We appreciate hearing from you! Please send correspondence to [email protected]
The following LTE is written by Old Lyme Democratic Candidate for Tax Collectorand former first selectwoman, Bonnie Reemsnyder
https://lymeline.com/2023/10/letter-to-the-editor-shoemaker-is-properly-prepared-for-first-selectmans-role-her-opponent-is-not/
Letter to the Editor: Shoemaker is ‘Properly Prepared’ for First Selectman’s Role, Her Opponent is Not
October 5, 2023 by Bonnie Reemsnyder
As a former Selectwoman for Old Lyme from 2003 to 2019, eight of those years as First Selectwoman, I know only too well what the job requires and what qualities are needed to perform it well. This year, the people of Old Lyme will choose between two candidates running for First Selectman, only one of whom is properly prepared.
Martha Shoemaker, while never having served as First Selectman, has spent the last six years involved in town government at the highest level – the last two as a Selectwoman and six of them as a Board of Education member. She has had a front-row seat at Town Hall and clearly understands both the challenges of that position and the skills needed to meet them.
Martha’s grasp of the current issues is firm and, more importantly, she has acted when others have been passive, or worse, dismissive. For example, she took the time to kayak on the Black Hall Pond to see for herself the impact of the beaver dams on property surrounding the pond, and she personally inspected the damaged crib on Hawks Nest Beach to understand the clogging that causes flooding in the beach communities. Martha played a pivotal role in rectifying the pressing problem caused by the prolonged absence of our Finance Director, highlighted by the Town’s bouncing a check. Martha promptly secured a temporary financial specialist and was proactive in identifying and hiring of a full-time director when the time came.
Martha has the proven experience and the demonstrated capacity to listen, research, understand and act when confronted by the issues that land on the desk of the First Selectman of small towns. And aren’t those the qualities we need for our next First Selectman? Those qualities, her awareness of the issues this town faces, and her commitment to address those issues squarely and openly, prove that Martha Shoemaker has the leadership skills that will make her an outstanding First Selectwoman. My vote is going for Martha on November 7th!
Sincerely,
Bonnie Reemsnyder,
Old Lyme.
https://lymeline.com/2023/10/letter-to-the-editor-shoemaker-is-properly-prepared-for-first-selectmans-role-her-opponent-is-not/
Letter to the Editor: Shoemaker is ‘Properly Prepared’ for First Selectman’s Role, Her Opponent is Not
October 5, 2023 by Bonnie Reemsnyder
As a former Selectwoman for Old Lyme from 2003 to 2019, eight of those years as First Selectwoman, I know only too well what the job requires and what qualities are needed to perform it well. This year, the people of Old Lyme will choose between two candidates running for First Selectman, only one of whom is properly prepared.
Martha Shoemaker, while never having served as First Selectman, has spent the last six years involved in town government at the highest level – the last two as a Selectwoman and six of them as a Board of Education member. She has had a front-row seat at Town Hall and clearly understands both the challenges of that position and the skills needed to meet them.
Martha’s grasp of the current issues is firm and, more importantly, she has acted when others have been passive, or worse, dismissive. For example, she took the time to kayak on the Black Hall Pond to see for herself the impact of the beaver dams on property surrounding the pond, and she personally inspected the damaged crib on Hawks Nest Beach to understand the clogging that causes flooding in the beach communities. Martha played a pivotal role in rectifying the pressing problem caused by the prolonged absence of our Finance Director, highlighted by the Town’s bouncing a check. Martha promptly secured a temporary financial specialist and was proactive in identifying and hiring of a full-time director when the time came.
Martha has the proven experience and the demonstrated capacity to listen, research, understand and act when confronted by the issues that land on the desk of the First Selectman of small towns. And aren’t those the qualities we need for our next First Selectman? Those qualities, her awareness of the issues this town faces, and her commitment to address those issues squarely and openly, prove that Martha Shoemaker has the leadership skills that will make her an outstanding First Selectwoman. My vote is going for Martha on November 7th!
Sincerely,
Bonnie Reemsnyder,
Old Lyme.
The following LTE is written by Old Lyme Democratic Candidate for the Board of Education, Susan Fogliano
https://lymeline.com/2023/10/letter-to-the-editor-fogliano-candidate-for-region-18-boe-explains-why-she-is-running-again-why-her-prior-experience-on-boe-is-important-now/
Letter to the Editor: Fogliano, Candidate for Region 18 BOE, Explains Why She is Running Again, Why Her Prior Experience on BOE is Important Now October 4, 2023 by Susan Fogliano
My name is Susan Fogliano, and I am a candidate for the Regional School District #18 Board of Education in the November 7 municipal election. As a resident of Old Lyme for nearly 32 years, I was proud to serve as a member of our Board of Education for 16 years between 1995 and 2011, and as Chair of the Board during my tenure. As Board Chairperson, I oversaw completion of a long-term renovation project of all five school buildings, culminating in the passage of the Lyme-Old Lyme High School project.
I have been a lifelong advocate for public education in all its forms. I served for ten years on the Regional Board of Education, as well as on private boards and foundations, and have engaged in Board member professional development.
I have been a full time classroom teacher and substitute teacher as well, and have worked in Madison, Lyme-Old Lyme, East Lyme, and Old Saybrook.
Why am I running again? Since retiring, I find that I miss public service. I am troubled by the introduction of national culture wars and partisan politics into our local governance. I believe I can elevate the Board discourse to keep the focus on students, staff, parents, and taxpayers in our community.
Why does it matter now? Experience has taught me that political and personal agendas have no place at the Board of Education table. There are suggestions by some opposing candidates that our school libraries should be “surveyed”, and that the District’s curriculum should be “edited”. Our school district is and has been among the most highly ranked systems in both the State and the nation. We do not need to direct resources to unnecessary fixes.
