Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for June 1, 2023

DA acted properly in the Serra statue case

District Attorney Lori Frugoli has announced that her office has used a “restorative justice” approach to resolve criminal charges against five people arising out of the toppling of the statue of Junipero Serra at the Mission San Rafael in October 2020. As Frugoli said, “the fact is that a resolution through accountability has been reached through restorative justice and that is a victory for this community.”

I am a longtime parishioner at St. Raphael’s and a lifelong Catholic, and I agree wholeheartedly with the district attorney. Unfortunately, my commitment to, and my involvement with, the restorative justice effort has put me at odds with Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

I believe Cordileone has tried to stir up public sentiment against the demonstrators who toppled the statue from the beginning. Shortly after the incident, he conducted a public “exorcism” at the site of the demonstration. He demanded “hate crime” charges against the demonstrators.

Cordileone has repeatedly tried to characterize the statue-toppling incident as an attack on the Catholic Church.

There’s an old expression: Even a dog knows the difference between when he’s been kicked and when he’s been tripped over.

While the parishioners at St. Raphael’s were understandably upset and disturbed by the toppling of the Serra statue, I know that many did not perceive this as an attack on our church. Those of us in that group certainly do not believe the demonstrators were motivated by “hate.”

As a Christian, I unequivocally support the principles of restorative justice and reconciliation.

I disapprove of Cordileone’s posturing and his harsh criticism of the restorative justice process. I salute Frugoli for having the wisdom and courage to pursue restorative justice to resolve this case.

— Frank Lindh, San Rafael

Increasing income should be part of debt discussion

As of this writing, hurdles remain in resolving the debt ceiling debate. It must still be passed by both legislative branches. Regardless, I believe it is clear that the Republicans co-opted the Democrats from the outset by ensuring that the debate would be fought on Republican terms.

Budgets are typically balanced by either reducing expenditures or increasing revenues. Most often, it comes via a combination of both. So far, the only strategy being discussed in the debt debate is lowering government expenditures, even though, on the revenue side, personal income tax rates for those above a million dollars have been falling since the 1950s.

Last year, the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest was 37%. In 2000, it was 40%. In 1980 it was 70% and, under the Republican administration of former President Dwight Eisenhower, it was 91%. The current rate imposed upon the country’s highest earners under today’s Democratic administration is but a fraction of what it was under Eisenhower’s Republican administration in the 1950s. Yet there is no discussion that I’ve heard to propose raising the income side of the ledger to help close the deficit gap.

It seems that today’s Republicans want to reduce the size of government even more than simply reducing expenditures. We must remember that the primary role of democratic governments, after national defense, is representing those who are least able to represent themselves — those with minimal incomes, poor health or are too young to vote.

From what I can tell, today’s Republicans not only seek to dramatically reduce the role of government assistance for those most in need, they also seek to reduce the aspirations of many of our country’s founders.

— Mark Hoffman, San Rafael

Consolidate districts, save money for teacher salaries

I’m not sure I fully understand the Byzantine morass of school funding, but the plethora of redundant school districts in Marin County make no sense to me.

Some police and fire districts have wisely consolidated smaller districts into more efficient cooperative service areas. What fantasy of “local control” keeps school districts from doing the same? The basic required curriculum is set by the state Department of Education. Surely tailored options to support local needs could be created by individual schools within a consolidated district.

It pains me to see superintendents hired at six-figure salaries when hardworking classroom teachers are not paid a living wage. Why should teachers have to strike for even modest raises or worry about the annual round of pink slip roulette?

— Elaine Reichert, Santa Venetia