Response to ConcernedSchoolParentsOfWayland.org

[Jeff Dieffenbach]

A new political action committee called ConcernedSchoolParentsOfWayland.org (CSPOW), which endorses the lockstep BaronGrasso ticket, has seen fit to send out several mailings, one of which is shamefully misleading.

The first postcard points out that the Wayland Public Schools Foundation (WPSF) funds textbooks while the Wayland Public Schools uses part of its budget to pay for the golf team, ski training passes, and Ultimate Frisbee. The current budget does not cover ski training passes, and it's been years if ever since the Ultimate Frisbee club had any funding. The bigger question, though, is whether Wayland residents really want an education of the type that CSPOW--and by extension, Baron and Grasso?--suggest.

By my estimation, the net athletic budget after fees is on the order of 2% of the overall school budget. This amount exceeds the generous amount raised by the WPSF each year. One might reasonably conclude that CSPOW would therefore eliminate athletics entirely or make it fully fee-based, such that many Wayland students would be unable to participate. Is this the Wayland Public Schools that you want?

The second postcard is the real transgressor. It compares the Loker School in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, noting that the building remains fully open. CSPOW suggests that there were no savings from the building's closure. They make this false assertion ignoring the estimated $550,000 in savings estimated by the School Committee.

CSPOW, its Chair, Jane Vanelli, its Treasurer, Betsey Brigham, and anyone else responsible for this misleading campaign should be ashamed of their actions.

[Elizabeth Price]

It is high time that people stop blaming those who volunteer on town boards for their personal dissatisfaction. We should be thanking the School Committee for their service.

It is shameful to send out postcards with completely incorrect information to intentionally incite anger and create ill-will. The postcards are a plea for help and not the kind the voters of Wayland can assuage.

Wayland has so many great things to offer its citizens and it is dangerous to portray our School Committee and administration as not being up to par. This attitude and these campaign tactics are setting a very poor example for our children, and in the end could cause our schools a lot of damage.

[Dave Bernstein]

It is high time that people stop blaming those who volunteer on town boards for their personal dissatisfaction. We should be thanking the School Committee for their service..

Wayland has so many great things to offer its citizens and it is dangerous to portray our School Committee and administration as not being up to par.

If the actions of volunteer officials can't be criticized, what's the point of holding elections?

[Kim Reichelt]

Dave, I agree that warranted criticism of public is completely valid. The stuff that has been going around town the last few days, however, is closer to science fiction than warranted criticism, however.

How do we hold a fair election when misinformation campaigns are running rampant?

In addition to the postcards Jeff mentioned, have you seen the piece from the ironically named "Voice of the Concerned Citizens for Truth and Fairness in Wayland Town Government 2009" that is riddled with untruths (including stating that Gary Burton's salary is $302,498 and that teachers want a 26% raise)

We should all want town residents to go to the ballot box with accurate information guiding their decision making.

[Dave Bernstein]

Dave, I agree that warranted criticism of public is completely valid.

Do you really mean warranted? Who decides what is or is not warranted?

[Kim Reichelt]

Fair enough. Nobody is trying to decide for anybody whether their opinions are valid - but starting with being honest would be a really good start.

Fair argument: we pay Gary Burton too much.
Unfair argument: we pay Gary Burton $302,498

Why is the first one fair? It's an opinion. Also fair would be a factual argument that used the real number. Unfair: a lie.

So, for example:

Fair: we pay too much for athletics
Fair: paying 2% of our school budget on athletics is too much
Unfair: The Schools shouldn't be funding Ultimate Frisbee (since they aren't)

Fair: we shouldn't have reconfigured the elementary schools
Unfair: there were Zero Savings associated with reconfiguring the elementary schools

Do you agree?

[Dave Bernstein]

We should all want town residents to go to the ballot box with accurate information guiding their decision making.

Like an accurate traffic impact analysis for the Town Center?

[Kim Reichelt]

Like an accurate traffic impact analysis for the Town Center?

Yes. Or at least one done well and honestly. People are always going to argue over the specific assumptions, and question accuracy.

You're not arguing with my basic premise are you? I mean, you agree, I assume that "we should all want residents to go to the ballot box with accurate information guiding their decision making"?

[Dave Bernstein]

Fair enough. Nobody is trying to decide for anybody whether their opinions are valid - but starting with being honest would be a really good start.

Fair argument: we pay Gary Burton too much.
Unfair argument: we pay Gary Burton $302,498

Why is the first one fair? It's an opinion. Also fair would be a factual argument that used the real number. Unfair: a lie.

So, for example:

Fair: we pay too much for athletics
Fair: paying 2% of our school budget on athletics is too much
Unfair: The Schools shouldn't be funding Ultimate Frisbee (since they aren't)

Fair: we shouldn't have reconfigured the elementary schools
Unfair: there were Zero Savings associated with reconfiguring the elementary schools

Do you agree?

Dishonesty in any form is unacceptable and inexcusable. It appears, however, to be all-too-common in Wayland politics. You reap what you sow.

[Kim Reichelt]

Dishonesty in any form is unacceptable and inexcusable. It appears, however, to be all-too-common in Wayland politics. You reap what you sow.

You reap what you sow? Who is "you"?

[Dave Bernstein]

Yes. Or at least one done well and honestly. People are always going to argue over the specific assumptions, and question accuracy.

After the town voted to approve the Town Center, during the Planning Board hearings, the developer radically increased required modifications to the 126/27 intersection, radically increased the projected impact on nearby residential streets, and declared that a single-entrance configuration would no longer acceptable. There was no change to the site trip generation data; just a simple bait-and-switch.

You're not arguing with my basic premise are you? I mean, you agree, I assume that "we should all want residents to go to the ballot box with accurate information guiding their decision making"?

Certainly. Unfortunately, distortion is common practice here.

[Dave Bernstein]

You reap what you sow? Who is "you"?

Based on first-hand observation over the past few years, I consider Town Government primarily responsible.

[Kim Reichelt]

Dishonesty in any form is unacceptable and inexcusable.

I think you hit upon the key point.

It doesn't matter whether you think others have misbehaved before you -- nobody is excused from being honest. Period.

[Elizabeth Price]

If the actions of volunteer officials can't be criticized, what's the point of holding elections?

It's ok to criticize for sure. Remember "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama is best friends with a Black Panther?" These were the death-throes of some pro-McCain supporters doing anything to hurt Obama's chances of winning the election. Both statements were untrue and fabricated. These postcards fan a fire - the information is intentionally incorrect and incomplete.

I wanted to show my support to the school committee. I don't think they are perfect. I think it's great that lots of people are running for election - that is what makes good democracy. But good democracy is not furthered by trading false facts.

[Jeff Dieffenbach]

Based on first-hand observation over the past few years, I consider Town Government primarily responsible.

Dave, you aren't specific, so it's not clear for what Town Government is "primarily responsible," but one reasonable inference is the recent dishonesty (Baron, Vanelli/Brigham, anonymous) that I've pointed out. If that's indeed what Town Government is responsible for, please elaborate. How has Town Government been "dishonest?"