Reading, Writing, Responding...

Here's a comment received today. It's published on the original post below, but it raises some questions that deserve more visibility. Refer to the original post below ("Let's Bond") for more context.

I have been following this commentary for a while now, and feel I need to speak out.
1. This sounds like a very clear threat, Art. The fact of anonymity is supposed to insure confidentiality, and your implication is clearly, and unarguably a threat!
2. This is supposed to be an opportunity for people to respond to Mel and Art's comments, at least as far as I can read. How come when someone writes in favor of the school, with accurate comments and facts rather than opinions, they are denigrated and defiled?
3. One of the outstanding facts in this whole project is that if we choose not to take advantage of this opportunity, that $30 Million Dollars will be spent elsewhere, for someone else to have a new building, with updated technology, and clean environment.
4. The governor has his eyes on consolidating somewhere. If we don't, someone else will for us. Talk about taking local option away!
5. I hear comments about how everyone will miss the small schools in our district. If the governor has his way, (and I've no doubt he will to some degree) we won't have small schools anyway, and our students are likely to be bussed to Corinth or Newport/Corinna areas. hmmm, Newport school or Dexter school. I know which I would pick.
6. Many of the comments here have referred to lack of information, yet how many people have actually attended the meetings that have been made available? I've attended the public meetings, and I find it hard to believe there are only 350 people in the whole district!!! That's the number who attended both meetings. Also, at those meetings, several invitations were presented for people to become part of the process and have a say in what gets done; I didn't see people lining up to be on the various committees. I guess my thought is-what right have you to criticize if you were not part of the process? If people spent as much time on the committees as they have writing on the blog, maybe there would have been a different outcome; I doubt it. But I guess the bottom line for me is that they would rather sit back and watch and complain, than get involved and do something about it.

Let's work through this.

1. This sounds like a very clear threat, Art. The fact of anonymity is supposed to insure confidentiality, and your implication is clearly, and unarguably a threat!

Here's what Art wrote:

...but should you continue these practices, and your identity be revealed; there’ll be hell to pay.

You'll have to explain the "threat." I don't see it. Art isn't saying he's going to reveal this person's identity.In fact it isn't possible for us to determine that. If it should somehow be revealed, though, don't you think it would create problems for him/her? Don't you think it should? I would hope so. I would hope that ordinary decent people would be outraged at this person's behavior.

Which leads me to point #2:

2. This is supposed to be an opportunity for people to respond to Mel and Art's comments, at least as far as I can read. How come when someone writes in favor of the school, with accurate comments and facts rather than opinions, they are denigrated and defiled?

You'll need to explain a couple more things. How was the comment by Anonymous -- I assume it's not you, since you seem better at constructing an argument -- in any way a response to the argument of the "Let's Bond" post?

Anonymous's response to the argument about the seriousness of the issue militating for a June vote date is the following:

• Accuse Art of scare tactics.
• Argue that, in effect, any disagreement is an argument for letting someone else get a school rather than SAD #46. This is done through pretending that some other argument was being made.
• Impugn Art's motives.
• Impugn mine by suggesting that I'm inattentive to the interests of one of my children. The fact that Anonymous chooses to do this by being very specific about my child, I take as a threat. I've had them through my children before. I know this tactic and I think it is very repugnant. I'm waiting for you to denounce any new school project "supporter" who uses such tactics as no "friend of education."

These slurs against us have this fundamental underpinning: No one could possibly be interested in the schools except by being directly -- through their families -- concerned. The corollary: No one with a child in the schools should dare to be critical.

The comment by Anonymous was hardly an embodiment of "accurate comments and facts!" Please ask yourself again if you think it was. Please review this entire blog and see whether we have ever "denigrated and defiled" "someone writ[ing] in favor of the school with accurate comments and facts rather than opinions."

I think you will see that we have tolerated multiple instances of slurs and nasty implications. We've responded to these when we've had to, and especially because we have felt that this site should be available to ordinary citizens without fear of intimidation. That's why we've preserved the option of anonymity in spite of abusive comments through this device.

Taking your points #4 and #5. I have no doubt that many small schools will be closed. A lot that is valuable will be lost, both in those schools and in the communities that formerly had schools. The governor's plan -- or whatever variation on it emerges -- will certainly lead toward some form of consolidation.

Our point has always been -- and this responds to your point #6 -- that this process could have been handled better. It has not been inclusive and it has not actively sought out participation. Asking people to come to a meeting is necessary but not sufficient.

Do I have the answer to increasing public participation? No. Do I have ideas? Yes -- and so do many other people.

One of our ideas is this blog. It has more viewers than either of the District's blogs. Other districts have started blogs, with varying degrees of success. When they've not been successful, it's often because they're not informal, they're not responsive, they're too bureaucratic, and so on.

Bill Cohen, when he first ran for Congress, walked across the Congressional District. A walk across this School District, door to door, would have generated a lot of discussion. A stupid idea? You might think so. But I said I had some ideas -- and so do many other people.

I didn't see people lining up to be on the various committees. I guess my thought is-what right have you to criticize if you were not part of the process? If people spent as much time on the committees as they have writing on the blog, maybe there would have been a different outcome; I doubt it. But I guess the bottom line for me is that they would rather sit back and watch and complain, than get involved and do something about it.

You may have that thought - "what right have you to criticize if you were not part of the process?" But I'd be cautious, if I were in your shoes, about arguing against the democratic process. We all get to criticize -- you, me, everybody.

We all make our own decisions. I put in nine years. I help out in my community. I help with this blog. I attend a fair number of meetings. I'm continuing to be involved. Please don't suggest I'm "sitting back!"

Before you turn outward and blame others for not participating -- an easy temptation, I know -- you need to ask if you've done all that you can do to encourage citizen involvement. You may have truly done all you can, as an individual. The District clearly could have done a lot more.