LETTERS: Senate candidate challenges charges

ORIGINALLY WRITTEN DONALD A. DAHL – DISTRICT 70 REPRESENTATIVE – HILLSBORO
As recently published, my opponent’s political ad states that I sponsored a House concurrent resolution to eliminate music and art in public schools. This is an old story propagated by the KNEA several years ago and it is just as untrue today as it was then.



It is sad that we have an organization in Topeka that causes a lot of hate and discontent and disruption in the legislature and the education community instead of trying to work together.



The resolution I co-sponsored states, “A concurrent resolution directing the State Board of Education (SBE) to define a basic education that Kansas taxpayers should share in funding, to determine a suitable funding base for public school operations, and to make a report thereon to the Committees on Education of the Senate and House of Representatives.”



The resolution, if passed, would have been non binding. Whatever report the SBE came up with, it would still be up to the chairs of the Senate and House Education Committees to decide what to do with the SBE’s opinions.



I would never be in favor of eliminating school activities such as the arts, music, athletics. I view them as part of a well-rounded education. Actually, they were the highlights of my public school education experience. However, people will believe what they want to believe, whether fact or fiction.



Again this year, as in the election cycle two years ago, the opposition party employed election year tricks. In a two-day period of the final days of this last session they tried to add on 20 amendments with a cost of $174 million in additional spending to the budget. I voted against these amendments because they would have necessitated a big tax increase. If I had voted for these amendments I would have been accused of raising taxes.



That’s the trick: damned if you do or damned if you don’t. The same tactic was employed two years ago and I voted against 18 amendments that would have resulted in a tax increase.



In this case my opponent’s political ad is correct; I voted against the Findley and Reardon amendments even though I support smaller class sizes and Head Start.



Finally, some individuals are spreading rumors that I have been destroying my opponent’s political signs. Destruction of political signs, whether they cost $1 or $ 100, is destruction of property and against the law. It is ridiculous to think that I would take a chance of tarnishing my reputation as a legislator or my family name by doing this or suggesting that it be done.

More from article archives
Readers are winners
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN PHOTO BY JULIE ANDERSON .
Read More