I was disappointed to read your editorial “Go slow on bond” (Feb. 15) , in which you have, once again, chosen to focus on the negative in response to news about Scotts Valley Unified School District. Rather than note that the district has done its “due diligence” throughout an 18-month process before seriously discussing placing a bond on the ballot, you have criticized the district for doing so.

You note that we have “been relying on (a) task force’s report on facilities needs.” That task force was convened well over a year ago and was made up of members of the school district staff and board; representatives of city government and the city planning commission; people familiar with construction, law and finance; and other community members. The task force met twice a month for almost a year under the direction of our chief business official, Pat Kelban, investigating the facilities needs of the district and how we could best address them within our limited resources.

Contrary to your view that our trustees “aren’t thinking ... of the residual cloud over the district resulting from a history of bad decisions,” we are very mindful of previous mistakes and have deliberately implemented a thoughtful process.

The task force presented its findings and recommendations to the board at a public meeting last summer. Because they wished to be open and accessible to the public, they chose to present the report at two consecutive meetings after initial discussions at board meetings in the spring about how best to make the information available.

We notified the newspapers and all others on our mailing list about the presentations and further agenda items at subsequent board meetings. I wrote personal letters to the owners of the two adjacent properties the task force mentioned in the report. The report was posted to the district’s Web site shortly after the board received the recommendations, and it remains there for any member of the public to view.

The public has had many opportunities at public board meetings to discuss the recommendations, to ask questions, and to state their views to the board. Board members, members of the task force and I have met personally with many individuals to answer their questions and hear their views.

Formal discussions at board meetings were held on the following dates: May 22, July 17, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, Sept. 11, Sept. 25, Oct. 23, Nov. 13 and Dec 11, 2007, and Jan. 29 and Feb. 12, 2008. Information was in local newspapers on several occasions, including (but not limited to) the Sentinel (Sept. 2, Sept. 6, Oct. 25, Jan. 3 and Jan. 16), the Press-Banner (Sept. 7 and Jan. 18) and the Scotts Valley Times (Oct. 1 and Feb. 1). I also wrote a letter to our families. dated Aug. 1, 2007, notifying them of the public hearing and copied it to the newspapers.

You have also criticized the district for surveying the community in a methodical, scientific manner to determine the level of support for a bond measure and for the various projects the task force recommended. To me, this flies in the face of your statement that the trustees are not thinking about the voters in the community. To the contrary — it appears from the survey that a strong majority of the community is very willing to support a bond measure that will benefit the community’s children, provided the funds go to support certain, specific projects.

In the past few weeks, a small faction of the community (some of whom were not school district residents, incidentally), which you describe as “a long line of residents,”  has come forth urging the district to put off a bond election until November, in spite of the fact that we have many people willing at this time to pass the measure, that a community committee is willing to campaign for passage and that we have a better opportunity to inform our community now than we will if we try to make our message heard in the much larger November election. I am disappointed to see that you have chosen to side with this small minority that seems intent upon damaging our chances to provide for our children.

The “slower, more deliberate process” you advocate has been the process we have used; it is now time to act to correct the results of past unwillingness to act, resulting in a middle school that is almost 70 years old, unsightly and deteriorating portables that have been housing half our students and costing $250,000 in lease payments a year, and elementary schools where there is no place for all students to gather, for student performances to be presented, or for students to eat lunch out of the rain.

The survey indicated that a majority of our voters want to provide a safe and healthful environment for our children’s learning in a fiscally responsible way. To continue to wait because of a small political faction seems to me irresponsible. I would hope that, in the best interests of the children in this community, you would reconsider your position.

Susan Silver, Ed.D., has been superintendent of the Scotts Valley Unified School District the past XX years.