C'Burg's Ex-Telegram Editorial, "School board ought to do the Math"

The thrust of the editorial is that the the Board made an instantaneous decision to increase the PEIA medical supplement $50 beyond the $100 plus-up under consideration in the agenda and that is a lot of money and the education of our children could be in jeopardy. The editorial endorses Jim Reaser's comment, "Over a period of time, that's a lot of money."

Ok, let's help out here and do some math. The school board budget is about $90,000,000 per year? An increase county wide for 1400 employees times $50 per employee equals $74,000 per year. What is the percentage increase cost for this added $50? 74,000 divided by 90,000,000 = .0008% increase in the yearly budget for this benefit.

Does our paper have different math? How about Tim Langer helping Jim Reaser think through some of the other math problems that will be caused by a lengthy law suit over a portrait (that is neither owned by the school system nor the principal) hanging in BHS? Why would that cost not equally affect "students or their education...because of Tuesday's night decision." And while we're at it, this whole portrait thing comes down to a discussion of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One might think that a newspaper would have strong feelings about the meaning of that specific amendment and use their pages to educate the community on its many facets. For the newspaper to remain silent in its editorial pages on the portrait controversy is to promote ignorance. Perhaps their motto is, "Ignorance is our most important Customer."