Letter to the Editor

To The Editor: Last week I received in my mail an informational flyer from the Region 17 Building Committee. I do not expect the committee to criticize itself or question its own information. However, supporters of the school have complained about “false rumors, disinformation and unsubstantiated statements” for months. In short they have acted as though the entire issue has been treated unfairly by those who oppose it.

The initial criticism of this project was simply that the building committee was not disseminating adequate information to the public. Any questions about the project seemed to be viewed as unwarranted criticism and dealt with in a dismissive manner. People felt they deserved better and expressed that opinion. I would submit that this attitude always engenders suspicion, even if it might be unfounded.

In my opinion the supporters of this project have caused anyone who questions or criticizes anything about this school as being anti-education. Evidently we just don't like or care about children. My daughter sometimes accuses me of the same thing. We usually get over it.

The fact remains that many valid questions have failed to get a legitimate response. A close reading of the recent flyer reveals the site to contain “45 buildable acres” which would support “a school to accommodate 900”. It is further stated that “this new school will have approximately 820 students when it first opens”. So far, so good. The flyer then states that “the core facilities” are designed for “a student population of 1,200”. It goes on to add that “long range plans include provisions for additional space to be added on to the structure to bring the school up to a size that may be necessary to accommodate a larger student population”.

All that said, I would like to ask how 45 claimed buildable acres can be in compliance with “5 buildable acres per 100 students” for a school that may end up accommodating an indeterminate number greater than 1,200. I would also like to know where the money for the “additional space to be added on” is to come from when needed. Is this additional cost part of the contingency fund in the current building budget? I wonder if we are spending too much money for a school that may be obsolete sooner rather than later.

There are many other issues that could addressed, but I would like to close on the matter of ethical behavior. The entire tone of this flyer should be a source of embarrassment for anyone who signed off on it. This document is filled with unsubstantiated “facts” and slurs that border on outright slander. I would like to know if the allegations set forth in this document can be substantiated. If not, they are merely mean-spirited rumors and innuendo. They are, in fact, exactly what their authors claim to abhor in their critics. If this is all about the children, do they not deserve a better example of fair play from those who would foster their educational futures?

I support education. I do not support this project. I don't know if I am part of a “small, vocal minority” or not. My only motivation is common sense and fiscal responsibility. I have yet to realize any “gain” from this issue, nor do I expect to. I am merely a private citizen trying to be an active participant in “our democratic process”, no more or less than those who disagree with me.

Dear Editor: The recent mailer authored by the Regional School District No. 17 Building Committee purports to present “ FACTS ” (emphatic styling theirs). But assertions are not facts, and facts are not truth. Facts — credible facts from sources we know, respect and trust — are tools that we use to arrive at the truth. The mailer makes many assertions but cites no sources. It accuses those who question decisions made by the committee of attempting to “discredit and derail the project” for “personal gain”.

That characterization is disturbing for a number of reasons. First, it is obviously false — several people have come forward in print and on the record at meetings to say they voted for the school but now have concerns based on information that came to light after the referendum. As one of them I assure you I have no interest in blocking the project and I certainly have nothing to gain. I do, however, believe all parties should have an opportunity to evaluate objective facts from verifiable sources before the district irrevocably commits to what may be a deeply flawed plan.

Second, it reflects a confrontational “us versus them” attitude on the part of the building committee that can only impair judgment and interfere with open, honest communication. The mailing, with its often-inflammatory language and many boldface and underlined sections, comes across as a defensive rant, not a dispassionately reasoned argument.

Third, and most troubling of all, the mailing appeared in the context of an attempt to silence opposition and quash debate. In recent weeks:

A respected local newspaper was pressured to bar one reporter from covering building committee issues, apparently because she cited facts that have appeared in print and on official documents numerous times rather than subsequent assertions she was not aware of.
An online “community news and information source for Killingworth” that has presented fair and balanced information in the past devoted substantial coverage to the building committee and its supporters but declined to publish a dissenting letter.
A hearing officer for the state Freedom of Information Commission ruled the Killingworth board of selectmen violated state law last year when it met with the town building official and school officials but excluded Selectman Louis Annino Sr.

A new middle school is needed and will be built — either on the current site or elsewhere. Civil discourse is also needed, to preserve our form of democratic self-governance and to ensure informed, rational decision-making — not only about the school but on all issues. In several quarters that level of discourse is lacking. I urge the building committee, their supporters, dissenters and other stakeholders to rebuild it.

Editor's Note: This editor respectfully declined to publish a recent submission by Michael Board because it did not significantly add to his previously published letter.