<DIV>Dr. Weitz is not only correct about the lawsuit because it is stealing from the public, but he is also correct in bring attention to the notion that the School District doesn't want to spend money and resources on the 80% of students that will not be college graduates and will be working a vocational job. Is it fair to spend 80% of the pie on 20% of the kids? I think not. MSD is practicing discrimination. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PS. The poor nutritional value of school lunches are another example of poor decisions being made by the public school system to prepare children for a quality life. <BR><BR><B><I>Glenn Schwaller <vpschwaller@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">MPDN page 7B, Tuesday May 29<BR><BR>Apparently the Whitepine School District has "proposed to increase
its<BR>School Lunch Prices by an amount that exceeds 105% of the fee charged<BR>last year. The proposed increase of 25 cents per meal is 9% above the<BR>105% of the fees charged the previous year." Huh??<BR><BR>2006-2007: K-6 $1.75 7-12 $2.25 adult $2.75<BR><BR>2007-2008: K-6 $2.00 7-12 $2.50 adult $3.00<BR><BR>My abacus tells me this reflects a 14.3%, 11.1% and 9.01% increase,<BR>repsectively. So the grade school kids are subsidizing the adult<BR>lunches?? Whoa Vizzies! You were right! When Weitz roars, it's the<BR>kids who'll pay!<BR><BR>But wait! The proposed increase is "9% above the 105% of the PREVIOUS<BR>year". This means the 2005-2006 school lunches were 85 cents, $1.10,<BR>and $1.34 for K-6, 7-12, and adults? So THIS years' lunches exceed<BR>LAST years' lunches by 105%, (holy crap! and you're complaing about<BR>gas price increases??) And NEXT years' lunches will exceed THIS<BR>years' lunches by 9% (or is it 11.1%? or is it 14.3%??) So what's<BR>the "exceeds 105%
of the fee charged LAST year"?? Or is it 9% of the<BR>105%, above the 105% of the last year before the previous year??<BR><BR>Was this written by one of the razor sharp legal minds that penned the<BR>current levy language?? Possibly they were educated by a<BR>less-than-stellar-can't-be-bothered-with-lesson-plans-yet-unionized-and-tenured<BR>math teacher who, in the wake of budget cuts, couldn't POSSIBLY be<BR>replaced by a young, over-achieving but mere 1st year teacher?<BR><BR>No, never mind. I'm sure it's all legal and arithmetically correct.<BR>Hey, 14%; 9% - it's all the same eh? Just one of those "minor<BR>nit-picky" discrepancies that happen in these complicated district<BR>documents.<BR><BR>Ever spiraling,<BR><BR>Schwaller<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48250/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v9.php?o=US2226&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=AprNI&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50">Pinpoint customers </a>who are looking for what you sell.