2014-10-10 / Letters

Statements need to be explained, defined

To the editor:

On Aug. 4 the regional school board voted to send the revised renovation plan to the voters in November.

The vote was 9-2 with Mr. Menard and Mr. Cole dissenting. These members ran as a team with a simple, effective mantralike sign posted throughout the district – “$75 million is too much.”

Before the August board vote was taken Mr. Menard said that he wanted everyone to be clear – he thought that $58.6 million was still too much. I, too, was concerned with the original proposal and voted against it – with interest, the cost would have been over $100 million.

The simple sign was effective and played some part in getting the men elected. However, once elected, repeating the mantra, “too much,” is not enough.

As elected officials, Mr. Menard and Mr. Cole now have a responsibility to explain their opinions and offer a thoughtful alternative to the plan they oppose.

If $58.6 million is too much, then why? Is there a plan with a number that enables us to meet the educational and safety needs of the students and staff? Will the plan be energy efficient? If yes, what is it? If no, what are their reasons for not building at this time?

Too much won’t do.

Fortunately, we all have more time to consider the revised proposal. While I felt that the $55 million limit proposed by Mr. Drigotas in February was arbitrary and cynical – what can we get a yes on – the different building committees have worked to make the proposal reflect educational and safety needs rather than wants.

I hope that Mr. Menard and Mr. Cole will work with the other board members to give the voters well-reasoned options as the June vote approaches.

Tom Wolf

Return to top