LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

GUSD doing well
Editor: Readers of your recent article on tough times for West
County schools might think that all of our local districts have
shortened their school year and cut staff salaries and hours.
Fortunately, despite reduced state funding, the Gravenstein Union
School District has maintained a full 180 day school year for our
students without cutting music, sports or other extracurricular
activities. We’ve had no staff layoffs, pay cuts or furloughs.
Meanwhile, our enrollment is up more than 25 percent in the last
three years, thanks to our gifted and talented ENRICH! program and
our traditional programs that attract students from half of Sonoma
County’s 40 school districts.
To learn more about the Gravenstein District, interested parents
can come to our Registration and Open House event on Saturday, Jan.
22 at 10 a.m. at Gravenstein Elementary School. They can also visit
our website at www.grav.k12.ca.us or contact
Superintendent Linda LaMarre at 823-7008 or ll******@gr**.us.
Jim Horn
President, Board of Trustees
Gravenstein Union School District
Wise decision
Editor: The West Sonoma County Teachers Association (an
affiliate of the California Teachers Association) believes that it
is vital that our students receive the best scientific and
medically accurate information about their sexual health. We also
believe it is important that our district be compliant with state
law.
We want to acknowledge the positive work our district has done
to update our Sex Education-HIV/AIDS Prevention policies and the
current work they are doing in reviewing curriculum to be used in
the classroom. We encourage the district to adopt a new
comprehensive sex education curriculum as quickly as possible.
We do not support the use of the controversial and medically
inaccurate program Free To Be, which was presented in West Sonoma
High Schools in past years, or the continued use of the sex
education portion of the current Health text, “Health and
Wellness.” Both present abstinence-only-until-marriage viewpoints
as well as inaccurate information regarding sexual activity and
condom use.
State Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, has clearly
stated, “Abstinence only education is not permitted in California
public schools.” Our school board has made a wise decision to
discontinue inviting Free To Be speakers into our high school
classroom, and we trust that they will not reverse that decision.
We would also encourage other school districts in Sonoma County to
follow the lead of our school board and become compliant with the
law.
Our students deserve the best information available and our
teachers need up-to-date training to support them in the classroom.
The California Teachers Association was instrumental in passing SB
71, the “California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS
Prevention Education Act,” which became part of California
Education Code in 2004 — CTA has always been in the forefront of
protecting and promoting the health of California’s young
people.
As an association we support our district in opting for science
over politics when it comes to selecting materials for our students
and teachers.
Alta Kavanaugh
Susan Swanson
Co-Presidents,
West Sonoma Teachers Association
Do the crime, do the time
Editor: The editorial on DUI priorities mentioned many positive
results of the DUI Task Force and the improvements in motoring
safety that have resulted since their implementation. However,
there seems to be an underlying view that the Task Force should
only be checking for drivers under the influence and somehow
overlook other violations of law.
It is obvious there is a problem with a system that allows
repeat DUI offenders to continue to drive.
The California Vehicle Code is a huge but comprehensive document
full of rules and regulations pertaining to everything having to do
with the driving privilege in our state. The CVC exists primarily
to provide public safety and preclude property damage and loss.
Anyone who conducts themselves in any action addressed by the CVC
is required to abide by it. One should remember that driving is a
privilege, not a right and therefore requires participants to
follow the rules of law for that privilege.
To infer that sober drivers “caught up in local law agencies
sobriety checkpoints” somehow have their rights and property
threatened is absurd. As long as the driver is unimpaired,
licensed, insured, and driving a registered, insured, maintained
vehicle, no threat exists. If they are not following the law as
mandated by the CVC, or breaking any other law, there must be an
expectation that the law is enforced. People will be less inclined
to break a law if they know it is actively enforced. Drivers who
justifiably have their vehicles impounded and eventually forfeit
them because of their inability to pay to release them should have
thought about the consequences before breaking the law.
While a primary function of such stops are to apprehend drivers
driving under the influence, I would also expect the officers to be
looking for safety issues such as unbelted passengers, burned-out
bulbs, bald tires, or anything involving ill-maintained vehicles
that could contribute to an unsafe situation for others sharing the
roadways. Also, the status of the driver and passengers should be
checked to determine if they are wanted for any other breech of any
other laws. This check is conducted during every routine traffic
stop. Why should a checkpoint be any different?
The checkpoints found less than 1 percent of drivers were under
the influence, much less than many other checkpoints statewide
where some have found nearly 10 percent of drivers were DUI. That
traffic safety checkpoints have resulted in a 20 percent decline in
DUI related deaths statewide is remarkable and an incentive to fund
more of them.
Any complaint that these checkpoints unfairly ensnare other
travelers that are breaking CVC or any other law is ridiculous.
What is unfair about apprehending someone who is breaking the law?
If they expose unlicensed, uninsured motorists that, even when
sober, could cause bodily harm and financial hardship to other on
the roadways is all the more reason they should continue
unchanged!
That the Task Force finds drivers breaking other laws during a
DUI checkpoint stop is somehow excessive, unfair, or our DUI laws
are being over-prosecuted is unacceptable. Yes, “We expect our laws
to be enforced by the courts and police. And we expect equal
treatment and consistent application of our laws.” Being equal and
consistent means just that; Law enforcement officers are sworn to
uphold the law, all the law, all the time. If society continues to
place “Rules of Enforcement” ala “Rules of Engagement” on our law
enforcement we have lost the war on crime and criminals will
exploit every possibility to do so. Consistent and uniform
enforcement of our laws is the only true way to have a balanced
scale of justice.
Bryan Wade
Sebastopol