Dear Editor – Detailed Disagreement

Dear Editor, 

Thank you for publishing this writing from Alex Fisch. As I read the piece, I felt an insight into a conflicted person, one who does not trust elected officials nor the efforts of our officials to lead our city. The writing implies that there is an element of dishonesty within our City Council. He states, “Park improvements are slated for parks adjacent to property owned by some Council members or political benefactors,” with no proof of such statements. We are told there has been no public input into a plan which is only a thought to be studied as of now. Yet, Mr. Fisch states, we vote for officials, “Trusting that those we’ve elected will exercise informed discretion.” Representative government is our system of governance in the United States and works just fine when officials are responsive to their constituency and vote the will of the people, as our present City Council does.

Mr. Fisch does not mention that our School Board and City Council are two separate entities. He implies that we need to float bonds to pay for schools and parks, but the bond issues will conflict with one another, and somehow, this will discourage votes for either issue. Interestingly, he cites school bonds as important, as good schools increase property values. This is diametrically opposed to his vision of low-cost housing he proposed while on the City Council. Now the idea has become a selling point.

The reference to the firing of Superintendent Tran suggests that this personnel action was ill-advised as we will now have to change the direction of our approach to teaching children. Why would a change at the top indicate a change in direction? Perhaps the yet-to-be-appointed superintendent will find all educational plans to be perfect and carry on with those plans. I look forward to the new superintendent starting with a revision of our languishing school facilities as well as refurbishing the gifted and talented programs. And of course, the mere mention of the School Board speaking with one voice on bond issues is certainly in jest. That thought went out the window when our few activist Board members took control of meetings.

This disjointed missive is a great study in poorly written prose, as it lacks a clear and persuasive message.

Peter Stern

The Actors' Gang