Bridge Staff
We Can Do Better
To the Editor:
The Aug. 11 WCUUSD vote was decisive (1,711 “Approved”; 1,365 “Not Approved”).
The vote was a question about the district’s Articles of Agreement — the way five towns merged into one unified union district eight years ago. It was a forced merger. The state and our district have much to learn about how to make forced mergers into successful mergers.
Starting now, in the Washington Central Unified Union School District, five towns can vote to close one town’s elementary school if the district board also votes to close that school.
The district also has no prospects for a full-time superintendent any time soon, as the finalists withdrew.
The district failed to adequately warn the vote in one town — this warning is required by law. The district published misinformation, online and by mail, including wrong times and locations of polling places. Information sessions held by the board were notably one-sided — this should never happen. A principal reminded parents in two towns, via email, to attend information sessions held by the petitioners. Finally, absentee ballots had almost no chance of being returned by mail in this unnecessarily rushed vote.
The final count does not tell the whole story. In Calais, 724 voters, just about 50% of the town’s registered voters, voted by a margin of 6 to 1 in opposition to this petition. This was the highest turnout in the state.
In Worcester, in a similarly high turnout, 340 voted against the proposal by a margin of 7 to 1. This means that more than 300 in the other three towns also voted Not Approved. They understood that keeping our promises is the way to have one functioning district, not songlines, like “we are one.”
Let’s stop pretending closing schools saves money. It doesn’t. Form a joint board/citizen taskforce to hammer out a compromise. We can do better than this.
Linda Gray, Calais
Protect Workers’ Right: Yes on 3
To the Editor:
I intend to vote Yes on Proposal 3 on the general ballot in November to approve the Vermont constitutional amendment to protect the right of Vermont workers to organize and collectively bargain.
I am not a union member. In fact, I hold a management position in a largely unorganized sector. Whether in future workplaces or in my civic engagement, I am more likely to meet unions in the adversarial conditions of negotiations than I am to receive actions of solidarity. And yet I am strongly in favor of the unrestricted right of workers to organize and collectively bargain, protected from the politicians and corporations seeking to take away their voice. It is not benevolence, but realism: I can draw the connection between securing the right to organize and improving the directions my own life can take here in Vermont.
Briefly, I know that everyone does better when workers can organize. Everyone in an organized workplace benefits from greater job security and the workers’ seat at the table for decisions that affect everyone, whether or not they themselves pay dues. Everyone who works benefits from the fact that states with strong union protections also have higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. Every child and family benefits when teachers can bargain for the resources to use best practices and keep school environments healthy and safe for themselves and students. Everyone with a body benefits from firefighters and nurses who can exercise their professional voice to keep us safer.
So, everyone: vote YES on Proposal 3, A Constitutional Amendment to Protect the Right to Collectively Bargain.
Elise Thorsen, Plainfield
Letters to the editor represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Submit your letter by email to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont, should not exceed 300 words in length, and may be edited for brevity and accuracy.
