Let's go back to the K-8 school

However, instead of bouncing back after an initial transition year, achievement continues to decline throughout middle school.

To the Editor:

Regarding “Weighing costs of a new school – or schools – for Mansfield,” published Aug. 24, 2010 in Mansfield Today.

Let’s convert the middle school back into a K-8 elementary school while we are at it. Middle schools are an inherently bad idea.

Consider, for example, the recent Columbia University study* comparing the performance of students who went to K-8 elementary schools with that of students who were in middle schools.

Here’s the relevant passage from their conclusion:

“The issue of grade configuration has been the topic of substantial debate by educational researchers and policy-makers who have challenged the notion that separating adolescents into middle schools is a more economical way to provide education tailored to their needs (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989, 1996), Bickel et al. (2000), Juvonen et al. (2004)).

Already, middle school reforms are underway in states such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Maryland and New York, including the large urban districts of Cincinnati and Cleveland, Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Moreover, at least eight other states across the nation are looking to convert their middle schools into K-8 schools. (Hough (2005), Pardini (2002), Reising (2002)).

Our analysis suggests that such attention is warranted.”

Shelly Banjo looks at this study in a Wall Street Journal story published Sept. 1, 2010, “Middle Schools Fail Kids, Study Says.”  See below:

New York City’s standalone middle schools do a worse job educating students than schools that offer kindergarten through eighth grade under one roof, according to a new study to be released Wednesday [Sept. 1] by researchers at Columbia University.

On average, children who move up to middle school from a traditional city elementary school, which typically goes up to fifth grade, score about seven percentiles lower on standardized math tests in eighth grade than those who attend a K-8 school, says Jonah Rockoff, an associate professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Business who co-authored the study.

The disparity stems from the toll that changing to a new school takes on adolescents and differences in the sizes of grades, the study says.

Typically, K-8 schools can fit fewer children in each grade than standalone middle schools.

“What we found bolsters the case for middle-school reform.” says Mr. Rockoff, noting that there aren’t significant differences in financial resources or single class sizes between the two types of schools.

Standalone “middle schools, where kids are educated in larger groups, are not the best way to educate students in New York City.”

The research culls data for city school children who started in grades three through eight during the 1998-99 school year and tracks them through the 2007-2008 school year, comparing test scores, attendance rates and parent evaluations.

Of the student sample, 15,000 students attended a K-8 school versus 177,000 who attended a standalone middle school.

Fewer children attend K-8 schools than standalone middle schools: Of New York City’s total 1,680 schools, there are 275 standalone public middle schools versus 128 K-8 public schools, excluding charter schools.

In the year when students move to a middle school or junior high, the data show student achievement falls substantially in both math and English, relative to that of their counterparts who continue to attend a K-8 elementary school.

However, instead of bouncing back after an initial transition year, achievement continues to decline throughout middle school.

New York City school officials say the study backs up attempts to bolster the K-8 model.

“The Columbia study highlights some of the important challenges facing standalone middle schools, though we don’t support its proposal to ‘do away’ with middle schools altogether,” Shael Suransky, the New York City Department of Education’s deputy chancellor for performance and accountability, said in an email.

“Since 2002, we’ve increased the number of K-8 schools by nearly 85 percent, while committing ourselves to a small school strategy-both approaches strongly endorsed by this study.”

Principals and education experts maintain that the problem has less to do with the number of grades and more to do with how a school is organized.

“The problem of the old model of middle schools is that you treat kids like high-schoolers and kids get lost,” says Clara Hemphill, who wrote a guidebook to city middle schools.

She compared a good organizational structure to hospital care: “In elementary school, children need the bedside manner of a general practitioner. In high school, you want the specialization of a surgeon. In middle school, you want the combination of the two.”

Middle schools are trying to ease the transition.

Last year, East Side Middle School, which houses grades six through eight on the Upper East Side, began requiring incoming sixth graders to eat lunch in the school’s cafeteria during the month of September, instead of allowing them to go outside or off campus.

“We essentially forced them to sit next to each other and make friends, reducing a lot of anxiety of choosing which friends to go out to lunch with,” says David Getz, the principal of the school, which earned the highest math scores among standalone middle schools. “This is just one thing we do. Transition is dramatic; we spend the whole year working on it.”

