.

Survey on Safety Task Force Posted Online

Residents asked to offer input about mayor's committee on school, community safety

Stow city officials want to know what you think about safety in buildings for the Stow-Munroe Falls Schools and other public community buildings.

This week the city posted a survey in conjunction with SurveyMonkey to gauge residents' opinions about existing and possible expanded security levels in Stow's public buildings.

Click here to take the online survey.

Stow Mayor Sara Drew said the survey is designed to best gauge the public's response for appropriate action regarding possible changes to building safety.

"As we move forward on this, any potential changes may have a cost attached to that, and that has to be part of our conversation," Drew said.

The survey is part of Drew's recently created Stow Safety Task Force, which was established to review security levels in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings in Newtown, CT.

Residents who can't take the survey can still weigh in on the issue by attending a safety task force meeting or by writing or calling the mayor or your council representative.

RECENT COVERAGE:

  • Psychologist Talks Threat Assessment at Stow Safety Task Force
  • Safety Task Force Establishes Topics to Tackle Moving Forward
James February 18, 2013 at 03:30 PM
I have posted this before... what is the issue here? The solution is simple... does anyone on the Safety Task Force read feedback? There are 9 schools at 182 days each at 9 hours per day. Pay an officer or equivalent $20.00 an hour to be present. Total cost is $294,840 with each officer making $32,760 for this time. This amount makes up less than one percent of the district’s annual budget at 0.5501%. Secondly, this amount equals $55.16 per student. I would like the school board and our mayor who is prone to setting up “blue ribbon commissions” to simply tell us parents why they cannot afford $55.16 per student to have a police officer in each of our schools. Tell us parents why they could not find $300,000 out of a $54M budget to protect our children. Tell me how you could not afford $55.16 for my child to be safe. Anything short of that is shameful.
James February 18, 2013 at 03:31 PM
Administration expenditures per pupil in 2011 were $1,065.80. At 5,345 pupils, total administrative expenditures were $5,696,701. Tell me Mr. Jones how you cannot find $300,000 out of this almost $6,000,000? Are you seriously going to tell us parents you cannot find the money to have an officer in each of our schools? The administrator to pupil ratio is 211/1 which means there are 25 administrators that make on average $78,496 per year just in salary. That accounts for $1,988,447 of the budget. If we took $300,000 out of this $1,988,447 it would be $1,688,447 so then the average pay in just salary mind you, would be $67,537. Well above the median income for the city of Stow at $38,705 or the mean income of $56,106. So what is the price to protect my child… $55.16 per year… tell me you cannot afford that.
Derp Spotter February 18, 2013 at 10:19 PM
We do NOT need an officer at every school. That is simply over-reacting WITHOUT thinking things through. And BOTH posts by "James" -- esp. playing the typical "teachers make too much" insinuation -- proves that. Our child ARE protected -- and to even remotely insinuate that they're NOT protected because there's not a police officer in every school building is simply ridiculous. I don't doubt there are additional security measures that could be implemented at each school to further ENHANCE the security measures already in place. Sandy Hook was secured. And people can spare me that if there was an officer there or if teachers were packing that it wouldn't have happened. Because you're simply pulling that ASSumption out of your backside, and you'd be sounding as brain-dead ridiculous as Wayne LaPierre. Just like people did after the movie theater shootings.
James February 19, 2013 at 09:41 PM
Derp… I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that an armed officer in each school is needed and justified. It is not overkill in the least if it prevents a tragedy from happening. I have children in the district and would feel much more at ease if this type of protection is provided. We don’t live in a perfect world and bad things happen which is why prevention is key. No hardened facility will prevent a person wanting to do harm from doing it and ANY security advisor will agree with this. If we as a society find the need to have armed officers in our courthouses and our airports then why can we not have them in a place to protect the most innocent in our society, our children? Would you like to answer that? Secondly, I did not mention teachers in my posts, I mentioned administrators and I do hope you understand the difference as they are separate line items on the district’s budget. Derp… the bottom line is very simple… does the district have $300,000 out of a $55,000,000 budget to offer an increased level of security to protect our children. The answer is yes, the district does. Thirdly, before you go on the attack by saying I am pulling something from my backside or that I am brain dead, please consider the facts at hand and understand the cost is only $55.16 per student per year and that I provided the numbers to support my claims whereas you provided Wayne LaPierre style rhetoric. Why are you unwilling to pay $300,000 to protect our children?
David Gofflinger February 20, 2013 at 01:28 PM
We do NOT need an armed officer in every school. And don't compare the average salary of Administrators to the average income in Stow, that doesn't matter at all. James, you need to get a conceal and carry yourself and sit outside your kids school all day, sweating, nervously waiting every time someone pulls up to the school entrance. Pathetic.
