NEVC-Nevada consolidation response

Dear Editor:

Back and forth Letters to the Editor are pretty boring. I'll keep mine brief.

Based on the obvious amount of work done, I feel I should commend Mr. Greg Wortman (Daily Mail, September 14, 2010) for backing up his previous letter (four columns this time) and providing readers with examples of two states with mandatory school consolidation laws. He does fail to mention, however, that Arkansas's mandatory consolidation law is currently at the center of debate between gubernatorial candidates, and over the years has encountered numerous legal challenges which have cost the state of Arkansas considerable dollars in court costs. Local farmers might be interested to know that the latest challenge alleges that Arkansas' law requiring forced consolidation discriminates against rural children and agriculture in general (http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2524).

As I sit here with my full plate of food thanks to our farmers, the very thought that forced consolidation on rural schools is alleged to discriminate against those same farmers is all I need to know to oppose the concept.

I give Mr. Wortman credit in that he admits Missouri has no such laws. He loses points, however, with his statement that Gov. Nixon has called for, and has warned, of reductions in state spending. With this statement, Mr. Wortman seems to insinuate that massive cuts to education are certain and the poor NEVC district will be left broke. While I am sure Gov. Nixon HAS warned of POTENTIAL budget cuts, only a fool would attempt to predict at this time where future budget cuts, if any, will occur. Mr. Wortman full well knows, in Missouri, while the governor submits a proposed budget, our Legislature approves the final product and I've heard rumors that they and the governor don't always agree on everything including budgetary issues.

John Hoagland,

Still a proud NEVC supporter,

Taxpayer, and voter