POLL: Is Advertising on Marlboro School Buses a Good Idea?
The district will be a part of a program to put advertisements on school buses.
Photos
The Marlboro K-8 school district is looking to expand its revenue by joining an advertising for its fleet of school buses.
According to The News Transcript, the Board of Education signed a one-year contract with the Educational Information and Resource Center (EIRC), which will begin once the company expands its client base, a condition set by potential advertisers.
Business Administrator Cindy Barr-Rague said in an October meeting that the contract puts no expense on the district's shoulders, and will net $500 to $2,000 per year on each bus.
Revenue will begin streaming when the EIRC finds advertisers interested in the school bus program, according to The News Transcript.
ed
7:04 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
maybe they should cut the high salaries for thier admin....
Ronee Ades
8:03 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Leave the school buses out of any advertising campaigns and other revenue generating schemes. Some places should be free from such activities.
cynicinmarlboro
9:40 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Use the revenue collected on appropriate ads to pay back the "approximately $105,000" being used from the general fund for the mayor's and BOE's knee-jerk reaction of putting armed cops in all the schools. Give the taxpayers a break.
milton McC
4:35 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
To cynicinmalboro
How much is your child worth. I did the calculation and my cost is maybe $.20 cents a day. Is your child worth less than a quarter cup of coffee or maybe half a White Castle hamburger.
cynicinmarlboro
10:00 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
@milton: You fool yourself if that's all you think it will cost. I've read other suggestions that will not only increase that so many times, but make our children seem to attend maximum security federal penitentiaries rather than school buildings. Even if just a few of those suggestions are agreed to, it will have to be a referendum to see it through. So I still say, based on the knee-jerk reactions we seem to continue to have over everything, that as much revenue generating the schools can do should be pursued to offset these costs as much as possible to the taxpayers. Either that or ask the NRA to fund the "armed guard in every school" they want rather than throw their huge dollars to the politicians in Washington and elsewhere and see where we go from there.
anonymous
5:58 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I agree with Cynic.
My "informal" poll tells me the taxpayers of this town are against the armed police officers at schools. I too am against it.
If those Board members approve armed officers after the 90 day period (which is already costing taxpayers alot of money) there will be a concerted effort to remove them--ENUF SAID!!! No need for a budget vote to raise our taxes!!!!!!!
milton McC
6:27 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Are we to put any faith in your "informal poll". Just how many people did you "poll".
I ran an official poll. The majority think you are a fool.
ed
7:25 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
why do we need police officers there? bats, hamers and knives kill more people than guns.... why not train some of the custodians in handling weapons much cheaper and more secure ...how much more can ot cost to train them in the use and care of weapons...so do not jump down my throat on this one with some of the answers I have read on here this is just a suggestion...let's take some lessons from Isreal and other Nations..
ed
7:27 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
and by the way this poll is nothing but bullshit I voted twice on it once this morning and just now...I guess they need talking points
Kaitlyn Anness
9:24 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Ed, as stated on the poll, this is not scientific--it's a way to generate conversation in the community and gauge reactions very informally.
ed
4:57 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
yes but the poll should have some sort of validity to it .. or stop for the same person to vote more than once....
anonymous
10:05 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
If the revenue received will help lower our taxes, I am all for it. Otherwise, no.