TUSD Teacher: Morale Is Low After Board Violated Trust

Chryl Hill Lander, spokesperson for the Tucson Unified School District, confuses performance and professionalism with morale ("Teacher Takedown?" Currents, April 5). Of course teachers are functioning in a competent manner, because we are professionals. We work under incredibly adverse conditions every day and still produce the best results possible. So to the casual observer, everything appears fine. This is definitely not the case. Teachers are incensed that TUSD would use the one-time bonus intended by the Legislature and governor to meet a previously negotiated contract.

Principal Christopher Loya of Davis Bilingual Magnet Elementary says he hasn't heard anything about the bonus. As a teacher of 16 years in TUSD, I can tell you that teachers don't discuss Governing Board decisions that impact their pocketbooks with principals. It would be unprofessional to do so, since the principal was in no way responsible for the decision.

Board member Alex Rodriguez states that legislative bills will now most likely be structured unambiguously in order to prevent future actions such as TUSD's. This argument begs the question: Shouldn't the district have rejected out of hand the use of teacher bonuses to finance the K-1 initiative as ethically irresponsible (with the resulting dire consequences for teacher morale)? Rodriguez suggests that the Legislature should have prevented this folly. Isn't the board the ultimate responsible party?

The board's and Superintendent Roger Pfeuffer's actions have created a huge chasm between employer and employees. How can teachers confidently negotiate a new contract when the previous one was breeched (granted, not legally), but certainly ethically? The board needs to honor their word and pay the bonus as intended by the Legislature and governor.

Bob Jones
Teacher, Secrist Middle School

Danehy Avoided the True Subject in His O'Donnell Screed

I read Tom Danehy's column (April 12), like I typically do in every Tucson Weekly, and finally was motivated enough to write in hopes that you read comments from your readers.

All journalists should do at least some research into the topic they are writing about, which Danehy apparently did not. It sounded more like "a physics student from a local high school" ranting about how freedom of speech should be abolished.

You quoted halfway through your column: "Then (Rosie O'Donnell) went to one of the kookiest notions of all time, that at least one of the World Trade Center buildings was destroyed by explosive charges from within." You should have accurately stated that Rosie O'Donnell said specifically that WTC 7 was the building she was talking about.

Again, you quoted O'Donnell, saying, "Miraculously, the first time in history that fire melted steel." Didn't you do research to verify if this was true or not before resorting to calling her names? You should focus on what is important, and that is if it truly is the first time in history that has ever happened--which it is.

Why do you consistently avoid mentioning WTC 7, on which Rosie was making her point? Please stop trying to pull the attention away from WTC 7. Why do you mislead your readers and the general public about such a detrimental and life-impacting event for every American citizen in this world? You have disgraced the Tucson Weekly with your poor journalism research and your apparent disregard for freedom of speech.

Stop avoiding the true subject, get your facts right and do at least a little research, and then maybe I will read the Tucson Weekly in the future. For now, your "opinion" has lost a loyal reader.

Nathan Swanson

A Letter Attacking Danehy's Opinion on the Grounds One Shouldn't Attack One for Stating an Opinion

I found Tom Danehy's April 12 piece to be both offensive and incredibly stupid--offensive that he would attack someone for exercising free speech and stating an opinion, and stupid because he wasn't even addressing what she actually said.

He parrots the 9-11 Commission fairy tale of "weakened steel" as the reason the Twin Towers fell. Whatever; believe what you like. But Rosie O'Donnell was talking about WTC 7, a building far from the towers that was not hit by a plane. There were only small isolated fires on a few floors, on one side of the building. Yet it collapsed that afternoon exactly like the towers did. In fact, both BBC World News and CNN reported its collapse 20-plus minutes before it fell!

I could attack Mr. Danehy, the way he does O'Donnell, by calling him "kooky" and "incredibly stupid" for believing the Bush administration's story--an administration that has not once told the truth about anything. Ever.

And as for those towers with their "clothesline-like" steel: Evidence of Thermate, used specifically for demolishing steel buildings, has been found on samples from the WTC. Close inspection of video shows "squibs," explosive demolition debris, shooting out of the walls many stories below the collapse of all three buildings. There are countless eyewitness reports of explosions going off all over the buildings from firemen, police and survivors.

I could go on and on. There are so many holes and outright lies in the official story that make it the "outrageous conspiracy theory." All this is easily researched and verified.

Peter Mattsson

On Clotheslines, the Word "Moronic" and Mysterious Explosions

In your recent opinion regarding Rosie O'Donnell and the World Trade Center, you don't mention any sources for your information. Your explanation of the collapse of the towers appears to be based upon your observations of a "wet pair of jeans on a clothesline."

See Graeme MacQueen's article, "118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers," available at journalof911studies.com (August 2006). Are these some of the people that you think are "moronic"?

Bob Kahl

For more feedback from angry Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists on Danehy's April 12 column, visit the TW blog.

At Long Last, Synth Lovers Get Props

I want to thank Jarret Keene for his very well written article "Tunes From the Crypt" (Music, April 12). It is rare that anybody at the Tucson Weekly will write any positive article about any synthesizer-based musical group. They seem to go out of their way to slam and be very derogatory about this misunderstood kind of music!

Many people are only looking at the surface of the band, thinking, "Hey, they're playing synths onstage; where are yer fuckin' guitars, assholes; you're not 'real music' without guitars!" I have played this kind of music for more than 25 years and have been threatened onstage by inbreeds in the audience who took serious offense to the fact that I was using samplers, drum machines and many synths in my sound! What the hell is "real music," anyway? Anything you can find or use that makes the sound you want is fine by me.

By the way, if you are interested in much more on this kind of music, I encourage you to check out side-line.com. This will open the floodgates on electronic music from around the globe! Side-Line is a small periodical that is the world's foremost authority on electronic-synth-based music. The scene is so fucking huge around the world, but the majority of the media blatantly ignore it all! It's a total shame. This scene has the most original and constantly evolving creativity in the world by far, hands down.

Don't get me wrong; I still love guitar bands, but synth music has been shit upon since its beginning days by idiots who don't have the mental capacity to understand it.

Charles Den-Baars

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly