Letters to the editor: Democracy won, public education lost

Democracy won, public education lost

The people have spoken, and in state after state, they voted to save democracy. MAGA Republicans and election deniers lost despite being the party out of power in a midterm, despite high gas prices and cost of living, despite all the campaign ads warning of doom and gloom. It seems voters prefer women having the right to choose, their votes being counted, and elections being respected along with civility and competence from their leaders.

Iowa, however, is a "state of a different color." Iowans voted to make the Statehouse a "bright" red where, from the governor down to the newest state senator from our district, the primary goal is to take public funds (your tax money) away from public schools and give it to the wealthy Iowans who can already afford private schooling for their children.

Where does that leave our special-needs children who private schools do not have to take and have already admitted they won’t? Where does that leave low-income parents, some living far from private schools, who have to come up with the additional $3,000 to make tuition, and transport their children to school? Where does that leave our rural public schools, already struggling with declining enrollment and state funding? Which is it? You didn’t know or you didn’t care?

It is pretty clear a majority of Iowans didn’t care about public education, or child care, or women’s rights, or water quality, or voter access, or safety from gun violence, or mental health care, or affordable housing.

Larry Hodgden, Tipton

City is listening only to itself on recreation

On Oct. 18, four members of the Iowa City Council (Megan Alter, Laura Bergus, Shawn Harmsen, and Janice Weiner) approved the Recreation Facilities and Programs Master Plan, despite the absence of details, cost information, and a vision that is consistent with overwhelming public feedback in opposition to the proposed “repurposing” of the Robert A. Lee pool and the radical “concept” redesign of City Park Pool.

In approving this plan, the four council members blindly accepted and repeated the city staff’s misinformation regarding the public feedback on the aquatics portion of the plan. The city staff has consistently dismissed the feedback from community members who actually use and love these pools. Instead, they have emphasized “Phase 1” of their community engagement process because that phase allegedly represents the “quiet voices” in the community who often aren’t "heard.”

Who are these “quiet voices”?

According to the plan, Phase 1 involved focus groups, pop-up events, a “statistically valid survey,” and a community engagement website. See Recreation Facilities and Programs Master Plan, at page 24. Of the 44 or 47 total participants in the focus groups, at least 14 were (and still are) city employees (30% of the total). That includes CityManager Geoff Fruin, Deputy City Manager Redmond Jones, and Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek. See Master Plan at 20, 126-27 and attached list of city employees identified as participants. (Councilor Alter was also one of the participants, but she was not on the City Council at the time.) City employees should not be characterized as among the “quiet voices” in this community who are not “heard.”

The Phase 1 “pop-up events” with the most participation were held at the Farmers Market, SodaFest, and Halloween Carnival (69, 49, and 36 respondents, respectively). None of these events appear to be designed to reach underserved communities.

The Phase 1 “Statistically Valid Survey” was comprised of 450 random households in the community. Of those respondents, 82% were white, and the largest age group was 65 and older. It does not appear that these are the “quiet voices” in the community who are not “heard.”

Even worse, the plan’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) outcomes analysis was entirely based on input from Parks & Rec Department staff. See page 65. In other words, the “quiet voices” the Council members believe they’re listening to are actually the voices of the city staff.

The City Council and staff have weaponized DEI language to serve their desired outcome without actually obtaining input from the “quiet” voices in the community, and without explaining how eliminating one pool and redesigning another serves the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

It is regrettable that four City Council members approved this plan without understanding the actual source of the Phase 1 feedback. This plan does not represent the needs or desires of the “quiet voices” in this community. This plan represents the desires of city staff.

Amy B. Kretkowski, Iowa City

Iowa rightly attends to animals in abuse proceedings

Family violence is something incredibly serious that I believe is still not covered enough in the media. I think this particularly when it comes to domestic abuse and the use of animal abuse as a form of manipulation. Not only is there the issue of the danger for pets or animals in domestic abuse relationships, but there is also the danger of the animal as being used as a form of manipulation by the perpetrator. Both issues are touched on by Iowa law, in Chapter 236, since 2014.

This means that Iowa now allows the court to grant petitioners care, possession, or control of pets/companion animals in temporary and permanent orders regardless of the owner. Many sources such as the Des Moines Register (“Animal cruelty cases highlight Iowa’s lack of animal protection laws”), Animal Legal Fund (“The Link Between Cruelty to Animals and Violence Toward Humans”) and Michael Roguski (“Pets as Pawns…”) that allude to the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence. Those who abuse their animals are more likely to be involved in domestic violence, and perpetrators in domestic abuse relationships may use animals to manipulate and control their partner.

As previously mentioned, this annotation now includes animals in protective orders and considers these aspects. Many other states and cities have already implemented such protective order annotations and/or conditions as well, as legal offenses when it comes to the harming of animals. Including more animal shelters or protective services for those seeking help at domestic violence shelters could also be incredibly beneficial.

Although it may be hard to determine whether these approaches to the problem have made wide-scale changes, it can be said that by making these changes awareness to these issues increase. Also, even if it is working on a small scale, this small-scale change is still saving so many companion animals from the harm of abuse. As one can see, this law not only increases the awareness of these issues, but potentially saves many animals for the grasps of abusers. Animals aren’t a pawn to manipulate, and abusers shouldn’t even have that option.

Azzurra Sartini-Rideout, Iowa City