To the Editor:

I’m a senior in high school and I live in Old Lyme. Last week I attended a meeting of the Board of Selectman to support, on behalf of the students in Old Lyme, the adoption of a resolution on racism put before the board. Many of my peers feel strongly, as I do, about social justice and the continual fight for equity, and I wanted to make sure I could convey our beliefs clearly. 

As I said during public comments at the meeting, to deny the presence of racism in Old Lyme is to perpetuate a lie. For example, just last month an Old Lyme police officer, somebody who is supposed to be an unbiased peacekeeper, was suspended for allegedly yelling a racial slur out the window of his car in downtown Old Saybrook. He remains on paid leave. In addition, many other people who spoke at the meeting addressed the lack of diversity in Old Lyme. Why is Old Lyme overwhelmingly white? It is not uncommon for racist microaggressions to be made in schools, too. Last year’s valedictorian addressed this in her commencement speech. Racism is present in Old Lyme and it is harmful to everyone in our community. To ignore that is to be complicit in its damage. A number of speakers at the meeting agreed with Mr. Griswold’s position. It is wrong. By denying that there is any racism in our community and refusing to even discuss the resolution, the First Selectman is doing a gross disservice to our community and to its reputation. 

Some think that declaring racism a public health crisis will somehow paint our town in a negative light. But I believe that it does the opposite; it shows that we know there is a problem. It shows that we care. It shows that we’re ready to work together against it. 

My peers and I are the future of this town. I want to be able to tell my kids that our town was on the right side of history. I want to be able to tell them that our town helped lead the crusade on the shoreline against racism. Adopting the resolution could be a first and important step in healing the racism that divides our town and in communicating our values to the outside world. 

Martha Shoemaker and Jim Lampos support this objective. They get it. Please vote for them on November 2.

Sincerely,

To the Editor:

When I served on the Board of Education, former Connecticut Superintendent of the Year and Superintendent of Region 18, Dr. Betty Osga, opined that a diverse group of people with different experiences and skill sets often made better decisions than a homogeneous group of “experts.”  Truer words have never been spoken, especially as it relates to service on the Board of Education.

The Democrats would have you believe that having the Board of Education filled with like-minded candidates with extensive teaching backgrounds is the only way to ensure the best education for our children.  The problem with that logic is that an absence of diversity of thought leads to the promotion of a single, myopic mindset.  That single mindset leads to an acceptance of proposals and initiatives without question and creates a slippery slope where differing viewpoints are discouraged, ridiculed and silenced.

Being a Board of Education member entails a balancing act of representing everyone in the community.  Of course, we want the best education for our children, but we also want members to be responsible to the community at large.  Further, being on the Board of Education isn’t just about students, it’s about facilities and finances and human resources, too.  Having members that question and probe the administration’s proposals, curriculum choices or mandates isn’t obstruction, it’s their job.  To do otherwise would be neglecting their responsibilities and dilutes the sanctity of having a local, independent Board of Education.

The Republicans have offered a slate of candidates that have very diverse backgrounds and different experiences, who hold different opinions on a variety of topics.  Candidates shouldn’t have to pass a litmus test or walk in lock step with each other to be considered for office.  Rather, each should be judged based on their unique qualities, skillsets, ability for critical thinking, and their genuine desire to promote excellence in education.

I urge you to join me in voting for all the Row B candidates for the Board of Education because they offer the most diverse set of perspectives and skillsets that will best serve Region 18. 

Sincerely,

Steve Cinami,
Old Lyme.

To the Editor:

When we think of local election candidates, we generally concentrate on the Board of Selectpersons and the Board of Education. While both are of paramount import to the Town, the Board of Finance (BOF) is often overlooked. In many ways, it represents one of the most important voter selections in the election. 

The Board of Finance is responsible for the distribution of tax revenue and approval and planning of Town spending. Working in cooperation with Region 18 Board of Education, our disciplined Board of Finance members are diligent about balancing our obligations to our Regional School District with other valued and necessary community priorities. This includes considering and approving funding for roads, buildings, emergency services, recreation, and other town services. 

The Board of Finance must balance these necessary investments and spending on additional services with increased expenses against the goal of maintaining one of the lowest mill rates in the State. This is a challenging and painstaking job where requisite financial experience and sound judgment and prior service on the Board of Finance is essential. 

This is no time for inexperience on the Board of Finance. This is why on November 2nd, I am voting to re-elect Andy Russell and Judith Read along with alternates Matthew Olson and Maria Carrao Marchant. I encourage you to do the same.

Sincerely,

Steve and Kathy Wilson,
Old Lyme.

To the Editor:

There is a general lackadaisical approach to governing by First Selectman Griswold, as illustrated at two recent meetings I attended as an interested new citizen. At one, a payment request (about overtime during COVID) would have passed had he offered any clarifying information justifying the line item. He seemed uninformed and had no figures to present. At another meeting he displayed “selective hearing” about an issue being brought up by another selectman. I learned later from the newspaper that he just didn’t want to deal with this issue.

I strongly recommend a change on November 2.  What I’ve learned about Martha Shoemaker has convinced me that she will be a strong, attentive, thoughtful, conscientious leader.

Sincerely,

June K. Davison,
Old Lyme.