What do I hope to accomplish? Using my energy and experience, I will work in a non-partisan fashion to maintain our excellent school district, using a common sense approach to make the best use of taxpayer dollars.
The Old Lyme Democrats have assembled an amazing slate of qualified candidates dedicated to our community, and I am proud to be among them. I respectfully ask for your vote.
With gratitude.
Sincerely,
Susan Fogliano,
Old Lyme.
https://lymeline.com/2023/10/letter-to-the-editor-fogliano-candidate-for-region-18-boe-explains-why-she-is-running-again-why-her-prior-experience-on-boe-is-important-now/
Letter to the Editor: Fogliano, Candidate for Region 18 BOE, Explains Why She is Running Again, Why Her Prior Experience on BOE is Important Now October 4, 2023 by Susan Fogliano
My name is Susan Fogliano, and I am a candidate for the Regional School District #18 Board of Education in the November 7 municipal election. As a resident of Old Lyme for nearly 32 years, I was proud to serve as a member of our Board of Education for 16 years between 1995 and 2011, and as Chair of the Board during my tenure. As Board Chairperson, I oversaw completion of a long-term renovation project of all five school buildings, culminating in the passage of the Lyme-Old Lyme High School project.
I have been a lifelong advocate for public education in all its forms. I served for ten years on the Regional Board of Education, as well as on private boards and foundations, and have engaged in Board member professional development.
I have been a full time classroom teacher and substitute teacher as well, and have worked in Madison, Lyme-Old Lyme, East Lyme, and Old Saybrook.
Why am I running again? Since retiring, I find that I miss public service. I am troubled by the introduction of national culture wars and partisan politics into our local governance. I believe I can elevate the Board discourse to keep the focus on students, staff, parents, and taxpayers in our community.
Why does it matter now? Experience has taught me that political and personal agendas have no place at the Board of Education table. There are suggestions by some opposing candidates that our school libraries should be “surveyed”, and that the District’s curriculum should be “edited”. Our school district is and has been among the most highly ranked systems in both the State and the nation. We do not need to direct resources to unnecessary fixes.
What do I hope to accomplish? Using my energy and experience, I will work in a non-partisan fashion to maintain our excellent school district, using a common sense approach to make the best use of taxpayer dollars.
The Old Lyme Democrats have assembled an amazing slate of qualified candidates dedicated to our community, and I am proud to be among them. I respectfully ask for your vote.
With gratitude.
Sincerely,
Susan Fogliano,
Old Lyme.
The following LTE is written by incumbent Old Lyme Democratic Candidate for the Board of Finance, Bennett Bernblum
https://ctexaminer.com/2023/10/01/halls-road-is-not-and-should-not-be-a-political-issue/
Halls Road ‘Is Not, And Should Not Be, A Political Issue’— Bennett Bernblum, 10.1.2023
To the Editor:
Re “In Old Lyme, the ‘Meat of the Election is in Development’,” by Gregory Stroud (Editorial, Sept. 27):
CT Examiner published an editorial by Gregory Stroud, its Editor in Chief, again attacking — for reasons mystifying to me — the Halls Road Improvements Committee, a committee of the Old Lyme Board of Selectmen. The HRIC’s sole authority is to make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. I wish to address here just two of the misconceptions conveyed in Stroud’s editorial.
First, he portrays the proposals of the HRIC as a core issue in the upcoming municipal elections, Republicans vs. Democrats. This is plainly contrary to fact. As I indicated above, the HRIC is wholly subordinate to the BOS, which is Republican controlled (2 to 1). Each and every approval or town expenditure supporting the Halls Road project has been approved both by the Board of Selectmen and by the Republican-controlled Board of Finance (4 to 2). The HRIC itself has always been bipartisan. It is currently staffed by 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans (including David Kelsey, the Republican Board of Finance Chair and CT Examiner principal funder), with one vacancy. Action item votes on the HRIC have typically been passed with little disagreement and are then referred to the Board of Selectmen. Finally, in an economic development study conducted for Old Lyme by Advance CT in 2020, “over 80% of survey respondents supported additional development in the Halls Road area.” This is not, and should not be, a political issue.
Second, Stroud alleges that important decisions by the HRIC are made in secret, and then presented to the public as “done deals.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides the fact that meetings of the HRIC, the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance are open to the public (other than on rare occasions when executive sessions are needed and permissible), ever since the HRIC’s early days (when I was chair) the committee has recognized the critical need to be wholly transparent and to solicit and obtain the public’s buy-in to any proposal before it could go forward. To that end any number of public information meetings have been held, and the community’s views have been sought, over the years. Indeed, two others are currently scheduled at Town Hall with respect to the proposed Lieutenant River bridge and trails (one on September 30 and the other on October 5). Paradoxically — and contrary to Stroud’s claim — these meetings are being held expressly for the purpose of soliciting input from town taxpayers, rather than presenting them with a “fait accompli.” Go figure.
Bennett (BJ) Bernblum
Old Lyme, CT
https://ctexaminer.com/2023/10/01/halls-road-is-not-and-should-not-be-a-political-issue/
Halls Road ‘Is Not, And Should Not Be, A Political Issue’— Bennett Bernblum, 10.1.2023
To the Editor:
Re “In Old Lyme, the ‘Meat of the Election is in Development’,” by Gregory Stroud (Editorial, Sept. 27):
CT Examiner published an editorial by Gregory Stroud, its Editor in Chief, again attacking — for reasons mystifying to me — the Halls Road Improvements Committee, a committee of the Old Lyme Board of Selectmen. The HRIC’s sole authority is to make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. I wish to address here just two of the misconceptions conveyed in Stroud’s editorial.
