Letters to the Editor
Hospice of York honored
Dear Independent,
Once again the customers of Kennebunk Savings Bank have honored us with their ballots.
The bank holds an annual Community Investment Ballot program when all their customers may choose from a very long list of community programs and cast their vote for their favorite. Amounts distributed according to the number of votes come from a special KSB fund.
We are grateful to have received a check this year for $3,197 as a result of that vote. We have consistently received a very nice portion of this fund thanks to our area friends.
The check was presented to Director Dee Bickmore by Julie Perreault, assistant vice president, banking office manager of the KSB Kittery branch, who is one of our own volunteers and a new board member.
Hospice of York
York
Support for consolidation
Dear Independent,
Recently I tuned into a School Committee meeting. School officials were discussing the state's school consolidation plan, which was passed into law June of this year. The discussions focused heavily on "opting out" as well as partnering with either Kittery or Wells, schools they will be meeting with to explore consolidation options. School officials are concerned that York students might not benefit from such partnerships, given the high standards that York Schools have boasted they achieve year after year. Sadly, however, Jim Amoroso, our financial guru in the York School system, reported that three of our four York schools are not "high performing." Under school consolidation, if three of a community's schools are ranked "high performing" there is a provision that a community's school system can "opt out" without losing 50 percent of state education funding (York received $2.2 million this year). This begged the question, "Can York Schools ‘opt out' without penalty because we have excellent schools?" York schools do not qualify for "opting out" without penalty. Three of our four schools failed to reach the state criteria needed to qualify as "high performing." Only Coastal Ridge is "high performing."
"Opting Out" penalties will cost $1.1 million dollars this year if school officials decide not to consolidate York schools and voter approval is confirmed in the January 2008 referendum. But what about next year? Huge increases in state education funding will continue to be lost each and every year going forward if York continues down the path of "opting out." No one is talking about that! And to make matters even grimmer, the state will be rolling out an increase of $43 million dollars in education funds next year under this new law. Even if York schools were to receive only 2½ percent of this pool of increased state funding, that would be an increase for York Schools in state funding from $2.2 million this year to $3.2 million next year. What is the justification of York school officials and the Board of Selectmen in assuming that York taxpayers can and will shoulder such an enormous loss of state funding?
But all is not lost. This is a golden opportunity for York Schools. Instead of our school officials expending time and energy on "opting out" arguments, wouldn't York students be better served if our school officials embraced the school consolidation option by partnering with a community that already has earned the much sought after distinction of "high performing" schools? York could then replicate this new partner's high standards of excellence with proven curriculums into the three York schools that are not "high performing," a common sense approach that could benefit every one of our students K-12. This could be a win/win for everyone. After all, isn't student excellence the very goal we are trying to accomplish with our generous school budgets?
My last thought is one of disappointment. Not one of our school officials during this recent School Committee meeting asked the penetrating question, "Why aren't York Schools high performing?" Our Superintendent of Schools Henry Scipione has been with us well over six years now. It is undeniable that his mission has always been to achieve student excellence; and he has been quoted many times as saying our students continue to excel in all areas in all grade levels. Perhaps York citizens misunderstood those comments to mean York has the best schools. That is regrettable. But, our school officials can turn this around. The benefit of partnering with a high performing school system could see immediate results for York Schools as soon as next year. Achieving excellence is never easy, no matter who your superintendent is. But with a new change in direction, hope is on the horizon for all of our York students as well as all of our York property taxpayers.
Paulette Karchenes
Cape Neddick
The letters that follow are the final in a series of letters submitted by current York High School students to The Independent.
Ease license restrictions
Dear Independent,
Getting your license is one of the most important things to a teenager and once you get it, it feels amazing! The first time I drove all by myself I was really nervous. No one was there to keep me on my toes if I got distracted. That was one of the major benefits of having a passenger. Because I was alone, I was extremely careful. I never went over the speed limit, always checked my mirrors and used my blinkers, etc. I was always overly cautious about switching lanes and parking because I felt like, for the first time, I was doing it all by myself - and I didn't necessarily like that feeling. I always felt more relaxed and comfortable when I wasn't alone; comfort is something that all drivers need to be good drivers. If you are relaxed, then you don't get as easily distracted. The restricted license that the state of Maine has placed on new drivers is designed to keep us focused, but I argue that some of the rules don't make sense.
Under this law, passengers must be 20 years old or older and have had their license for at least four years. The only exception to this rule is immediate family. My friends don't fit within those restrictions; however, I argue that my friends would be much less distracting than a sibling - younger or older - even though siblings are allowed.
I understand the importance of having restrictions for new drivers because of teen car accidents and insurance prices, but I think six months is too long. True, when I first got my license I was nervous and inexperienced driving without another adult. So I think that for the first month the rules should remain the same: driving only with passengers that fit the current requirements and staying off the road between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. After all, those are the hours in which the majority of fatal teen accidents occur. The exception I propose to this rule is that drivers with a restricted license be able to drive with one passenger at a time that doesn't fit the requirements. This way, new drivers can get a sense of their vehicle driving without an adult, but not being completely alone.
