I must take issue with some of what I found in your article of Aug. 13, "College board approves benefits for retiring faculty."

Your article states that the West Valley­Mission Community College District Board of Trustees passed a motion that gave consent that the instructors will be paid their banked leave. The board does not have the luxury of consent on this issue. Failure to pay earned wages would be a violation of labor code. Your article states that the district and the faculty union are about to decide the rate of pay for the already earned leave, but that is incorrect, because the decision was made two years ago and is in the current union contract. Your article states that the board's resolution granted these retirees lifetime medical benefits, but, according to Chancellor Stan Arterberry, these retirees already had lifetime medical benefits.

There were comments from the president of the West­Valley Mission board with which I would also take issue. President Chris Constantin objected to faculty going directly to the board instead of dealing with the administration. The faculty made many attempts to work with administration but to no avail. Where else does one go when the board is about to take action? President Constantin stated, "This was a faculty attempt to get even more money and not give any concessions." The board signed this retirement incentive agreement back in June because it benefited the district as much as it benefited faculty. For the board now to ask for further concessions would be bad-faith bargaining. Finally, President Constantin stated that faculty could use banked leave for a sabbatical leave. This is incorrect. Perhaps the president of the board is not familiar with the contract. That could explain why the faculty union is having difficulty resolving these issues.

—Pat Andrews, West Valley College


Girls trip to Tech Trek all thanks to AAUW

Thank you for the extensive cover story article "Science Gal" regarding local middle school girls attending Tech Trek Science Camp at Stanford University for one week in July. Ever since Marie Wolbach of the American Association of University Women initiated this valuable program, our local Los Gatos­Saratoga Branch of AAUW has been actively involved in the effort. Although the article did an excellent job relating the impressions of the young ladies to the camp experience, and the creativity of the instructors, I felt an important fact of how the girls were able to go to Tech Trek was omitted.

The Los Gatos­Saratoga Branch of AAUW, as well as other branches in the state, pays the tuition for each local girl selected. The first year of the camp, 1998, we sponsored one girl. In the following four years we sent two girls to the camp each year. As the girls attended a branch meeting to tell us of their experiences, public knowledge and interest in this program increased, as well as our skill in fund raising. This past July, we sent four middle school girls to Tech Trek at the cost of $2,400. (These four girls were the ones you interviewed for the article.)

The public could misinterpret a statement in the article: "Candidates then went through group interviews with their peers." A Tech Trek Committee of the Los Gatos—Saratoga AAUW conducts the candidate interviews. These women represent many fields of study. The choice is never easy, and many agonizing moments are spent making a decision, as all the 12 to 15 candidates, recommended by their individual schools, are well qualified. But, the sponsorship funds are limited.

The Los Gatos­Saratoga Branch of AAUW is looking forward to many more years of sponsoring our bright local middle school girls to the exciting experience of Tech Trek.

—Margaret D. McCartney, Tech Trek Committee member


League should be praised for its Patriot Act study

Many thanks to the League of Women Voters for doing the studying and bringing resolutions against the so-called Patriot Act to the city councils of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, and soon to Campbell. San Jose and the County Board of Supervisors have also passed resolutions.

Security is a non-partisan issue and the misuse of it, stirring up fear, as was done to get the Patriot Act passed too quickly for legislators to have even read it through was a travesty. The unanimous Saratoga council vote gives us great hope that Patriot ll will not be passed.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin: Those who choose security over liberty will receive neither.

Again, many thanks to LWV.

—Barby and Vic Ulmer, Paseo Presada


Resident is looking for some answers

I hope some well-informed Saratogan (Republican or Democrat) who understands the Iraq campaign will explain why America continues to sacrifice precious human lives and billions of dollars a week there while the international scene grows less stable with each passing week.

Perhaps the think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institute that took such a large part in planning this war should be denied access to the White House for a while. We are told that the terrorists are an "unconventional" enemy but our generals are carrying out a very focused attempt at a four to five year military occupation. Even if successful, would our temporary control of Iraq's destiny stop the bombings in India, Indonesia or the Middle East, or prevent the terrorists from setting up shop in whatever country they please?

It's been said that one of our objective is to make America's economic objectives more palatable to Muslim nations, but how likely is it that the military presence of an "infidel nation" [us] will help the effort? These things are extremely difficult to understand and are especially painful to think about when we consider the hundreds of soldiers lives' and thousands of civilian lives' that have already been lost; but perhaps someone can shed some light on it.

—Alan Rosenus, Lomita Avenue