First, he portrays the proposals of the HRIC as a core issue in the upcoming municipal elections, Republicans vs. Democrats. This is plainly contrary to fact. As I indicated above, the HRIC is wholly subordinate to the BOS, which is Republican controlled (2 to 1). Each and every approval or town expenditure supporting the Halls Road project has been approved both by the Board of Selectmen and by the Republican-controlled Board of Finance (4 to 2). The HRIC itself has always been bipartisan. It is currently staffed by 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans (including David Kelsey, the Republican Board of Finance Chair and CT Examiner principal funder), with one vacancy. Action item votes on the HRIC have typically been passed with little disagreement and are then referred to the Board of Selectmen. Finally, in an economic development study conducted for Old Lyme by Advance CT in 2020, “over 80% of survey respondents supported additional development in the Halls Road area.” This is not, and should not be, a political issue.
Second, Stroud alleges that important decisions by the HRIC are made in secret, and then presented to the public as “done deals.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides the fact that meetings of the HRIC, the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance are open to the public (other than on rare occasions when executive sessions are needed and permissible), ever since the HRIC’s early days (when I was chair) the committee has recognized the critical need to be wholly transparent and to solicit and obtain the public’s buy-in to any proposal before it could go forward. To that end any number of public information meetings have been held, and the community’s views have been sought, over the years. Indeed, two others are currently scheduled at Town Hall with respect to the proposed Lieutenant River bridge and trails (one on September 30 and the other on October 5). Paradoxically — and contrary to Stroud’s claim — these meetings are being held expressly for the purpose of soliciting input from town taxpayers, rather than presenting them with a “fait accompli.” Go figure.
Bennett (BJ) Bernblum
Old Lyme, CT
The following LTE is written by Old Lyme Democratic Candidate for Planning, Howard Margules
https://ctexaminer.com/2023/09/28/candidate-pitches-combined-planning-and-zoning-in-old-lyme/
Candidate Pitches Combined Planning and Zoning in Old Lyme— Howard Margules, 9.28.2023
To the Editor:
I have lived in Old Lyme for 19 years and am deeply committed to its welfare, including its economic
vitality. To that end I have served on the town’s Economic Development Commission and continue to
serve on the Board of Selectmen’s Halls Road Improvements Committee. I am now running for election to the Old Lyme Planning Commission. Decisions made by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission are of the utmost importance to our town. They determine how we may use our property and how those uses may change. I want to participate in these decisions and assure that they open- minded, thoughtful, made in the best interests of our residents, respect the rights of property owners, and comply with the law.
In thinking about our land-use approval process, I am aware of concerns expressed by property owners and others that the bifurcated process can be cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive. I therefore looked into how land-use decisions are made in other towns and found that combining planning and zoning into one commission may produce a better outcome. Most Connecticut towns, especially the smaller ones, do this. Joining them creates efficiencies, better coordination, and quicker decision- making.
Here are some of what I found.
Norwalk decided that combining the commissions: “will save considerable time and costs without the
need to present requests to both commissions….The union of the planning and zoning commissions also
creates a more consistent planning relationship. It gives the commission increased jurisdiction. That
broadened authority results in greater consistency in the planning process.” (Norwalk Tomorrow 3/28/22)
Essex’s First Selectman, Norm Needleman, stated that, “there had been friction between the two
commissions because the Zoning Commission isn’t obligated to implement the Plan of Conservation and
Development drawn up by the Planning Commission (CT Examiner 9/18/20)
Land use attorney Larry Shipman said, “Planning and zoning make sense together because at least you
have people on the commission focused on planning issues, so they can become advocates for the plans
they develop. . . .
I find it easier as an applicant, that a joint commission allows you to accomplish more in less time.” Shipman also thought that a combined commission would make the Plan of Conservation and Development more effective and functional; because the same people who write it are responsible for implementing it. (CT Examiner 9/18/20)
Some towns like Essex are contemplating going one step further by appointing commissioners rather than electing them. Commissioners will be required to have expertise and experience in land use. We, too, might want to explore this approach.
I am aware of a few arguments against combining the two commissions, principally that the workload will be too great. However, this concern can be addressed by increasing the number of commissioners and delegating appropriate matters to the Land Use Coordinator.
I hope you will support my effort to participate in Old Lyme’s land use decisions; this is just one idea about how we might improve the process.
Howard Margules
Old Lyme
https://ctexaminer.com/2023/09/28/candidate-pitches-combined-planning-and-zoning-in-old-lyme/
Candidate Pitches Combined Planning and Zoning in Old Lyme— Howard Margules, 9.28.2023
To the Editor:
I have lived in Old Lyme for 19 years and am deeply committed to its welfare, including its economic
vitality. To that end I have served on the town’s Economic Development Commission and continue to
serve on the Board of Selectmen’s Halls Road Improvements Committee. I am now running for election to the Old Lyme Planning Commission. Decisions made by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission are of the utmost importance to our town. They determine how we may use our property and how those uses may change. I want to participate in these decisions and assure that they open- minded, thoughtful, made in the best interests of our residents, respect the rights of property owners, and comply with the law.
In thinking about our land-use approval process, I am aware of concerns expressed by property owners and others that the bifurcated process can be cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive. I therefore looked into how land-use decisions are made in other towns and found that combining planning and zoning into one commission may produce a better outcome. Most Connecticut towns, especially the smaller ones, do this. Joining them creates efficiencies, better coordination, and quicker decision- making.
Here are some of what I found.