Posted Sept. 2, 2010

*Citation for study:

Stuck in the Middle: Impacts of Grade Configuration in Public Schools, Jonah E. Rockoff, Columbia Business School and NBER Benjamin B. Lockwood Columbia Business School June, 2010*1 Abstract

http://www1.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/3369/Rockoff%20Lockwood%20JPubE%202nd%20Revision%20June%202010.pdf

Changes to credit card rules you need to know

Congressman Joe Courtney met with seniors in Lebanon to celebrate the 75th anniversary of Social Security on Aug. 14, 2010. He says seniors are often the hardest hit by credit card policies. Courtesy photo.

From Congressman Joe Courtney:

Earlier this week, provisions designed to protect credit card holders went into effect across the country as part of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure or CARD Act.

I fought for the CARD Act because it addresses many of the deceptive and frustrating practices used by credit card companies – many of which I have heard about directly from constituents.

Some changes have already gone into effect as of earlier this year, but as of August 22, 2010 credit card companies must adhere to the following consumer-friendly rules, as well:

Reasonable penalty fees

Previously: A late payment fee may have been as high as $39, and you likely pay the same fee whether you are late with a $20 minimum payment or a $100 minimum payment.

Now: Your credit card company cannot charge you a fee higher than $25 unless: (1) One of your last six payments was [also] late, in which case the fee may be up to $35; or (2) Your credit card company can justify a higher fee by showing that it incurs costs as a result of late payments.

Also, your credit card company cannot charge a late payment fee greater than your minimum payment.

Therefore, if you have a minimum payment of $20, your late payment fee can’t be more than $20.

Similarly, if you exceed your credit limit by $5, you can’t be charged an over-the-limit fee of more than $5.

Re-evaluation of recent rate increases

Previously: Your credit card company could increase your card’s APR with no obligation to re-evaluate the rate increase.

Now: If your credit card company increases your APR, it must re-evaluate that rate increase every six months. If appropriate, it must reduce your rate within 45 days of completing the evaluation.

Additional fee protections

No inactivity fees. Your credit card company cannot charge you inactivity fees for not using your card.

One-fee limit

Your credit card company cannot charge you more than one fee for a single event or transaction that violates your agreement as a cardholder. For example, you cannot be charged more than one fee for a single late payment.

As I mentioned, these are the last of several rules implemented as part of the CARD Act. A list of the protections that went into effect earlier this year can be found at this link to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Web site:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerinfo/wyntk_creditcardrules.htm

As always, I look forward to hearing from you about this or any other information.

Please feel free to contact me at http://courtney.house.gov/email to share your thoughts or concerns.

Editor’s note:

Some of the changes affecting bank practices when it comes to credit cards that went into effect in February 2010 are especially important. Among them:

• If your credit card company does raise your interest rate after the first year, the new rate will apply only to new charges you make. If you have a balance, your old interest rate will apply to that balance.

• If your payment due date is on a weekend or holiday (when the company does not process payments), you will have until the following business day to pay. (For example, if the due date is Sunday the 15th, your payment will be on time if it is received by Monday the 16th before 5 p.m.).

• If you opt-in to allowing transactions that take you over your credit limit, your credit card company can impose only one fee per billing cycle. You can revoke your opt-in at any time. [Talk to your bank representative about how to sign up to allow transactions over the limit; most banks are assuming you don't want this option if you do NOT contact them.]

Information about more changes is available at the link included in Congressman Courtney’s letter, above.

Posted Aug. 31, 2010

Program aimed at reducing HIV asks for your support June 1

We are reaching out to you today on behalf of the Windham Harm Reduction Coalition and are looking for your support on Tuesday, June 1 at the Windham Town Council meeting, at 7 p.m., at Town Hall, 979 Main St. (corner of High and Main Streets).

This is not just a form letter, but a genuine request for your help on June 1.

WHRC is at a critical moment, one which will affect the lives of all residents in Windham County.

WHRC’s overall mission is to promote the health and safety of the community we serve through empowering people who are struggling with drug use, as well as commercial sex workers and their families, by offering comprehensive harm reduction services.

For those of you who may be unsure, however, as to the effectiveness of Harm Reduction programs such as ours, here are a few facts courtesy of The Lancet medical journal (1997;349:1797-1800.).

