Greetings,

When my Voters’ Pamphlet arrived in the mail, I sat down to acquaint myself with its contents. I was surprised to see 18 uncontested nonpartisan races for office. I was even more surprised to see that for two positions for the Orcas Island School District race and one for the SJC Fire District #2 contained no information for these candidates’ seats. For two taxing districts that have provoked both positive and negative press in the past, I have wondered why these three candidates chose not to respond. Granted, the seats are uncontested, but for those of us who have no direct connection with either entity, it would have been nice to learn something about all of them. As it is, I will not be voting for any of those aforementioned candidates. (As an aside, it should be mentioned that the remaining races, including the Port of Orcas, Parks and Rec, Cemetery District #3, Public Hospital District #3 and Eastsound Sewer & Water, 10 of 11 uncontested position candidates supplied information.)

Then, after reading arguments for and against the levies and bonds outlined in the booklet, I have decided to vote against the OISD Proposition #1, based solely on the fact that this is the third time the public has been asked to fund a facility that was originally created by a very generous gift, and was purported to be enough money for construction plus annual maintenance funds for upkeep. I will support Proposition #2 for OISD. As for the SJC Fire District #2, I am in complete disagreement with seeking these funds via GO bonding. As other writers have noted, this request should have been made through the levy process. Like the series of votes that provided OISD funding from the early teens after two defeats, the fire district could have learned a lesson, thus saving money through not having to pay for another election.

Bea vonTobel