Norwalk decided that combining the commissions: “will save considerable time and costs without the
need to present requests to both commissions….The union of the planning and zoning commissions also
creates a more consistent planning relationship. It gives the commission increased jurisdiction. That
broadened authority results in greater consistency in the planning process.” (Norwalk Tomorrow 3/28/22)
Essex’s First Selectman, Norm Needleman, stated that, “there had been friction between the two
commissions because the Zoning Commission isn’t obligated to implement the Plan of Conservation and
Development drawn up by the Planning Commission (CT Examiner 9/18/20)
Land use attorney Larry Shipman said, “Planning and zoning make sense together because at least you
have people on the commission focused on planning issues, so they can become advocates for the plans
they develop. . . .
I find it easier as an applicant, that a joint commission allows you to accomplish more in less time.” Shipman also thought that a combined commission would make the Plan of Conservation and Development more effective and functional; because the same people who write it are responsible for implementing it. (CT Examiner 9/18/20)
Some towns like Essex are contemplating going one step further by appointing commissioners rather than electing them. Commissioners will be required to have expertise and experience in land use. We, too, might want to explore this approach.
I am aware of a few arguments against combining the two commissions, principally that the workload will be too great. However, this concern can be addressed by increasing the number of commissioners and delegating appropriate matters to the Land Use Coordinator.
I hope you will support my effort to participate in Old Lyme’s land use decisions; this is just one idea about how we might improve the process.
Howard Margules
Old Lyme
The following letter is signed by over 600 people in support of the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library, library staff, and library policies.
lymeline.com/2023/06/more-than-400-sign-letter-supporting-old-lyme-library-urging-rejection-of-censorship-requests-in-their-entirety/
More Than 400 Sign Letter Supporting Old Lyme Library, Urging Rejection of Censorship Requests ‘In Their Entirety’
June 29, 2023 by Olwen Logan
OLD LYME — We received a copy of the letter below from Old Lyme resident David Rubino. The letter is addressed to the OLPGN Library Director, Officers, and Board of Trustees and urges the Old Lyme Phoebe Griffin Noyes (OLPGN) Library to “reject the requests of the censorship supporters in their entirety.”
As at 8 p.m. last night, more than 400 people had signed the letter in the 24 hours that it had been available.At 12:50 p.m. today, the number had risen to 442 with additional signatures still being verified.Signatures are still being collected. Anyone wishing to sign the letter/petition can do so at this link.
The letter is in response to a letter sent by a group of Lyme and Old Lyme citizens requesting the OLPGN Library should reconsider its decision to include a specific sex-education book in its collection, undertake, “a proper review of the materials in the Teen/Tween room,” and, “… encourage a change in the library’s focus for our community’s children.”
He explained that a small group of Lyme and Old Lyme residents came together to organize preparation of the letter and collection of signatures. Rubino added that he and Kimberly Russell Thompson are overseeing signature collection and maintaining the master list of signatories.
Signatories include Old Lyme Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker, Lyme Selectman John Kiker, Region 18 Board of Education member Jason Kemp, and New York Times best-selling author Luanne Rice.
Various other signatories serve on Old Lyme Boards and Commissions including Mary Jo Nosal (former Selectwoman and current Zoning Commission), Gil Soucie (Zoning Commission), Edie Twining and Michael Reiter (Halls Road Improvement Committee), and Kimberly Russell Thompson (Board of Finance).
The letter reads:
Dear Madams/Sirs:
First, let us begin by apologizing for the necessity of this correspondence and the unenviable position in which you have all been placed. None of the signatories of this letter imagined that in a community like Lyme/Old Lyme, in the year 2023, we would find ourselves forced to publicly assert our opposition to book-banning. Yet here we are.
As you know, some members of the public have written to you complaining about certain books found in the Tween/Teen reading room. To proactively counter charges of censorship, they claim they aren’t seeking a “ban” though they paradoxically request that the library “reconsider [its] decision on this book and its availability to children ages 11-19”1 and conduct “a proper review of the materials in the Tween/Teen room in hopes that no other content like this is available in that space.” This is censorship and nothing more. It is the very definition of a book banning campaign. We the undersigned write not only to assert our strong opposition to any such censorship in our community, but to make clear that those seeking this ban represent a small fraction of the community at large.
We believe, as Annex A to the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library Collection Development Policy so eloquently states, that,
“[T]here is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression… We cut off literature at the source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff of life. Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these matters values differ, and values cannot be legislated; nor can machinery be devised that will suit the demands of one group without limiting the freedoms of others.“
1 It’s worth noting that 18 and 19 year olds can legally drive, vote, serve in the armed forces and marry in all 50 states. If ever there was an indicator of the unreasonableness of the drafters’ request it is this: they unabashedly ask the library to ban legal adults from accessing books.
We likewise support the policy’s admonition that, “[r]esponsibility for children’s use of materials rests solely with their parents or legal guardians. Selection of material will not be inhibited by the possibility that items may come into the possession of children.”
Though we would suggest that the content of the primary book in question, “Let’s Talk About it: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships and Being Human,” is of little relevance in this context, we are aware that independent reviewers such as the Kirkus Review, Publishers Weekly and the School Library Journal all reviewed it positively. In addition, we know that the book’s two authors have had their work featured in the Tate Modern Museum in London. We do not offer this as proof of the objective value of this book or its merit, but rather for the proposition that reasonable minds may differ in this regard. Banning, censoring or restricting books for “objectionable” content is a slippery slope indeed.
