Fairness, impartiality are essential to school budget review
To the editor:
Recent news articles and editorials in The Eagle-Tribune and the Andover Townsman have expressed concern over the special education account in the Andover school budget proposed for fiscal year 2008-09. The significance of differences noted between last year's tally and this year's tally seems to be at the center of the controversy.
This year, most communities in Massachusetts are experiencing financial challenges in balancing the needs of the all departments and available resources. Andover is no different. The Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee have been committed to exercising their responsibilities as the elected and appointed officials in charge of the budget reviews for all town departments.
However, when the tone and manner of discussions by the reviewing boards, as witnessed at recent Tri-Board meetings, become symptomatic of deep suspicion and mistrust, then the budget review process is compromised.
The Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee have a responsibility to the voters of Andover to conduct the budget reviews in a fair and impartial manner. When suspicion and mistrust enter into the conduct of their responsibilities, then the budget review process is not in keeping with the best interests of the town.
It is incumbent upon the reviewing boards to determine how best to resolve these difficulties. I urge the boards to develop some confidence-building measures to bridge the gap between suspicion and mistrust, and fairness and impartiality. Alternatively, it may be prudent for self-identified members to recuse themselves from further reviews of the school budget.
Otherwise, the town has no other choice than to appoint a mediator who can provide fairness and impartiality in the ongoing school budget deliberations.
JOHN F. ZIPETO
Andover
Limpert, Nobile, are best choices for School Committee
To the editor:
Are you a North Andover resident who is registered to vote? If so, please seize the moment and support Stan Limpert for School Committee on March 25.
This past week, I spent over an hour speaking with Mr. Limpert about his views for our children's education. He is bright, articulate and has clear ideas for improving our school system.
I will be the first to admit that eloquent rhetoric and superior intellect are not enough to make a good candidate. Thoughtful action coupled with the ability to engage in reasoned dialogue are critical qualities that I observed firsthand working with Stan on a project this year.
I can attest to the fact that you would be voting for a gracious professional who strongly believes that important decisions should be made in the open. Most importantly, Mr. Limpert understands the many challenges that our educators face in the classroom. As a former teacher, that means a lot to me.
If you were thinking of voting for someone else, you are in luck. There are two slots open. In fact, I will be casting my second vote for Chris Nobile. If you are unfamiliar with Stan Limpert, he's worth getting to know. He is an utter gentleman. In fact, he is downright delightful. See you at the polls on March 25.
JOAN KULASH
North Andover
Sadly, persona counts for more than experience
To the editor:
The average voter will little note nor long remember the contents of the string of debates we have endured this political season; ultimately we vote for the most likeable candidate. Hillary has been superb in her grasp of issues and comprehensive responses, but Obama offers hope and likability. The past has shown that it is not always the best debater who gets elected, and a retrospective will demonstrate that debate performances are mostly meaningless.
In Bush versus Kerry, Bush was the clear loser, but the Republican goon squads had done a good job sullying the Kerry persona with Swift Boat ads and flip-flop falsities, while Bush had projected the "aw-shucks" style, plus a misleading promise that all was well in the war on terror.
The 2000 primary debates revealed Bush as the least knowledgeable among Republican wannabes and was out shined by Forbes, Dole, Keyes, Bauer and Alexander, with Forbes the clear winner, particularly on foreign affairs; but Bush was the most likeable — and the rest is history.
Harken back to debate one, Reagan versus Mondale, in which Mondale swamped Reagan, who seemed confused and dealt in tortured details. The Reagan presidential demeanor and a couple of one-liners, and Mondale was soundly defeated in the election.
The first ever televised debate was between Nixon and JFK, which pundits claim went to Nixon, if you listened to the radio; but on TV, the Kennedy charisma took the day. The comparison can be made in the superiority of Adlai Stevenson's intellect to Eisenhower's, but Ike had already established his likability factor with his World War II performance and a personal avuncular quality.
Similar comparisons can be made to FDR, who won four unprecedented terms with fireside chats and real changes in peoples' lives. In his case, he was good on both the issues and the likeability factor.
Looking ahead, if McCain and Obama are contenders, despite McCain's long experience and military background, Obama's youth and promising message will win the likeability factor. However, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, the match will be a toss-up, because both are strong on background, but a bit short on likeability.
DANTE IPPOLITO
Norwell
