Thursday, May 5, 2011
It was said in your article about the MPUSD board that “to vote no meant that we would have lost our superintendent,” a quote attributed to Regina Lauderbach (“MPUSD, Superintendent face increasing discontent from school staff,” April 28-May 4). What does this mean? That she would have walked if she didn’t get the raise? The teachers and the unions should certainly take that as a role model for their troubles with MPUSD! | Liz Rondelle | Carmel
Or Fire ’Em
Board member Regina Lauderbach, a longtime MPUSD teacher, tells the Weekly that voting for the salary increase was the hardest decision she’s made on the board in 10 years (“MPUSD, Superintendent face increasing discontent from school staff,” April 28-May 4).
“To vote no would have meant that we would have lost our superintendent, and it would have cost the district to find another one,” Lauderbach says.
I find it hard to fathom that the decision was even considered. If I had such a track record, I’d be fired! Also, it wasn’t as “hard” to close down Bayview? What is wrong with you people. You closed down a strong, high scoring and beloved school at the drop of a hat. How dare you and all of the board. You should be ashamed of yourselves for keeping Marilyn Shepherd and for continuing to follow her poor lead. You are lemmings and should go off the cliff with her! | Parent | via Web
Even assuming that these people deserve raises, they still shouldn’t be giving themselves raises (“MPUSD, Superintendent face increasing discontent from school staff,” April 28-May 4). At a time when everyone in the school system should be exercising financial restraint – and most people are – these people are instead paying themselves more so that they can maintain some sort of status quo. Again, if you want to think of yourself as being some kind of great leader who is charged with improving the school district, you can start by forgoing a bonus so that a few teachers can keep their jobs. | ickswift498 | via Web
I don’t know if smart meters are a health threat or not, but I’m convinced they are a security risk (“Carmel’s SmartMeter plan will roll out statewide,” April 28-May 4). The potential for hackers to intercept or disrupt smart meter communications has been given little attention compared to the health concerns.
But consider that anyone with a radio receiver and a laptop can intercept smart meter transmissions and because there’s no physical entry point, there’s absolutely no way on earth for PG&E to know who is monitoring their network. Hackers can thus take their sweet time decoding the data before striking. Once they learn the code, hackers may be able to shut off individual meters, monitor people’s habits, alter their own (or their neighbor’s) billing, or even crash the system with denial of service attacks. Less sophisticated pranksters could simply transmit a stronger signal on the same frequency to distort and jam meter transmissions, rendering their data useless. It’s only a matter of time. | Mr. Toy | via Web
While I’m glad to see that PG&E is getting it’s PR act together, I have to wonder why people expect a choice when it comes to utilities (“Carmel’s SmartMeter plan will roll out statewide,” April 28-May 4). The meter in one’s house is a component of electricity delivery and complaining about choice in what meter one’s home has is akin to asking for an option to have your electricity delivered in DC rather than AC, or protesting that the gauge of wire leading to the home is too thin for your taste.
There’s another more pernicious part of this debate that I don’t expect the average Carmelite to understand, and that is the issue of home ownership: renters do not and will not have any voice in the options available for smart meter.
While I would purchase those who don’t like SmartMeters a tin-foil hat, I have to ask why only those affluent enough to own their home would be able to make these decisions. | Kevin Miller | via Web