Even amongst the undersigned, we understand that each of us may individually disagree as to when, how, or whether to introduce this material to their own children. Where we differ from the authors of the letter which spawned this debate, however, is that we do not aim to tell other parents what their children can and cannot be exposed to. We do not aim to sanctimoniously claim something should be removed for all because it offends some. We believe, in the words of Ben Franklin, “if all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
We write this letter to support the library and its well thought-out anti-censorship policies. We ask that, consistent therewith, you reject the requests of the censorship supporters in their entirety. Not only do we believe these books should remain available to all, we believe that it is crucial they remain in the safe space of the Tween/Teen reading room where curious young adults can access them in a comfortable setting surrounded primarily by their peers. The PGN Collection Development Policy explicitly notes that the Tween/Teen room will, “contain special interest topics for adolescents, including, but not limited to, sex education, drug abuse, popular culture, and mental health.” Moving these books – overtly targeted to teen needs – to a place where access is difficult, embarrassing or populated primarily by adults, may defeat their purpose. They are designed, in part, to help teenagers navigate questions they may be uncomfortable discussing with or around adults. Forcing them to seek or retrieve them in the main stacks may be tantamount to banning them altogether.
Thank you for the valuable resource you provide our community. It is our sincere hope that you continue to do so in a way that remains true to the ideals of our democracy, and stands firm against the suppression of ideas. Please know that we, the undersigned, are standing with you.
Sincerely,
Supporters from Lyme and Old Lyme:*
David Rubino
Alecia Rubino
Anna Reiter
Michael Reiter
Kimberly Russell Thompson
Josh Thompson
Jason Kemp
Michelle Neely Yates
Luanne Rice
Mary Jo Nosal
Jac Lahav
Joseph “Gil” Soucie
Roger Nosal
Steve Jungkeit
Rachael Jungkeit
Juliette J. Meeus
Martha Shoemaker
Rebecca Crosby
Tonie Easter
Pam Ingersoll
Penny Smyth
Janet Roach
Kalie Morrissette
The Rev. Kate Wesch
Gavin Lodge
Joel Wesch
Justin Fuller
Grace Morrissette
Tanya Emmerich
Melanie Lee
Richard Barreto
Annie Fuller
Sallie Schwartz
Deborah Eastman
Tess Hamilton-Ward
Avery Wesch
Jamie Jackson
Edie Twining
John Kiker
Hannah Paynter
Colleen Sablone
Ross W Higgins
Naomi Mohn
Kinny Kreiswirth
Tali Greener
Rev. David W. Good
Erin Cameron Mohn
Elizabeth McEvily
Allison Gaffey
Gaia Cornwall
Cathy Flanagan
John Locke
Catherine Stevens
Morgan Regan
Heather Imbriale
Beth Sullivan
Amanda Baker
Jennifer Hall
Paul Smyth
Anna B. James
Missy Garvin
Matthew Griswold
Nora Leech
Susan Beyer
Angela Mock
Audrey Bombaci, Health Educator
Peter Hunt
Kim Petersen
Bradley Mock
Gerald Lewis
Baylee Drown
Ellen Calkins
Laura Fitzpatrick-Nager
Raina Volovski
Rita G MacWilliam
Joyce Brodeur Soucie
Marcello Marvelli
Candace Fuchs
Caroline Emig
Elaine Brown Stiles
Rosemarie Padovano
Winnie Edmed
Danielle Kuczkowski
Sara Fogarty
Kelly Watkins
Kara Bonsack
Peter Imbriale
Christine Gianquinto
Olaf Bertram-Nothnagel
Meredith Kranz
Julia Ressler
Kelly Lynn Geschwill
Kimberly Quiros
John A. Higgins
Caryn Davis
Michael J. Gaffey
Marcia Gaffey
Jessi Maclean
Kylie Hall
Monty Volovski
Paul Fuchs
Morgan Lavigne
Melissa Behnke
Kristen Nielsen
Kimberly Monson
Joan U. Salm
Robert Kranz
Eileen Kane
Joan Overfield
Eileen Mueller
Elizabeth Rougny
Nicoll Brinley
Bethany Benak
Matthew Barrett
Caitlyn McHugh
Christopher Steiner
Julia Israelski
John Mueller
Russell Fogg
Rachel Schlachter
Tyler Morrissette
Rebecca Steiner
Pam Russell
Andrea Scaglione
Cara Zimmermann
William R. McCollum
Madeliene Donnelly
Karen Taylor
Damon Smith
Richard Korsmeyer
Harry Godfrey-Fogg
Lisa Holmes
Michele Griswold
Michael E. James
Amelia Mastrangelo
Coralyn Hamilton
Hildegarde Hannum
Dawn Hamilton
Alex Twining
Howard Margules
Mark Bradley Jones
Barbara Ballard
Georgiana Goodwin
Claudia Schmaus
Anna Scanlon
George Willauer
Robert Coward
Shannon Nosal
Amy K Greenberg
Danielle Locke
Emily Fisher
Paul Gianquinto
Brynn McGlinchey
Jennifer Zagorski
Kaylyn Emma
Jennifer Kosecki
John Griffin
Bill Dejonge
Anthony Daniels
Barbara Willkens
Toby Lapinski
Melissa Kelly
Shaleigh Reynolds
Carol Adams
Eve O’Connor
William Donovan
Erica Tannen
Evan S. Griswold
Joseph Mastrangelo
Fred Verillo
Mark Terwilliger
William J. Belluzzi
