We are residential property owners and taxpayers in Lajitas.

Did the Gazette actually say [“Terlingua School Budget 2008-2009 Finalized” July 2008] that [superintendent] Kathy Killingsworth is paid $154,485 a year to run the Terlingua School system with only 116 students on one small campus? Half that would be too much.

In a school that size, the jobs of superintendent and principal should be combined, with the pay at maybe $65-70,000 a year. Double duty is nothing new. At many small schools, athletic coaches also teach some classes.

It would be interesting to know what other school superintendents in Big Bend are paid.

Dallas ISD has over 200 schools and an enrollment of 160,00. The base salary of the superintendent is $315,000 plus perks and incentives which raise the total to the $330-350,000 range.

Irving, TX ISD has 34 schools and enrollment of 33,000. The superintendent is paid $250,000 a year.

Compensation of school administrators is not set nor regulated by the state. That is totally up to the local school board. The State sets minimum teacher salaries and a scale based on education and experience, but only for teachers, not for administrators.

Some matters of money just do not appear quite right in Terlingua CDS. Conflict of interest and other things should be looked into.

This is not a matter of the pay required for an experienced, credentialed, and highly qualified professional as a result of a nationwide search.

I doubt they need a new cafeteria or gym, but they sure could pay for it by reducing administrative salaries by $150,000 a year. However, that is not the sort of fiscal conservatism Killingsworth was praised for.

I have lived in cities and towns all over the U.S. and abroad, in third world countries and hurricane zones, and have never experienced the repeated, prolonged and unexplained power outages that occur in Terlingua, Texas.

I’m sure all of South County would love to see an expose of Rio Grande Electric in the Gazette, simply because of these constant power failures, but surely now, considering the events of this week:

Everyone’s July 21 bill jumped up by 37%, leaving a lot of people scratching their heads.

One local business owner pointed out the latest RGE fee debacle: their “availability charge” went from $17 to $20, and their “energy power cost adjustment” went from 4 3/4% of your bill to a whopping 6 1/2%.

And what do we get after paying these exorbitant, unexplained fees? Two days without power, and thousands of dollars worth of perishable merchandise spoiled.

Another business owner sent a directive to close an account for a building he no longer owns, and RGE responded by sending him a bill. Three phone calls and two FAXes later, RGE is still sending this business owner electric bills.

Look at RGE’s website and you are confronted with the following mellifluous statement:

“We are your neighbors who are committed to providing electric service in a reliable, cost-effective, and safe manner to improve the quality of life in our territory.”

Clearly, this is a cruel joke.

I have just finished reading through the Surface Lease that was presented by Mr. Patterson of the GLO on July 25 at the quarterly workshop to [the Property Owners Association of Terlingua Ranch, Inc.] for tentative approval. I am very concerned by several aspects of his proposal:

*All GLO employees and all persons they authorize including the general public, to all the same uses as granted to the property owners of Terlingua Ranch in addition to hunting privileges for the GLO and all persons that the GLO authorizes.

*POATRI can use the property for recreation which means low-impact, non-invasive uses including fishing, horseback riding, hiking, camping, birding, photography and like kind or related uses but not hunting.

*POATRI is required to remove and dispose of all trash generated by POATRI members and all GLO guests including the general public, at POATRI’s expense.

*POATRI must pay all the taxes assessed even though we are renting.

*POATRI must insure the property for an amount specified by the GLO. Does this mean that we are to insure against liability for the GLO’s general public and the GLO’s employees who use it?

*POATRI is required to set up a registration station under GLO’s guidelines that will be responsible to register all who visit the Christmas Mtns. including all POATRI members, GLO employee’s and the general public at POATRI’s expense. POATRI must also erect a sign at the intersection the ranch road and 118 directing the public down the ranch road.

*POATRI is solely responsible for any repairs, maintenance or replacement to the improvements that the GLO considers necessary at POATRI’s expense. Are roads considered improvements? This paragraph goes on to say that if POATRI does not comply with the GLO’s request that the GLO will do it and POATRI must pay the bill.

*Paragraph 2.05 gives license for any and all state employees and their representatives to access the Christmas Mtns. over and across any adjacent property (full perimeter) and further more it states, “Any aforementioned right of entry shall survive the termination of this contract.” I guess this means that they can use the property owner’s land from now on even if there is no contract in force.

*Paragraph 6.04 is very interesting: it charges POATRI with the sole responsibility of policing the entire Christmas Mountain range. It also states that at POATRI’s expense will comply with all state, federal, and municipal code rules, ordinances, etc.

*Special Conditions iii & iv says POATRI gives the GLO and the General Public access across Terlingua property owners land without the property owners’ okay, which includes the last three miles of the main road and access from the lodge to the Christmas Mountains.

Is the Road Commercial Use Report still effect? This report, published in POATRI’s 3rd Quarter 2002 newsletter states, in part: “All roads in Terlingua Ranch are private Property Owner roads, not public roads. POATRI owns no roads other than the roads that access the lodge and one water well. POATRI has ingress and egress to all other roads for maintenance & utilities.”

If in fact you [the directors] decide to sign the lease agreement as written what gives you the right to give the State of Texas to assess all adjacent lands to the Christmas Mountains from now on with out the permission of each and every land owner involved? They are not talking about roads as there are not roads across the majority of the lands at the present time; they are talking about crossing at any location they want.

This lease is very bad and is not cost effective for POATRI; we will get very limited benefits and very much liability. According to the lease, Paragraph 2.04 everyone, the general public included, has the same rights as POATRI members for use – why should POATRI sign an agreement that makes usliable for total operation at zero cost to the state as a matter of fact we have to pay them $10 for the privilege of being totally liable?

These are just the highlights of the bad stuff.

Senator Obama and his family have said that, win or lose, they’re going to add a dog to their family after the election this November.

That’s a great idea. But I hope they decide to adopt one from their local shelter. Why? Because as long as people still buy their pets from pet stores and commercial breeders, millions of abandoned pets are killed in shelters across the country every year.

So here’s one issue that’s truly bi-partisan – one that we can all agree on. Let’s ask our national leaders always to adopt their pets from shelters, rather than buying them from pet stores.

Members of Best Friends Animal Society have started a petition to invite the Obama family to do just that. Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, left-wing, right-wing or any other wing, you can make a bipartisan difference by signing our petition at ObamaFamilyDog.com, and encouraging all your friends and family to sign it, too.

Thanks for thinking about the nation’s homeless pets!