James February 20, 2013 at 03:20 PM
David, amazing how up in arms you are over the idea of providing the best possible protection to our children. “We do NOT need an armed officer in every school,” I ask why don’t we? We have them in courthouses and airports. Why should we not have them in our schools? I would like to hear from you as to why we should have them in our courthouses but not our schools, are you against providing the best possible protection to our children? You do not to want to protect our children with every possible means while we as adults enjoy such protections at courthouses and airports. To your next statement “And don't compare the average salary of Administrators to the average income in Stow, that doesn't matter at all,” why doesn’t it matter? Indexing salaries and wealth at the zip level or DMA level is common practice in the real world. It does matter and is a factor used to base salaries on, so to not use it for comparison is illogical and sophomoric at best. Before calling others names such as “pathetic” try and do some homework to at least understand what it is you are talking about. I have little desire to have a conceal and carry permit as I pay taxes which allows others to protect me and my family. Why you are so pro-gun and want others to have a conceal carry permit I do not understand but it is certainly your choice so I have no issue with it at all, but your proclivity to not want the best possible protection for our children is disturbing.
James Thomas February 20, 2013 at 03:32 PM
"We have them in courthouses and airports." Apples and oranges. I stopped reading there. There's no logic in the comparison. You thinking putting an officer in every school is "The best possible protection" is simply short-sighted....and definitely NOT based in any fact you can prove. When it comes to homework, practice what **you** preach. You can start by looking up the meaning of the word 'average.' And teacher's salaries have NO relevance here. No matter how hard you try.
James February 20, 2013 at 03:48 PM
Yes you are right James… it is apples and oranges… one place is frequented by adults and the other by children. Why is what I am asking for short sighted James? Do you have anything that says it is short sighted or are you just running to baseless conclusions. Second, you stated you stopped reading there yet made a comment about an item I stated later. So which is it, did you stop reading there or did you continue on? So confusing James! I am also well versed in the meaning of average and I also know the meaning of median… so what is your point exactly… ah yes… you made no point as I expected. Do you know the median income in Stow… ah… I didn’t think you did. Thirdly… once again I did not mention teachers’ salaries… I mentioned another line item on the school budget. Why not try and make a point in your statement and explain to me why having an officer in each school will not provide an increased level of security. Why are you so against having an officer in each school to protect our children James? Don’t our children deserve that kind of protection? It is funny that a concerned parent wanting the best protection for their children would fall under such adolescent attacks for expressing that view and even taking the time to look into the district’s budget to see where the money could come from. I mentioned only one place in the budget but there are many more. Why do you attack concerned parents James? Do you have an issue with concerned parents?
James Thomas February 20, 2013 at 04:27 PM
People like you just do NOT get it. You're as bad as me when I get made fun of ...you start playing the victim and claim you're being attacked. At least you haven't gone running to Mommy Patch like I do. You missed many points. The adults/kids you brought up has no relevance. There are kids in airports and courthouses. You missed the point here. Care to try again? You can keep telling yourself all you want that you're well-versed in the meaning of average. But you don't. Again, the salaries of ANYONE in this city has NO relevance here. You're really reaching in desperation. Just like I do when I blame liberals for everything because I'm stupid enough to believe that republicans are always right and never ever do anything wrong. People like you are quick to think placing police and/or a gun in everyone's hands after something has happened is the ultimate fix. You continue to believe that having an officer -- without even considering any other possible modifications -- is the "best protection." And get off your freaking whiny soapbox that you're being 'attacked as a concerned parent.' That's a bunch of garbage -- and making you sound as much of a baby as I am.
James February 20, 2013 at 04:37 PM
James... once again you have shown you don't get it. I stated an officer... can I be any clearer than that for you... I did not state "anyone." I am using English here James. Second, I stated I used one line item in the budget as an example... once again I cannot be any clearer than that. Your failing is your inability to read the written word in my posts. So as usual, you have made no points and have come back with nothing. Second, I don't go running to Mommy Patch, how old are you? Is it your nap time? Third, I did not once mention that there were not other security measures that can be put in place as well. Go take your nap...
James Thomas February 24, 2013 at 03:04 PM
This Patch is why I think Jack Kelly/James Thomas' postings violate Patch guidelines. He is posting as James Thomas and phrasing it in personal terms. If I started posting under your name in this manner the account would be gone.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something