Charles Dahlke
Alida Dahlke
Will Coppola
Campbell Mann
Laura Nelson
Sandra Rueb
Susan Schlachter
Day Halsey
Shay Cantner
Patricia Smith
Joanne Belluzzi
Rachel O’grady
Summer Wollack
Samuel Yates
Will Cooley
Leslie Gourlay
Jamie Gourlay
Melissa Knapp
Mark Nelson
Edwin Lopez
Judith Ulrich
Thomas Lovejoy
Eric Engdall
Agatha Hunt
Mary-Gardner Coppola
Aileen Kosecki
Lynn Richmond
Emily Obrien
Betsy Barry
Corah Engdall
Chad Kelly
Elizabeth C Frankel
Samantha Malone
Maris Wacs
Austin Halsey
Sarah Sahl
Lucy Wilkinson
Doug Wilkinson
Lyndon Haviland
Chris Lawrie
Allyson Cotton
Jeri Baker
Billy Barry
Mimi Brainard
Jillian Adams
Russell Learned
Lee Pritchard
Martin Kreiswirth
Andrea Fenton
Alexandra Clarke
Taylor Sahl
Daniel Small
Sadie Frankel
Rachel Coffee
Meghan Merris
Ben Merris
Melanie Snyder
Joanne Elmoznino
Rachel Fairchild
Francette Donato
Amanda Blair
Michael Thomas Duffy
Andrew Snyder
Gary Jenkins
Nancy Gladwell
Jennifer Harvill
Sarah Foley
Adeline Riccio
Doina Lavoie-Gonci
Ashley Coker
Eleanor Fogle
Scott Mahon
Ann Lightfoot
Maureen Mcculloch
Sarah Bowman
Cynthia Love
Kristin Luck
Teresa Balough
Jacqueline Jaffe
Laura Hansen
Jennifer Holth
Lucy Brainard
Marie Abraham
Michelle Bagnati
Andrew Watson
Denise Savageau
Susan Fox
Christopher Petersen
John Pote
Deborah Andreas
Jesse Vasiloff
Craig Taylor
Bill Fitzgerald
Bobbie Semple
Sarah Ayasse
Mary Bradford
Anthony Enders
Lindsey Scott
Ellen Poetz
Peter Carlson
Catherine Angert
Lucy Blatter
Polly Merrill
James Dahlke
Sheila Riffle
Riley Nelson
Cynthia Kelly
Laura Mooney
Kieran Moone
Lilian King
Alastair Clements
Kirin Peagler
Lee Ann Kornacki
Laura Spector
Cathleen Mcdonald
Heidi Worcester
Bill Garlette
Robert House
Carol House
Jason Shapiro
Jessica Garvin
Lisa Kaplan
Erin Wyman
Todd Ellison
Susan Ballek
Kimberly Van Tongeren
Chrissy Cowell
Jamie Snurkowski
Annabelle Coppola
Ethan Vernon
Betsey Cooley
Hope Worcester
George Wilhelm Fowler
Josh Edmed
Greg Melville
Denise Golden
Rebecca Petersen
Deborah Giaconia
Jill Mazzalupo
Mary Ballachino
Birgit Musheno
Wendolyn Hill
Dottie Wells
Jeffrey Cooley
Carlos Martinez
Joan Motyka
Isabelle Barbour
Mal Karwoski
Christy Clement
Judith Chapman
Joab Hunt
Damon Coppola
Kristen Clark
Sakura Gemme
Abigail Block
Ann H. Brubaker
Mischa Elmoznino
Marlena Window
Konrad Kissling
Jonathan Butler
Mary Roth
Jodi Lott
Ann Aldrich
Alex English
Marcia McLean
Ann Rich
Juliette Case
Maxwell Gagnon
Abigail Cipparone
Mikhela Hull
Meghan Olsen
Sadie Bowman
Cooper Bowman
Marianne DeBruyn
Katherine Favello
Teresa Theriault
James Schwartz
Ella Halsey
Deborah Butler
Richard Wyman
Keri Procko
Kathy Hylas Doonan
Clare Conniff
Marisa Hartmann
Richard Fisler
Frederick B. Gahagan
Eliliana Felix
Jessica Murtz
Alison Conrad
Jane Bachman
Rebecca Pote
Tracy McGlinchey
Mark Hornyak
Robert Andreas
Jennifer Hornyak
John Heckman
Mary OBrien
Franceska Nebel
Scott Shoemaker
Barbara Dooley
Leslie Massa
Cameron Paynter
Jolene Brant
Alan Bradford
Curtis Deane
Imelda Koptonak
Maureen Swarts
Thomas Shoemaker
William Bachman
Pat Aldrich
Marna Wilber Schneid
Helen Cantrell
Alan Froggatt
Christopher Hurtgen
John Zaccaro
Thomas J. Britt
Ericka Moniz
Mary Stone
Holly Rubino
Alison Ritrovato
Anne Mulholland
Chris Berger
Lynn Fairfield-Sonn
Kellie Sablone
Melanie Parker
Alexandra von Raab
Jacob Olsen
Jaymie Nickerson-Buckmaster
Braydon McCormick
Howard M Fish
Donna Hurley
Liz Renaud
Jill Clark
Darren Favello
Delaney Nelson
Erin McCarthy
Erica Zapatka
Briana Hochadel
Chris Bourne
Henry Hunt
Candy Ogland
Supporters from Outside Lyme and Old Lyme:*
Andrea Manning
Denise McEvily
Sarah Bing Prineas
Jeff Moher
Alyssa Lindquist
Thomas O’Grady
Ellen Madere
Anne Newburg
Hugh Cipparone
Mary Sapka-Sams
Elsbeth Dowd
Rev. Kaleigh Corbett
Rasmussen
Sofie Restrepo
Elizabeth Enders
Lynn Williams
Liz Scott
Melissa Fournier
Gayleen Rand-Plakunov
Riley O’Bryan
Olivia Scott
Rev. Dr. Eric Elnes
Heidi Magro
Christine Penberthy
Mary Childs
Abbie Cox
Marjorie Cohen
Anne Clement
Josephine Heck Elmoznino
Thelma Halloran
Beryl Salinger Schmitt
lymeline.com/2023/06/more-than-400-sign-letter-supporting-old-lyme-library-urging-rejection-of-censorship-requests-in-their-entirety/
More Than 400 Sign Letter Supporting Old Lyme Library, Urging Rejection of Censorship Requests ‘In Their Entirety’
June 29, 2023 by Olwen Logan
OLD LYME — We received a copy of the letter below from Old Lyme resident David Rubino. The letter is addressed to the OLPGN Library Director, Officers, and Board of Trustees and urges the Old Lyme Phoebe Griffin Noyes (OLPGN) Library to “reject the requests of the censorship supporters in their entirety.”
