Council President Jim Violette is considering reviving a version of the city’s heavy trash pickup program.

In an interview this week, Violette said he voted in the majority against the program because that would allow him to call for another vote at the next regular council meeting, under city ordinances.

While we understand his desire to restore a program that many residents consider to be a valuable service, we believe the council would be better off to let this program die.

Tax relief can’t come without some sacrifice of service. And, if it’s tax relief people want, this is the type of service they should be willing to give up.

It is, of course, nice to have the city pick up furniture and other large items from around the house. It makes spring cleaning that much easier. It is, however, a luxury most cities and towns don’t provide for citizens anymore.

The city has been moving toward a user-pays system of trash removal. That’s an approach we’ve supported. It saves the city some money, and it encourages recycling and reduces the amount of trash going to incinerators and landfills.

While city councilors haven’t decided whether to adopt a pay-per-bag trash program yet, the approach should be applied consistently, if it’s applied at all. In other words, the city shouldn’t ask residents to pay for their weekly trash bags, if it’s still subsidizing a heavy trash program every spring.

If citizens are interested in having the city pick up heavy trash, the city should consider selling tags for the items to pay for the program.

If the city is going to ask the School Department to take a hard look at its budget – as Mayor Bruce Chuluda has in his budget proposal – it can’t be adding programs that came out of the budget last year.

Drinking policy questioned

The School Department is facing questions about the drinking policy in its code of conduct.

After boys varsity basketball players and cheerleaders were suspended for attending a party where underage drinking was taking place, some parents and one School Committee member are questioning whether it’s fair that some students on foreign trips consume alcohol.

School administrators and those questioning the consistency of the school’s policy disagree about whether these foreign trips are school activities. Whether or not these trips are technically school activities, however, seems largely irrelevant to us.

What is important to us is that the School Committee have a frank discussion about its policies on student drinking, in light of the recent suspensions and questions. They’ve got some tough questions to answer.

Is the code of conduct directed at curbing underage drinking by students locally or discouraging the consumption of alcohol in general? Should it apply to foreign trips? Should it apply to students who are just in the presence of others drinking, accidentally or otherwise?

And, ultimately, what message do the schools want to sent to students about the consumption of alcohol?

Brendan Moran, editor