506,295 for salaries, computers & equipment, and travel is "a small component" for administration?? (I did the math using that summary page - you can read it by clicking here)
This clip also had a guy named Mullan who is affiliated with something called the Community Coalition, who said it was "disturbing that 5 people would unanimously turn down free money " (um, Earth to Mullan: there is no such thing as 'free money')
Reading that summary page, it is clear that the SACC and the Community Coalition were the ones who stood to gain the lion's share of that half million dollars. They are both listed by name, as administrators and evaluator of the grant. Funny - none of the video they shot mentioned any of that . . .
There was a short mention by Toeppe of his concern for his 2 grandsons who are coming up through the Swanton school system, with regard to the grant being rejected. . . So Mr. Toeppe, pay attention here, cuz I'm talking to You and all of those who share your opinion that somehow a school system is responsible for the alcohol/tobacco/drug use of their students: PARENTS are responsible for teaching their kids to stay away from drugs and alcohol. PARENTS are responsible to make sure their kids aren't into mischief or trouble outside of school. PARENTS have the greatest impact on their kids' behavior, whether good or evil.
Maybe you've never considered this before, but it is not the responsibility of ANY government entity to parent our kids! It is not the responsibility of the Swanton school district to parent your grandsons, Mr. Toeppe - it is the responsibility of their mom and dad, one of whom is your offspring.
Now maybe if we eliminated the Department of Education completely, and did away with all of these grants where so much money was thrown at a problem, our families would be able to keep more of the money they earn. By being able to pay less in taxes that are delivered by the bushel to entities like the SACC, maybe hundreds and thousands of 2 income households would be able to pare back to 1 income and still be able to eat and pay their personally incurred bills.
And maybe, just maybe, sanity would be restored to the United States and its democratic republic snatched from the brink before it slides forever into the socialistic mire it toys with today. For make no mistake, Mr. Toeppe - the principle you espouse is indeed socialism, where Government is in charge from cradle to grave. I deeply resent those of your ilk who whine ever louder for Government to assume their personal, individual responsibilities, as the money to do so is taken from my pocket and the pockets of my neighbors in ever-increasing taxes while our freedoms are slowly eroded to dust.
PARENTS need to do whatever it takes to keep their kids straight. If that means the parents must limit or cease their own intake of these substances in question, so be it. If that means the parents need to plan supervised parties at home for their kids and their friends, they should do it. If that means the parents must insist on doling out chores or side jobs to their little darlings in order to keep them from imbibing after school (now there's a quaint idea), then, by God they should do so!
I sincerely hope that the citizens of Swanton are intelligent enough to see through your b.s., Mr. Toeppe, and that they are the kind of parents who actually raise their own kids without the benefit of your poker games and pizza parties at taxpayer expense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just was told of your blog and wanted to clarify a few points.
First, the grant was based on competitive process within the U.S. Department of Education. The school board and administration authorized SACC to undertake the preparation of the grant application on their behalf. So understand this – the grant was submitted by the School Board and administration to the U.S. Department of Education. They signed off on it before it was submitted. The school board and administration encouraged the submission of this grant and asked SACC to prepare it, not once but twice. The first year it was submitted it did not get approved and SACC was asked to prepare it for submission a second year. Second, the school superintendent and treasurer recommended several changes in funding distribution and fiscal management of the grant to which SACC readily agreed.
Clearly it is the parents’ responsibility to parent. Not the schools. However, there is a little thing called peer pressure. And when you live in your “perfect blog” where all parents are concerned, caring and attentive you might not understand that all parents don’t share the same parenting skills. They and their children can have a serious negative influence on the “good” kids. Maybe you’ve heard the phrase “one bad apple spoils the bunch”?
Many community leaders, including the police chief, a local judge, school administrators, clergy and business professionals recognized that there was a youth substance abuse problem in the community and organized the Swanton Area Community Coalition over five years ago to help parents and children combat this problem. The objective was to help students develop extra-curricular alternative activities that do not include drugs or alcohol. One of the first initiatives was the formation of the Parent On Board campaign that now has hundreds of parents who have signed pledges not to serve alcohol to any children in their homes. Another initiative was the formation of the youth group Students Encouraging Educated Decisions (SEED) that has now grown to about 10% of the high school enrollment. It is now becoming “popular” to become a member of this youth group that encourages a drug and alcohol free lifestyle. None of these efforts were supported by federal grant dollars. The SACC board of directors includes many of those community leaders mentioned earlier and also includes parents and students. So, while it is the parents’ responsibility to parent, wise parents know that they need help from other parents. And that is a role that SACC helps facilitate.
Many of these initiates were, and are, done with volunteer time and effort. In 2009 alone over $100,000.00 of in-kind time and material has been donated by volunteers to SACC efforts.
You properly note that there is no “free money”. The grant comes from taxpayer dollars, money taken by the federal, state, or local governments from each of us who pay taxes. The competitive grant dollars that were refused by the Swanton Local School District did not get applied to the federal deficit, was not returned to taxpayers, nor was it saved in some other manner. It went to another school district that did not have as compelling a need as Swanton’s. So Swanton taxpayers did not see any of their federal taxes returned to help parent’s combat a local problem, but rather got to see their tax dollars go to a community with a lesser need.
One can argue whether all of these types of grants should be eliminated, but while these dollars are available communities do compete for them to be returned to their communities to help solve local problems.
Even with the significant value of volunteer time and donations of materials it still takes a paid staff (currently one full-time and two part-time), office equipment, and supplies, postage, etc. to operate the SACC organization.
Neil Toeppe
SACC Board Member and Past President
Sorry, Mr Toeppe - like my gramma always said: "just because 'everybody's doing it' doesn't mean you should be doing it, and it doesn't mean it's right!".
According to the Bible, the majority is usually very wrong.
While we could agree that some money would need to be spent on administration to run good programs, I fail to see how millions of tax dollars for pizza parties and gambling parties are a good investment - especially the high school Texas Hold 'Em tournaments. Given the awful nationwide statistics on the results of gambling, I am appalled that you are able to support this activity for children with a straight face and clear conscience.
And how many years were Deacon and his wife allowed to double-dip into the grant money treasure chest through their collusion on the SACC? Can you say, "ethics violation" ? I seriously doubt that it is a coincidence that he removed himself from that organization when he did.
While there has been some good accomplished on behalf of the kids in your community, that good was done by volunteer time and effort and can continue in the same fashion, without requiring millions of tax dollars. There are many many examples to which I could point, of great good accomplished with little money. (Mother Theresa, Cherry St. Mission, the Open Door in Delta, etc)
These federal grants may have started with good intentions, but - like other government programs - have morphed into something quite awful, and with our tax dollars.
As for the substance abuse issue in your community, I hardly think that you can expect your youth to stay away from drugs and alcohol when your Village Council sees fit to put the almighty dollar above the welfare of the community. I speak here of Council's decision to allow a beer tent at the annual Corn Fest. Kids are mighty quick to see a double-standard, as you should know, and they hold little respect for adults who talk out of both sides of their mouth.
If you truly want to help the kids in your community, you need to start with the adults. A serious chat with your Village Council would be a good place to begin. And it won't require any tax dollars to do it.
Post a Comment