A study of 81 cities around the world compared HIV infection rates among IDUs (intravenous drug users) in cities that had NEPs (Needle Exchange Programs) with cities that did not have NEPs.

In the 52 cities without NEPs, HIV infection rates increased by 5.9 percent per year on average.

In the 29 cities with NEPs, HIV infection rates decreased by 5.8 percent per year.

The study concluded that NEPs appear to lead to lower levels of HIV infection among intravenous drug users.

A written letter of support from Town Council for harm reduction services in Windham County is needed to ensure our eligibility for Department of Public Health Funding in 2011.

Access to state funding at this time is critical to allowing us to offer much needed health services.

Your voice at Town Hall on June 1 will help strengthen and build a healthier community for everyone in Windham County.

Your support could be as simple as a letter stating: “My name is —— . I am a local (resident, teacher, employee/employer, etc.) and I support the work of the Windham Harm Reduction Coalition here in Windham County.”

Thank you so much for your time. A brief RSVP would be much appreciated and would allow us to appropriately prepare for the meeting.

Please forward this information to others you feel have an interest in offering their support.

-        Submitted by Chris Heneghan, Ronni Hyde, Maria Yates and Tim Zimmer – Working Members of the Windham Harm Reduction Coalition

“Take Care, Give Care”

(860) 234-7313

windhamharmreductioncoalition@gmail.com

http://www.harmreduction.org/userdata_display.php?modin=50&uid=959

Posted June 1, 2010

Gov. Rell submits legislation to expand her authority to cut budget

Gov. M. Jodi Rell. File photo.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell today [Dec. 28, 2009] announced she has vetoed Senate Bill 2101, An Act Concerning a Deficit Mitigation Plan for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2010 and House Bill 7101, An Act Concerning the Estate and Gift Tax.

She issued a release calling both bills “further examples of the Democrat-controlled Legislature’s refusal to confront the reality of the state’s financial crisis by cutting spending.”

“Because the majority party in the Legislature is unable to make the needed cuts,” the release states, Rell is submitting legislation expanding the authority of governors to make budget cuts – also known as rescission authority.

Invoking more power

“The failure by Democrats in the Legislature to address the shortfall in the budget they passed just three months ago demonstrates – yet again – that they are simply incapable of cutting state spending,” Rell said. “If they are not willing to do what it takes to reduce government spending, then they must give me the power to do it by increasing the rescission authority of the governor.”

Rell states that since the budget crisis began, the vast majority of the spending cuts have come through use of her statutory authority to order rescissions – generally, cuts in Executive Branch agency budgets – granted in Section 4-85(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.

“The legislation that I have drafted does not give a governor unlimited power to slash budgets… Writing and following a state budget is – and should remain – a balanced process, something that involves all three branches of government. But when the process – and the budget – is badly out of balance, as is certainly the case right now, someone must be able to restore that equilibrium. As Chief Executive of our state, it makes sense that a governor has that authority,” Rell said.

Under existing law, a governor can make rescissions when a budget deficit is greater than 1 percent of the General Fund.

Current rescission authority is limited to up to 3 percent of the total appropriation from any fund or 5 percent of any appropriation.

Rell proposes that the governor’s rescission authority be increased incrementally:

* Up to 6 percent of the total appropriation from any fund or 10 percent of any appropriation when a deficit of 3 percent or more exists

* Up to 10 percent of the total appropriation from any fund or 15 percent of any appropriation when a deficit of 5 percent or more exists

“These are modest – but necessary – changes…They will help ensure that the failure of the usual system for dealing with budget shortfalls does not wind up creating a lingering crisis, or worse, being solved on the backs of taxpayers with tax increases or ill-considered borrowing,” Rell said.

The rescissions statute does not allow a governor to cut aid to municipalities.

In addition, the governor is constrained from cutting appropriations for entitlement programs or pension and health benefits for state employees and retirees – expenditures that comprise much of the budget, Rell said.

A “feeble” $12.4 million

“Called into special session to deal with a budget deficit estimated between $337 million and $550 million, the Democrats in the Legislature managed to trim state spending by a feeble $12.4 million,” Rell said.

“It is a repeat of the same pattern we have seen time and again this year. Regrettably, it is an outright refusal to admit that state spending has far exceeded the ability of state taxpayers – any state taxpayers – to pay for it,” she said.

