Letter: Sunshine grading system ‘leaves something to be desired’
To the Editor:
In regards to the ‘Sunshine Audit’ on Grand County governments dated March 21, the grading systems leaves something to be desired.
If you recall during your school years, the grade ‘ F ‘ meant that every part of your work was a failure. And yet in grading the town of Kremmling, words like “relatively easy to navigate”, “easy to find”, “pretty good”, “easy to read”, “sufficient information” were used. “Failure” means unsuccessful, nonperformance, and insufficient. And yet, the article continued to use words such as “clear legal rationale,” “bold and easy to locate”, and “excellent.”
I commend the hard work that was done to compile all of the information, but the grading system was not necessary. Why not just give the facts and let us intelligent readers judge on that alone?
Editor’s note: A student can get some answers correct on a test, yet still receive a failing grade for incorrect answers. There were 100 total points (plus six bonus points) available — 30 points for website, 30 for meetings, 30 for budgets and financials, and 10 for records. To help make sense of the final scores, we opted to apply the grades. We consulted a working school teacher to obtain the grading system we used. Scores zero to 59 received an F. Kremmling’s score was a 57. The town’s score suffered from not having basic public documents posted online, not having detail in its agendas, for having records fees exceeding reasonable rates and for its response to our records request. We rejected grading on a curve, as one town manager suggested. We feel an “A” is achievable and something for which each government entity should strive.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.