Mr. Beall’s letter (Oct. 3) about Van Buren Schools’ operating levy was timely because we are just beginning our educational effort. His important questions deserve fact-based answers.

First, this is an operating levy. It is not for new construction. It will go toward day-to-day operations and sustaining the education system we have at Van Buren.

Second, the school has been forced to spend more money than it gets in tax revenues. Why? Because for the last 15 years, we have not received any new operating funds.

The State of Ohio considers Van Buren a “rich” district, based on residents’ median income. Due to that, our funding has been continuously reduced. The school has made fiscally responsible cuts. But maintaining our standard of excellence with a lack of new resources has led to deficit spending. It is not fiscally responsible nor sustainable to continue operating with a deficit.

Third, this is an income tax, not a property tax. Van Buren, except for Findlay, is the only area school without an income tax. This is a 1 percent levy, less than the 1.2 percent average of county schools. For someone earning $25,000, this levy is 67 cents a day. For someone earning the median income of $52,328, the levy is $1.43 per day. That investment will help us build a better Van Buren community together.

Please visit our Facebook page, Success for VBS, or www.successforvbs.com to learn more about this levy. Our schools have a meaningful, measurable track record of student success.

We are committed to an open dialogue and sharing any/all information needed to help our district’s voters make an informed decision because you deserve it.

Together we can continue Van Buren Schools’ long history of success. We ask for your support of our students, our schools and our community on Nov. 5.

Jim Bado

chair, Van Buren levy team


The State Highway Patrol and the Hancock County Sheriff’s Office have both done a speed study on our road, Marion Township 212.

We found out that we have a speeding problem on our road, so after they did all the speed studies, they promised us that they would be patrolling our road.

Well, when officers just drive down the road and don’t park it’s kind of hard to catch the speeders.

We had a car the other day that had to be going at least 130 mph. We have cars that are driving the speed limit down the road and we have cars passing them because they’re not going fast enough.

What are we to do? Are we supposed to take the law into our own hands now and stop the speeders? Or, is the sheriff’s department going to do their job so we don’t have to get in trouble for stopping these speeders?

A speed trap is set up on County 236 so all the traffic is coming over from there and down our road. Don’t tell us you’re going to do something and then not follow through!

Patrolling once a week or month down our road isn’t going to catch the speeders. I don’t need to total another car while backing out of my driveway.

I don’t care who gives the order, the mayor of Findlay, the county commissioners, whoever, let’s get some help down our road. And shame on you, Sheriff Mike Heldman, for breaking your promise.

Kevin Rogers



I am writing in response to Brad Swick’s response (letter, Oct. 4) to Larry Hoover (letter, Sept. 30) about government math, since I believe that Mr. Hoover would not himself reply to such a rudely-written letter.

I suspect that Mr. Swick is either a government employee or a government-loving accountant since his logic supports the ineptitude of the whole shutdown situation.

Why are we paying the furloughed employees back pay if they were not required to show up for work? Maybe vacation time could be accepted. Or maybe even a small bonus for those forced to wait for their money.

Back pay should be only for those employees who showed up for work anyway. And yes, I do sympathize with the furloughed workers who are put in financial difficulties, but if they choose instead to find other work during their furlough and don’t show up for their job, then don’t give them back pay!

As to lost productivity, maybe we would be better off if they didn’t show up at all.

Meanwhile, Mr. Swick, please try to find a less rude way to respond to somebody with a viewpoint different from yours.

Douglas Rider



Reference Brad Swick (letter, Oct. 4): The title of this page is “Viewpoint,” i.e., point of view! The title of this section of the page is “Readers’ Views,” i.e., from the readers’ perspective!

Printed at the top of this page is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That helps to underscore the irony of someone using this section to suggest the editor stifle certain people’s point of view!

How boring this section would be if it was entirely “factual.” LOL.

Michael S. King