Dealing with a devil's bargain

Dear editor:

When is it okay to break a promise, a contract, an agreement well met and fairly made?

If your word is your bond, if a handshake at the end of a deal still means something, if the vow, "in sickness and in health,' til death do us part" still has meaning, then I'm on the side that says, "Never."

On the other hand, if you are a duly elected representative of the people, an Idaho legislator, governor, or superintendent of education, then the answer is: "When enough like-minded elected officials agree with us, and we have the power to execute our will."

Democracy, if it's to continue as a governmental guide, must be something more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The tyranny of the majority needs to be kept in check by due consideration for bargains previously made, and the recognition of individual rights and public agreements.

When our lawmakers brush promises aside like so many breadcrumbs from a dinner table, they behave dishonorably. They proclaim to the agreeable majority that promises past should not be allowed to get in the way of promises for the future. I say, that it shouldn't matter that a group of influential people agree with the act. It does, however, matter that the integrity of our elected government is fickle and not to be relied upon.

There is no way to almost trust such people. Trust doesn't allow itself to be fractionated... it's all or nothing... all the way in, or all the way out... it's "I believe you, or I don't."

By ripping collective bargaining agreements away from Idaho school districts, our elected leaders have violated the trust of the very people they'll depend upon to help them make their educational reform plans work. They have forced school district administrators to conform to a devil's bargain, while simultaneously disregarding the handshakes shared by thousands of Idaho teachers and their managers.

Well, we elected 'em. I guess we'll get the leadership we deserve.

Mike Curtis