Point - Counterpoint: Wesler and Powers
Editor's note: These letters appear in the Woodstock Villager on-line currently and will be in tomorrow's edition. Both Lee Wesler and Craig Powers are members of the Woodstock Democratic Town Committee.
Wesler: Elected should serve terms before any changes
To the Editor:
The petition filed in Woodstock last week proposing a change in term length for members of the Board of Education at first blush seems a reasonable one. Certainly a time commitment of six years could easily dissuade an interested person from pursuing a seat. Four years will be more palatable, especially in these complicated times. Balancing work and family and the necessary board time is a daunting task. A shorter term also affords Woodstock voters a more nimble say in what has been, and surely will continue to be, a thorny issue.
Consolidating the board from nine to seven members may serve to streamline the process, especially when buttressed with Craig Powers’ idea of having public participation on subcommittees. It would be interesting to hear what current board members feel; could less people translate into more individual work? Asking for new elections, though, sets a dangerous precedent and in the minds of many will appear to be a poorly veiled method of sacking the current board. Like it or not, these officials were elected under rule of law. Starting from scratch would be counterproductive to the referendum’s implied intent. What right-minded person would put the time and effort into running for public office with the knowledge that they could be tossed aside should the latest political wind shift direction? It may also cause disillusionment amongst those voters who intended their candidate to complete a six year term.
A more sensible compromise would be to allow current members to complete their terms and set the new limits for all future elections. Coupling this with concerned citizens like Mr. Powers and his call for transparency and public engagement can keep the spotlight on the most important matters. We all want an ideal education for Woodstock students.
Having this degrade into yet another game of political mudslinging serves no one. And without doubt,we don’t want our kids caught in the middle of this game.
LEE WESLER
WOODSTOCK
___________________________________________________________________________
Powers: Petition is democracy in action
To the Editor:
With regard to the petition presented to the town of Woodstock to change the terms and number of members on the Board of Education: As this is being done entirely openly and will be settled by a machine vote, people should view this as nothing more than democracy in action.
While some may view this as a tactical move to get rid of the current board, for those who have attended — though attendance at BOE meetings is pathetic at best — or watched the video tape on woodstocktruth.com and woodstockctcoalition.org over the past few years, they would see that the effectiveness of this board is highly suspect at the very least, both in terms of serving the children and the board’s relationship with other boards, the citizenry, the Academy, etc., and perhaps that’s OK with them as is their right to feel that way.
Current members who feel strongly that this board is on the right track should run again, and I hope they do, as they should have nothing to fear but their records and could end up with more time than they have now if successful. It is certainly everyone’s right to support them in that candidacy. Perhaps during their respective campaigns we can get answers to the myriad questions that remain unanswered by this board.
Formal inquiry was made to both the RTC and DTC as to their positions. I have yet to receive formal response from either entity; however, privately, many members of both town committees are expressing support.
Lastly, it is obvious to any of us who have tried to recruit candidates for BOE (on both sides of the aisle) that the length of the current term (six years) is a deal breaker for many. This can be verified by anyone involved in either political party. If the initiative is successful, I expect, though cannot guarantee, that more will be engaged to serve. At the very least, the level of awareness of the issues will be elevated, which is clearly in the town’s long-term interest as well as that of the children.
So far, there is solid support for this initiative from a wide bi-partisan group, as well as from two current board members who were elected by very wide margins in the last election, and I believe there will be a third — that has to mean something.
CRAIG R. POWERS
WOODSTOCK
This communication is paid for by Woodstock for Progressive Education. Craig R. Powers 100 Brickyard Road Woodstock, CT, Agent





Concerning Mr. Wesler's concerns:
It is an established custom in good argumentation to show one's opponent common courtesy and even the benefit of any doubt. Mr. Wesler's characterization of the referendum in question as being "dangerous" and a "poorly veiled method of sacking the current board" refrains from any such courtesy. Even more disappointing is the implication he foists on his readers that the referendum is "unlawful". On this point, nothing could be further from the truth, since the measure in dispute clearly follows the rule of law. It is one thing for Mr. Wesler to disagree; it is quite another for him to youthfully participate in "mudslinging". Finally, while it is good to consider the disillusionment of voters who might not see their candidates serve full terms, it is even better to add concern for those whose candidates have proved to be a disappointment. I suspect that this is largely what the referendum is all about.
Jason
With all due respect, I really thought I expressed more support for Craig's proposals than not. I agree with his ideas of shorter terms, public participation on subcommittees as well as his call for transparency. I simply disagree that starting from scratch is prudent. As I stated (perhaps you should read it again), we set a dangerous precedent for ALL elected officials by passing this referendum. And as Craig also stated himself, "some may view this as a tactical move to get rid of the current board". Nor did I say this referendum is unlawful, I said that "these officials were elected under rule of law". By no means did I ever mean to pick a fight and I don't appreciate having my words misconstrued. Craig understands this. I am more interested in finding common ground and moving forward. This is called compromising and is considered the opposite of mudslinging.
Lee