“The Democrats want to move money around from one account to another and one fiscal year to another, in the vain hope that increased taxes will fill the holes left behind… The increased taxes passed this summer have not produced the expected revenue – why do they think more taxes would change that? Homeowners and employers in Connecticut are not able to balance their checkbooks this way and they will not stand for lawmakers trying to do so,” she said.

S.B. 2101 “unworkable”

Rell said she found numerous problem areas in S.B. 2101. Many of the proposed savings are likely to be “unworkable,” she said.

As an example, she noted the bill merges the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners into the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), but DAS has neither the staff nor the law enforcement authority to perform the firearms board’s work, she said.

Similarly, she said, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) has raised concerns about the bill’s attempt to convert “disproportionate share” dollars – money paid to hospitals for treating uninsured and underinsured patients – into a Medicaid rate increase that would be matched by the federal government under the stimulus law. OPM notes that the stimulus funding specifically exempts disproportionate share dollars from the enhanced match, Rell said.

H.B. 7101 postpones estate tax changes

H.B. 7101 would postpone changes in the state’s estate tax that are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 that “would raise millions of dollars through additional taxes” on the estates of those who die between Jan. 1, 2010, and Jan. 1, 2012, Rell said. [See copy of Rell's letter to Sec. of the State Susan Bysiewicz, below, for additional explanation.]

“This approach is simply not sustainable. I cannot and will not support yet another tax increase, even a temporary one, at a time when so many of our residents are already struggling,” Rell said.

Posted Dec. 28, 2009

Gov. Rell’s Dec. 25, 2009 letter to Sec. of the State Susan Bysiewicz:

Dear Secretary Bysiewicz:

I am returning to you without my signature House Bill 7101, An Act Concerning the Estate and Gift Tax.

Under current law, the following changes are scheduled to take effect for deaths occurring and gifts made on or after January 1, 2010:

(1) an increase, from $2 million to $3.5 million, in the minimum value of an estate or gift subject to the estate and gift taxes;

(2) a reduction of 25 percent in marginal tax rates on estates and gifts valued at $3.5 million or more; and

(3) elimination of the so-called “cliff” in the tax.

House Bill 7101 delays the increase in the tax threshold and the 25 percent rate reduction for two years, but retains the elimination of the “cliff” effective January 1, 2010.

Since elimination of the “cliff” will result in a revenue decrease, the bill temporarily increases the tax rates on taxable estates and gifts to a range of between 8 percent and 18 percent from 5.085 percent to 16 percent.

These higher rates affect estates of those who die, and gifts made, on or after January 1, 2010 and before January 1, 2012.

As I have repeatedly stated, I do not believe that we can tax our way out of our current economic difficulties.  The General Assembly has become addicted to spending and taxing and borrowing to pay for their extravagance.  This approach is simply not sustainable.  I cannot and will not support a tax increase, even a temporary one, at a time when so many of our residents are already struggling.

We must, instead, accept the fact that we cannot afford our current state government.  I understand and appreciate the good intentions of the proponents of this bill, but I believe we must stand firm.  We cannot make exceptions for well-intended bills, because, frankly, most are well-intended.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 15 of Article Fourth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article III of the Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, I am returning House Bill 7101 without my signature.

Very truly yours,

M. Jodi Rell, Governor

Courtney seeks help for dairy farmers

Rep. Joe Courtney (left), who co-chairs the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus, listens to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who was at the Capitol to discuss issues faced by dairy farmers.

I want to bring you up to date on my recent work in Congress on behalf of Connecticut’s dairy farmers who continue to fight in the face of record low prices.

Last week, more than 40 bipartisan members of the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus, which I co-chair, met with Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to address the many economic challenges confronting the dairy industry.

The productive meeting with Secretary Vilsack included discussion on how best to use $350 million included in the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

The Secretary of Agriculture informed us that $290 million will be used for direct payments to dairy farmers, while $60 million will be directed toward the purchase of cheese products that will benefit both dairy farmers and countless Americans who rely on assistance from various federal nutrition programs.

I specifically urged the Secretary to use the $290 million quickly for direct payments for the thousands of small dairy farmers who are struggling to stay afloat with such difficult dairy market conditions.

