In a recent editorial, the Morgan Hill Times asserted that voters have been denied essential information because the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has not released a privately funded poll it conducted on a potential ballot measure to fund the operation of a 16.1-mile extension of BART into Santa Clara County.
We did not release the poll because we did not want the board of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to make a decision based on a poll, but on whether the measure is good public policy, and whether the funds are needed to operate the future BART extension from Fremont to Santa Clara, where it will connect to Caltrain. We did not release the poll because campaigns virtually never help potential opponents by releasing their polling.
What essential information has been denied the public? Remember that the VTA board did not vote to enact a policy, but to put a measure on the ballot to allow voters to enact a policy. Why is it important for voters to know about a poll in July as they decide in November whether bringing BART to Santa Clara County is good for them, their city and the region in which they live?
There is much essential information voters should consider about the extension of BART: Its heavy ridership; its critical role in a regional transit system that loops the bay; its connection to Caltrain, which serves South County. And certainly, its costs compared to its benefits. The Leadership Group believes that on all those counts the information leads to the conclusion that BART is the right choice. We will be happy to provide that policy information for all voters and taxpayers to consider.
Phil Yost
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
San Martin incorporation would mean increased fees, taxes
Dear Editor,
I'm a longtime resident of San Martin. I've lived in this community for 30 years. The biggest changes that I would anticipate were San Martin incorporated would be a whole lot of small town politics and increased fees and taxes. Apparently there are people who see this as a wonderful change. I don't. I live in San Martin because I prefer the lifestyle - quiet, friends, horses, my garden, livestock, lower taxes, traffic and population density. I used to live in San Jose. I moved to San Martin because I DIDN'T want to live in a city. Happily, there are many other people in San Martin that feel the same way. Might I suggest that people who've moved to San Martin who want to live in a city move to one? There are lots of fine cities in this county. I think it's better if there are areas that are not cities, too. San Martin does not have the financial base to support city services. I'd hate to see the changes necessary to provide that financial base.
Jan Webb, San Martin
School counselor caseloads too high
Dear Editor,
I worked in the Morgan Hill Unified School District last year and feel a need to express my concern over the counselor-to-student ratio that the district is working with currently, especially in light of the demands of AB 1802. I have many concerns over the high caseload I managed. Let me begin by stating my personal load of students at Sobrato was 513 (my colleagues have 529 and 518). In the school district I came from, the contract ratio was 350: one in high schools (300 in middle schools). Furthermore, the American School Counselor Association recommends 250: one (which was actually the ratio I had at the school I worked at in Colorado).
In Colorado, I came from the school district that unfortunately experienced the Columbine tragedy. I saw firsthand how the media and the community ripped into the school district because not enough had been done to identify and help the students who were being harassed or who were emotionally disturbed. In a way, it is similar to the SOGI lawsuit that was brought against MHUSD a few years ago - suddenly there was a mad scramble to put training and programs into place that should have already been part of district policy.
With caseloads of more than 500 students, there is no way to get to know more than a handful of students personally - you are supervising a small town! Counselors (and administrators) are handling three times the number of students that a teacher has and have even fewer opportunities to contact or connect with them. The sheer numbers, the expectations of 1802 conferences, the SST requests/meetings, the number of parents requesting meetings, returning parent phone calls/e-mails, and the basic constraints of time make it impossible to know what is going on in most of the students' lives outside of credits and grades.
This also means there are very few groups or special programs to address the needs of students who are struggling with depression, grief, grades, conflict resolution, substance abuse, or crazy home lives. While I understand (and appreciate) that advisory class is an effort to reach all kids individually, it is rare that personal issues are addressed in depth, often because the regular staff is not trained or comfortable in dealing with sensitive topics. The kids who really act out are on the administrative radar, but there are many students who suffer silently. I would hate to see an incident such as Columbine happen to make the personal/social needs of the students a priority in this district. Unfortunately, I think with the level of stress in kids' lives, it's a very real possibility.
In March I was laid off due to budget considerations and have subsequently moved out of the area. The thought of Sobrato with only two counselors is ludicrous to say the least. I shudder to think of leaving my co-workers with an unmanageable caseload of 800 students next year.
So what is the solution? I believe it is threefold: amending the union contract to include reasonable caseloads for counselors, using district money to provide an additional counselor(s) at Sobrato, and making personal/social issues a part of the counseling process instead of focusing solely on grades and graduation. Let's be proactive rather than reactive so we never have to defend the district's policies around doing the right thing for students!
Marisa Marinac, Pacific Grove
The Community Got a question or a comment? Send us an email.
Although the Morgan Hill Times does not have any obligation to monitor this board, the Morgan Hill Times reserves the right at all times to check this board and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to the Morgan Hill Times in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. The Morgan Hill Times also reserves the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Submission of any comments will be considered permission to use online or in print.
