Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

It is with reluctance that I write and splash more ink at a bad practice but I do so with a signed letter to the editor and not an unaccountable splashing of bad behavior in the Sound Off column. I was educated in Gray and always taught to stand up for what I believed in, but also to be accountable for what I said. Hurting people with unkind words is bad conduct and to hide behind the unsigned words is worse conduct.

Jack Goosetrey is an honorable man and a committed volunteer to many Town Committees. He did speak publicly before open cameras regarding his opinion about the limited attendance at Town Meeting. In a high attendance year, approximately 150 people out of a Town population of over 7,000 citizens attended the meeting. To many, that is a reasonable cause for concern. A citizen who voices such should not be ridiculed anonymously. That is bad behavior and our community deserves better.

As a former teacher you know that our schools consider ad hominem verbal attacks as a form of unacceptable bullying. If we teach this in our schools why does a professional editor allow bullying tactics to be featured in the newspaper? I do not see this allowed in the other newspapers I read. Isn't it a twist of justice that a man who "Sounds Off" in public can be attacked by an unnamed person "Sounding Off" under the protection of The Monument? Such practices destroy trust and integrity in our Town.

I hope reasonable people will keep returning to their "roots" and the community values and caring practices that enabled Gray to become a special community. We can do better, our citizens deserve better. Do "Sound Off" if you like but do it in public, I shall.

Richard F. Barter, Gray


To the Editor:

The session of the Town Council on July 20 provided a very good example of why I declined a year ago to be re-appointed to the Ordinance Review Committee.

The Ordinance Review Committee has been very diligent in working to develop proposed revisions of Ordinances. The Committee seeks information from all interested parties and consults with appropriate experts to try to write Ordinance language that is fair and reasonable. The proposed revisions of Ordinances that are sent to the Town Council with a recommendation for enactment are thoroughly discussed, well thought out, and carefully written so that they take into account all pertinent considerations.

The problem is that the Town Manager and some Councilors wait until after the Ordinance Review Committee has worked out a very well written revision of an Ordinance and then they proceed to propose changes and additions on the basis of pet ideas, or simply emotion, without any careful consideration of the harmful effects of those changes. These proposed changes and additions are not put forward for discussion and evaluation during the deliberations of the Ordinance Review Committee. This means that they have not had the benefit of being considered in the overall context of the Ordinance.

I kept the working versions of proposed Ordinance revisions in my own computer and put a lot of time and effort into incorporating changes and writing proposed language as the Committee worked through the process over periods of several months. After many months of work, a very good Street Construction Ordinance was completed only to be seriously damaged by the Town Council. That is when I decided that I had better ways to spend my time. I have continued working with the ORC only because I promised to try to get a good revision of the Gravel Pit Ordinance enacted.

David W. Knudsen, Gray


To the Editor:

Thank you for the great write up on Derek Rosengren [Monument, July 22]. The article was very interesting, ACCURATE, and the pictures were great. It was so good that I am sending the whole paper to our son in Iraq.

Martha Ray