While some members of the caucus had varying thoughts of the best way to use the $290 million, my objective was to stand up for the small dairy farmers that reside in Connecticut and throughout the northeast.

Distribute funds by December

As many members spoke to the Secretary about specific needs of dairy farmers in their region, there was a consensus among all members of the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus that these direct payments must be allocated very quickly, and Secretary Vilsack assured us that all direct payments would be distributed by December of 2009.

Lastly, the Congressional Farmers Dairy Caucus took this opportunity to thank Secretary Vilsack for his leadership in calling for the creation of a dairy pricing advisory group that will evaluate the standards and methods by which milk is priced.

The dramatic drop in dairy prices over the last year, combined with the overall volatility of the market highlight the need for this advisory group.

I requested that the final group membership reflects the interests of producers, first and foremost, while also diligently representing the perspectives of the dairy industry as a whole.

Peter Orr of Thompson

To ensure that Connecticut’s voice is heard on the advisory group, I have nominated Connecticut dairy farmer Peter Orr of Thompson, who has broad experience in the field of agriculture and business.

This was the first of many productive meetings that the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus plans to have with Secretary Vilsack and President Obama’s Administration.

If you have any questions about this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at http://courtney.house.gov/email.

Posted Oct. 6, 2009

Related links:

Rep. Courtney’s YouTube page – http://www.youtube.com/user/repcourtney

The Farmer’s Cow – http://www.thefarmerscow.com/home.html

Dairy Farmers of America - http://www.dfamilk.com/

Dairy Farming Today – http://www.dairyfarmingtoday.org/DairyFarmingToday/Home

“Milk Rap” – Ad to get kids to drink milk – [Note: some of the related videos that display when this clip ends may be considered offensive - for many different reasons.]

Give Peace (Making) a Chance

Another Family for Peace float at the Willimantic Boom Box Parade, July 4, 2007. File photo © by Brenda Sullivan.

To the Editor:

Today, world peace and global sustainability are elusive visions of a future which, as a young person in the 1960s, I thought I’d live to see.

Now I’m a grandmother who wants those expectations to become a reality for my grand­children Georgia, Joseph, Talon and William.

In 1969, when I first heard John Lennon’s song “Give Peace a Chance,” I was an idealistic 23-year-old beginning her 35-year teaching career.

I believed a peaceful world would come about through educating young people to create peaceful solutions as an alternative to war.

Today, 40 years later and retired from teaching, I’m asking us to give peace-building a chance.

As a former history teacher, I know that most of the history I taught revolved around conflicts waged as a result of differences in perception. What if we could build an international perception/conviction that is in everyone’s best interests, one that assures human rights and the sustainability of our planet?

Could this world perception/conviction become a reality?

Yes, it has already begun, spearheaded by the United Nations, whose central purpose is to end the scourge of war for future generations.

Sept. 20-21 has been designated as the United Nation’s International Day of Peace 2009. During that 24-hour period there will be world-peace celebrations telecast from all corners of the globe.

This historic event will utilize http://www.CultureOfPeace.org and http://www.internationaldayofpeace.org/ as interactive vehicles to empower organizations and individuals to participate in the celebration.

Locally, there will be an International Day of Peace Celebration in Willimantic from 1 to 3 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 20 at the Peace Pole in Heritage Park (next to the ArtSpace apartments  in the old mill buildings on Main Street).

Please get involved and give peace-­building a chance.

Jane E. Schreiber – Mansfield Center – A retired teacher

(reprinted courtesy of The Chronicle)

Courtney meets with Connecticut troops in Iraq

Congressman Joe Courtney visits Connecticut troops in Iraq and discusses benefits they will be entitled to when they return home. (L-R) Specialist Jonathan Fillion, Army, West Hartford; Sergeant James Alfred, Army, Uncasville; Staff Sergeant John Bellville, Army, Killingly; Rep. Joe Courtney; Specialist Aokusia Terrell, Army, New Britain; Sergeant Michael Barber, 39th Military Police Company, National Guard, Coventry; Specialist Kenneth Froeberg, Army, North Haven; Specialist Carl Beringer III, Army, West Haven. Courtesy photo.

To the Editor:

Last week, I traveled to Iraq to meet with U.S. military and civilian officials for a first-hand look at progress in Iraq to draw down U.S. troop levels. This was my third visit to the country in two years.