As at 8 p.m. last night, more than 400 people had signed the letter in the 24 hours that it had been available.At 12:50 p.m. today, the number had risen to 442 with additional signatures still being verified.Signatures are still being collected. Anyone wishing to sign the letter/petition can do so at this link.
The letter is in response to a letter sent by a group of Lyme and Old Lyme citizens requesting the OLPGN Library should reconsider its decision to include a specific sex-education book in its collection, undertake, “a proper review of the materials in the Teen/Tween room,” and, “… encourage a change in the library’s focus for our community’s children.”
He explained that a small group of Lyme and Old Lyme residents came together to organize preparation of the letter and collection of signatures. Rubino added that he and Kimberly Russell Thompson are overseeing signature collection and maintaining the master list of signatories.
Signatories include Old Lyme Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker, Lyme Selectman John Kiker, Region 18 Board of Education member Jason Kemp, and New York Times best-selling author Luanne Rice.
Various other signatories serve on Old Lyme Boards and Commissions including Mary Jo Nosal (former Selectwoman and current Zoning Commission), Gil Soucie (Zoning Commission), Edie Twining and Michael Reiter (Halls Road Improvement Committee), and Kimberly Russell Thompson (Board of Finance).
The letter reads:
Dear Madams/Sirs:
First, let us begin by apologizing for the necessity of this correspondence and the unenviable position in which you have all been placed. None of the signatories of this letter imagined that in a community like Lyme/Old Lyme, in the year 2023, we would find ourselves forced to publicly assert our opposition to book-banning. Yet here we are.
As you know, some members of the public have written to you complaining about certain books found in the Tween/Teen reading room. To proactively counter charges of censorship, they claim they aren’t seeking a “ban” though they paradoxically request that the library “reconsider [its] decision on this book and its availability to children ages 11-19”1 and conduct “a proper review of the materials in the Tween/Teen room in hopes that no other content like this is available in that space.” This is censorship and nothing more. It is the very definition of a book banning campaign. We the undersigned write not only to assert our strong opposition to any such censorship in our community, but to make clear that those seeking this ban represent a small fraction of the community at large.
We believe, as Annex A to the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library Collection Development Policy so eloquently states, that,
“[T]here is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression… We cut off literature at the source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff of life. Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these matters values differ, and values cannot be legislated; nor can machinery be devised that will suit the demands of one group without limiting the freedoms of others.“
1 It’s worth noting that 18 and 19 year olds can legally drive, vote, serve in the armed forces and marry in all 50 states. If ever there was an indicator of the unreasonableness of the drafters’ request it is this: they unabashedly ask the library to ban legal adults from accessing books.
We likewise support the policy’s admonition that, “[r]esponsibility for children’s use of materials rests solely with their parents or legal guardians. Selection of material will not be inhibited by the possibility that items may come into the possession of children.”
Though we would suggest that the content of the primary book in question, “Let’s Talk About it: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships and Being Human,” is of little relevance in this context, we are aware that independent reviewers such as the Kirkus Review, Publishers Weekly and the School Library Journal all reviewed it positively. In addition, we know that the book’s two authors have had their work featured in the Tate Modern Museum in London. We do not offer this as proof of the objective value of this book or its merit, but rather for the proposition that reasonable minds may differ in this regard. Banning, censoring or restricting books for “objectionable” content is a slippery slope indeed.
Even amongst the undersigned, we understand that each of us may individually disagree as to when, how, or whether to introduce this material to their own children. Where we differ from the authors of the letter which spawned this debate, however, is that we do not aim to tell other parents what their children can and cannot be exposed to. We do not aim to sanctimoniously claim something should be removed for all because it offends some. We believe, in the words of Ben Franklin, “if all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”
We write this letter to support the library and its well thought-out anti-censorship policies. We ask that, consistent therewith, you reject the requests of the censorship supporters in their entirety. Not only do we believe these books should remain available to all, we believe that it is crucial they remain in the safe space of the Tween/Teen reading room where curious young adults can access them in a comfortable setting surrounded primarily by their peers. The PGN Collection Development Policy explicitly notes that the Tween/Teen room will, “contain special interest topics for adolescents, including, but not limited to, sex education, drug abuse, popular culture, and mental health.” Moving these books – overtly targeted to teen needs – to a place where access is difficult, embarrassing or populated primarily by adults, may defeat their purpose. They are designed, in part, to help teenagers navigate questions they may be uncomfortable discussing with or around adults. Forcing them to seek or retrieve them in the main stacks may be tantamount to banning them altogether.
Thank you for the valuable resource you provide our community. It is our sincere hope that you continue to do so in a way that remains true to the ideals of our democracy, and stands firm against the suppression of ideas. Please know that we, the undersigned, are standing with you.