In most accidents with teen drivers, there is usually more than one passenger. It's true that if you have numerous friends in the car and are a new driver, things are likely to go wrong. But if you have one person in the car, that one person is less likely to be a distraction because you can communicate easily with them and tell them if they are distracting you. Additionally, if you are driving between the hours of 6 a.m. and midnight, there isn't much time to throw alcohol into the equation. It doesn't take a new driver to drink and drive anyway. I know most 16-year-olds don't drink very often, if at all, and you don't have to be 16 to get into a car while intoxicated. Like I said before, a new driver is a careful one.
After the first month the restrictions should lessen; new drivers will now be able to drive with as many passengers as the vehicle can safely maintain. Most teenagers own small vehicles that can only fit four passengers. So, for the second and third months, they will be able to drive whoever they want outside the hours of midnight. to 5 a.m.
Finally, once six months are up, all restrictions will be lifted. Why do I think that this could work and not result in an increased percentage of yearly teen motor fatalities? Because New Hampshire, a state whose border is about 10 minutes from our town, allows new drivers to drive without passenger restrictions. I know that the law applies to the whole state of Maine, but the truth is the states of New Hampshire and Maine are virtually the same as far as roads, drivers and driving conditions.
I know many people and parents would not go for a change in these rules because they probably feel they are fine the way they are. They'd say teens need to stop complaining and wait, or there is no reason why we should take a risk and see if the outcome results in fewer fatalities and accidents. However, parents are being unrealistic if they think that all kids are following this law. Teens are driving people they aren't supposed to and getting away with it because they are hiding them in their trunks. If you were in an accident while lying in the back of a trunk, you can't be too optimistic about the outcome. However, if teens have the right to transport a passenger, they won't have to hide them.
Even teens who aren't stupid enough to transport people in their trunks are still not being safe because, if those blue lights do show up in the rearview mirror, they are more likely to try to elude the police than pull over. Teens do this because if they are caught, they will get their license taken away, and once they get it back, the six-month restrictions start all over again - a price many teens aren't willing to pay. So what seems safer, having one passenger alongside your child or having them keep a closer eye on the police in town than on the road? If you know you are doing something wrong, you can't help but be distracted. If the law allows you to take passengers within respectable hours, then your full attention will be on the road. I know from talking with many of my peers that more teens would follow this law if these changes were made.
Liz Roy
York
Death penalty ineffective
Dear Independent,
The death penalty is one of the most talked about topics of our time. Many people feel that the death penalty is inhumane and morally wrong. Other people feel that it's necessary to punish those responsible for committing murder. These people feel that the death penalty is the only way that murderers could fairly be punished for their actions. I feel that the death penalty is wrong because it's inhumane, ineffective and it punishes the wrong person.
When we punish a murderer by death, we are no better than he or she is. We are taking away that person's life and that person's right to live. There is also a chance that the convicted person is innocent. This makes it even worse if we kill an innocent person. As Judge Maverick always says, "It's better to let 1,000 guilty men free than to put one innocent man in jail."
Further, the death penalty is not effective. It's telling criminals that if you do commit a very serious crime that your punishment will not be life in jail; it will be a very quick and painless death. This is especially ineffective for many of those who do not fear death. Contrary to common belief, many people fear spiders more than death. According to this, a more intimidating and effective punishment would be putting somebody in a room with spiders. It has also been proven that countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without the death penalty. Also, most murderers do not expect to get caught. If they don't expect to get caught, then the intimidation of the death penalty is irrelevant.
In addition to being ineffective, I feel that the death penalty is not a fit punishment for any crime. When a person's life is over, everything stops. The person no longer feels physical, mental or emotional pain. That person is gone, and his or her body rots in a grave. If somebody is sentenced to the death penalty, he or she will probably feel emotional pain and sorrow before being killed. However, once that person is dead, it all goes away. If this person had a family, the family will now have to live with the pain of losing a loved one. By killing this one person, you are hurting their innocent family rather than the convicted criminal.
To use the death penalty as a way of punishment is wrong because it's inhumane, ineffective and not fit for any crime committed. I know many of you are probably thinking that our society needs the death penalty to punish criminals. Many countries in Europe do not use the death penalty, and yet they have lower murder rates than we do. I do feel that it's important to punish those committing severe crimes; I just feel that imprisonment is the answer, not the death penalty.
Please show your support by writing letters to newspapers and to the government. Together, we can end this inhumane practice once and for all.
Michael Cline
YHS Class of 2009
York
The Independent Letters Policy: The Independent welcomes letters and opinions on any subject. We do not accept anonymous letters. Letters should be 200 words or less. We reserve the right to edit submissions for length, accuracy, and/or legal reasons and to reject any material considered unsuitable for publication. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Independent or its staff.
Send your letters to the Editor at PO Box 6, York, ME 03909 or via email to editor@yorkindependent.net. Deadline for publication is 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to that week's publication