I also had the fortunate opportunity to meet with Connecticut troops serving with the United States Army and National Guard.

As Iraq begins to fade from the front pages of our newspapers, I want to make sure that we never forget that there are tens of thousands of American men and women serving in Iraq, including many of our family, friends and neighbors from across Connecticut.

I believe that members of Congress must stay up-to-date on the situation in Iraq, as we begin to drawdown our troop level, which is why I wanted another look at the progress in the region.

During the visit, I had the opportunity to meet with the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ray Ordierno, to get his take on the progress of the drawdown.

Gen. Ordierno was more optimistic in his assessment than my last visit in December 2008, and indicated that the reduction in force levels was going better than he had anticipated.

There are still many challenges ahead, but his insight will be invaluable as I continue to monitor this issue as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

The real honor of the trip, however, was being able to spend some time in Taji with Connecticut’s finest, whose service has taken them far from home and their families. They are a wonderful group of courageous individuals and their bravery and sacrifice is appreciated.

Furthermore, as troops begin returning home, they must receive the benefits to which they are entitled and have earned, including the new GI Bill education benefit.

On Aug. 1, the Department of Veterans Affairs began distributing tuition payments to schools participating in the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. Returning troops are encouraged to visit http://www.gibill.va.gov to learn more about the program.

I strongly supported the new GI Bill, in order to ensure that our troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have the access to a quality education they need to start a new career or further an existing career.

I encourage veterans to also contact my Norwich District Office [860-886-0139] should they have additional questions or concerns, or run into any red tape. [The mailing address is 101 Water Street, Suite 301, Norwich , CT 06360]

Sincerely, Joe Courtney

[Website: http://courtney.house.gov/ ]

Posted Aug. 5, 2009

You don't speak for me…

Town Manager Matt Hart and Mayor Betsy Paterson. File photo © by Brenda Sullivan.

To the Editor:

I attended the Mansfield Town Council meeting July 13 to take stock of how well things were going in our town. What I learned in that nearly three-hour meeting impressed as well as disturbed me.

I was impressed by the professionalism and knowledge of Town Manager Matt Hart, Mayor Betsy Paterson, Councilman Bruce Clouette, Director of Public Works Lon Hultgren and several others. Our town is lucky indeed with the quality of its staff and elected officials.

But I was disturbed to find that our town has acquired a small group of individual citizens who, in my estimation, have crossed the line from helpful gadflies to disruptive cranks.

Unelected, these individuals are attempting to take power away from you and I by throwing a proverbial wrench into the machinery of our elected government. They do this through their confrontational behavior at town meetings and through what I believe is the misuse of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

Every informed American supports citizen participation in government, the essence of our democracy. But with this right also comes an obligation to respect the voice of the majority, as well as to interact with government employees and officials using civility and respect.

I, myself, have filed one FOI request and am glad it was there as a tool to use. But when our town staff receives a glut of requests, to the extent that it is possibly taking a part-time position to address them, it is my right to ask those doing the frequent filing to explain their reasons. It is my and your tax dollars paying for our staff members to answer these requests.

Personally, I didn’t elect you and I don’t want you talking to my elected officials like you are their superior. Their bosses are all the citizens of Mansfield and we speak with one polite voice the first Tuesday in November when we elect them. They do not answer to just you and few others who are at any particular town meeting, while the rest of us are back with our families, at work, doing house chores or relaxing from a long day. In doing this, we have confidence and trust in our elected leaders to make good judgments during our absence.

Further, when you can’t comprehend the simple logic our elected officials provide in response to your questions, please don’t drag the meeting on when I’m waiting to speak after you and it is approaching 10:30 p.m.

Your whole affect appeared to me more confrontational and mean-spirited than born of an actual desire to understand an issue.

-        Edmund J. Smith – Mansfield

Posted July 23, 2009

[Editor's note: Letters to the Editor and Editorials are very welcome additions to this publication, and can be submitted at mansfieldeditor@htnp.com Please include your phone number(s) where you can most easily be reached to confirm that you are the author of the letter or editorial. Submissions may occasionally be edited for length. I also ask that you express your opinions with civility, coherently and without profanity or name-calling. You may also submit photos or brief video clips that support the topic of your letter or editorial. ]