VOTE NO! on Question #2 (It NOT about Lights!)

[standish]

Dear HoDiddly,
I, too, enjoyed the debate. Nor did I call you a simpleton... just the opposite. Perhaps I did accuse you of trying too hard to appear as the simple "everyman". Perhaps, a humbletonian... and humility is not a bad thing.

By the way, I suspect we'd be on the same side of many issues. In fact, I'd prefer to have you arguing the same side of the next issue with me. Nor were we hostile toward one another on this one.

Best Regards,
Standish.

[cruzrt]

Please tell me what will happen now. Does an individual make an application to P&Z, or does a town or BOE official make the application for lights? Can the P&Z Commission simply grant an exemption to the current 14 ft. height limit? Does some type of "hardship" have to be proven? If the application then goes to ZBA, does a "hardship" for an exception to the 14 ft. limit have to be proven?

[morganika]

I was surprised to hear that a 30% turnout is considered "good". Why do so many people not vote?

[karolv]

How soon will the field lights issue go before the Planning and Zoning Commission? Can the lights be installed for this fall?

[SyZyGy]

Morganika pondered: why only a 30% turnout on 5/24/2005?

Some of the following may "explain" the reason for the "low" turnout:

• Weather (it was rainy); some people are dissuaded by inclement weather.
  
  
• Apathy (voter); some electors feel that their votes do not count (though they do!)
  
  
• Illness; too ill or disabled to vote on election day and not motivated enough to acquire and use an absentee ballot.
  
  
• Confusion; some people were confused by the BOTH questions (each was deceptive in the way it was portrayed to the general public).
  
  
• Relevance; some people did not see the importance of either or both of the questions (though both had far reaching consequences if passed).
  
  
• Clueless; some people were unaware (or choose to be unaware) of what is going on in town (despite media and mail).
  
  
• Anger; voters turned off by the negativity exhibited by the proponents of particular voting pattern (e.g. NO, Yes; or Yes, NO!, whatever) in the signs, videos and literature.
  
  
• Retribution; voters turned off by certain proponents who told them one thing when, in fact, they were not telling them the whole truth.

Regardless, it was more than the 10% turnout require to legitimatize the referenda. The votes were decisive: 60% did not want a ban on new municipal lights; and 63% did not want any further politicization of the zoning/appeals processes. Lights on sports fields are now theoretically possible - but Miller, O'Connor and Sanzaro hopefully will now "play by the rules" as the CRG PAC group had said they should have done from the beginning.

[rebecca]

This isn't the first time those who have been given power to make decisions on behalf of Wethersfield residents have chosen to ignore the rules in order to accomplish their own agenda. I, too, was happy to see, when Wethersfield residents were made aware of the facts, they voted to rebuke those who abused their position. Even if you do not agree with those who oppose the lights, they should be commended for their efforts in shedding "light" on the questionable tactics of some. ( My yard sign was stolen, too.) Their success in adequately informing Wethersfield citizens is a lesson for others who have been marginalized, their voices silenced by our elected representatives through equally questionable means.

As a participant in the effort to bring to the attention of Wethersfield residents the concerns about The Day of Silence at WHS of over 130 residents, including 11 clergy from six different churches in town, I was amazed and deeply disappointed to discover the lengths to which the Wethersfield Public School administration and the BOE members were willing to go in order to shut down any open, fair and balanced discussion on the matter. Even after 3 years and all of our efforts to inform our fellow citizens, misinformation about this issue prevails as to the substance of our concerns and the content of our petition to the BOE, which was rejected on March 22 of this past spring.

Is anyone on this board aware the reason the Board of Ed finally granted us a hearing was because they were summoned to appear before the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission? The BOE had allowed the high school principal to speak during executive session concerning the Day of Silence. This, we believe, was a violation of FOIA regulations. During this presentation the high school principal made false statements that were intended to (and did successfully) marginalize those who brought their concerns to the BOE by depicting them as extremist, statements that would not have been made in a public forum.

Is anyone aware that the Board did not in any way address the substance of the hearing petition, which simply stated, was an appeal for true tolerance? Instead, the administration and the BOE talked of classroom disruption at both the hearing and in an article in the May edition of Wethersfield Life, this line of reasoning taken up again by letter writers in the June edition of WL.

The national sponsor (GLSEN) of the Day of Silence tells students anyone who disagrees with them is not only a homophobic bigot but also "against women, people of color, poor people, old people and children." ( Day of Silence Student training manual, GLSEN 2002) A WHS teacher at the hearing said, "Who can be against tolerance? What's on the other side of tolerance?" The answer is simple. Intolerance is on the other side of tolerance. The question is who is being intolerant? How can the administration and the BOE sanction (by allowing this event into the classroom) and thus encourage students to participate in an event sponsored by a group like GLSEN that produces such hate speech?

Our petition simply asked the event be barred from the classroom ONLY, so as to make it clear to students ALL hate speech is unacceptable. The Day of Silence is not about harassment and bullying. It is about silencing a good number of Wethersfield residents (your neighbors) who, because of their concern for ALL students, have expressed reservations concerning GLSEN's message. If respect and tolerance does not apply to those with whom you disagree the word "tolerance" is rendered meaningless.

I ask you, where were our good neighbors helping us to defend our rights to be protected from those who advocate hatred? I can only hope that as we continue our efforts to bring this matter to the attention of our fellow residents, they will, as they did in this case with respect to the lights, choose to uphold what is right.

[MrsB]

I started a new thread for this topic, Dr Ken is right the lights thread should be closed. If you want to discuss this, post to the new thread.

MrsB