Sincerely,
Supporters from Lyme and Old Lyme:*
David Rubino
Alecia Rubino
Anna Reiter
Michael Reiter
Kimberly Russell Thompson
Josh Thompson
Jason Kemp
Michelle Neely Yates
Luanne Rice
Mary Jo Nosal
Jac Lahav
Joseph “Gil” Soucie
Roger Nosal
Steve Jungkeit
Rachael Jungkeit
Juliette J. Meeus
Martha Shoemaker
Rebecca Crosby
Tonie Easter
Pam Ingersoll
Penny Smyth
Janet Roach
Kalie Morrissette
The Rev. Kate Wesch
Gavin Lodge
Joel Wesch
Justin Fuller
Grace Morrissette
Tanya Emmerich
Melanie Lee
Richard Barreto
Annie Fuller
Sallie Schwartz
Deborah Eastman
Tess Hamilton-Ward
Avery Wesch
Jamie Jackson
Edie Twining
John Kiker
Hannah Paynter
Colleen Sablone
Ross W Higgins
Naomi Mohn
Kinny Kreiswirth
Tali Greener
Rev. David W. Good
Erin Cameron Mohn
Elizabeth McEvily
Allison Gaffey
Gaia Cornwall
Cathy Flanagan
John Locke
Catherine Stevens
Morgan Regan
Heather Imbriale
Beth Sullivan
Amanda Baker
Jennifer Hall
Paul Smyth
Anna B. James
Missy Garvin
Matthew Griswold
Nora Leech
Susan Beyer
Angela Mock
Audrey Bombaci, Health Educator
Peter Hunt
Kim Petersen
Bradley Mock
Gerald Lewis
Baylee Drown
Ellen Calkins
Laura Fitzpatrick-Nager
Raina Volovski
Rita G MacWilliam
Joyce Brodeur Soucie
Marcello Marvelli
Candace Fuchs
Caroline Emig
Elaine Brown Stiles
Rosemarie Padovano
Winnie Edmed
Danielle Kuczkowski
Sara Fogarty
Kelly Watkins
Kara Bonsack
Peter Imbriale
Christine Gianquinto
Olaf Bertram-Nothnagel
Meredith Kranz
Julia Ressler
Kelly Lynn Geschwill
Kimberly Quiros
John A. Higgins
Caryn Davis
Michael J. Gaffey
Marcia Gaffey
Jessi Maclean
Kylie Hall
Monty Volovski
Paul Fuchs
Morgan Lavigne
Melissa Behnke
Kristen Nielsen
Kimberly Monson
Joan U. Salm
Robert Kranz
Eileen Kane
Joan Overfield
Eileen Mueller
Elizabeth Rougny
Nicoll Brinley
Bethany Benak
Matthew Barrett
Caitlyn McHugh
Christopher Steiner
Julia Israelski
John Mueller
Russell Fogg
Rachel Schlachter
Tyler Morrissette
Rebecca Steiner
Pam Russell
Andrea Scaglione
Cara Zimmermann
William R. McCollum
Madeliene Donnelly
Karen Taylor
Damon Smith
Richard Korsmeyer
Harry Godfrey-Fogg
Lisa Holmes
Michele Griswold
Michael E. James
Amelia Mastrangelo
Coralyn Hamilton
Hildegarde Hannum
Dawn Hamilton
Alex Twining
Howard Margules
Mark Bradley Jones
Barbara Ballard
Georgiana Goodwin
Claudia Schmaus
Anna Scanlon
George Willauer
Robert Coward
Shannon Nosal
Amy K Greenberg
Danielle Locke
Emily Fisher
Paul Gianquinto
Brynn McGlinchey
Jennifer Zagorski
Kaylyn Emma
Jennifer Kosecki
John Griffin
Bill Dejonge
Anthony Daniels
Barbara Willkens
Toby Lapinski
Melissa Kelly
Shaleigh Reynolds
Carol Adams
Eve O’Connor
William Donovan
Erica Tannen
Evan S. Griswold
Joseph Mastrangelo
Fred Verillo
Mark Terwilliger
William J. Belluzzi
Charles Dahlke
Alida Dahlke
Will Coppola
Campbell Mann
Laura Nelson
Sandra Rueb
Susan Schlachter
Day Halsey
Shay Cantner
Patricia Smith
Joanne Belluzzi
Rachel O’grady
Summer Wollack
Samuel Yates
Will Cooley
Leslie Gourlay
Jamie Gourlay
Melissa Knapp
Mark Nelson
Edwin Lopez
Judith Ulrich
Thomas Lovejoy
Eric Engdall
Agatha Hunt
Mary-Gardner Coppola
Aileen Kosecki
Lynn Richmond
Emily Obrien
Betsy Barry
Corah Engdall
Chad Kelly
Elizabeth C Frankel
Samantha Malone
Maris Wacs
Austin Halsey
Sarah Sahl
Lucy Wilkinson
Doug Wilkinson
Lyndon Haviland
Chris Lawrie
Allyson Cotton
Jeri Baker
Billy Barry
Mimi Brainard
Jillian Adams
Russell Learned
Lee Pritchard
Martin Kreiswirth
Andrea Fenton
Alexandra Clarke
Taylor Sahl
Daniel Small
Sadie Frankel
Rachel Coffee
Meghan Merris
Ben Merris
Melanie Snyder
Joanne Elmoznino
Rachel Fairchild
Francette Donato
Amanda Blair
Michael Thomas Duffy
Andrew Snyder
Gary Jenkins
Nancy Gladwell
Jennifer Harvill
Sarah Foley
Adeline Riccio
Doina Lavoie-Gonci
Ashley Coker
Eleanor Fogle
Scott Mahon
Ann Lightfoot
Maureen Mcculloch
Sarah Bowman
Cynthia Love
Kristin Luck
Teresa Balough
Jacqueline Jaffe
Laura Hansen
Jennifer Holth
Lucy Brainard
Marie Abraham
Michelle Bagnati
Andrew Watson
Denise Savageau
Susan Fox
Christopher Petersen
John Pote
Deborah Andreas
Jesse Vasiloff
Craig Taylor
Bill Fitzgerald
Bobbie Semple
Sarah Ayasse
Mary Bradford
Anthony Enders
Lindsey Scott
Ellen Poetz
Peter Carlson
Catherine Angert
Lucy Blatter
Polly Merrill
James Dahlke
Sheila Riffle
Riley Nelson
Cynthia Kelly
Laura Mooney
Kieran Moone
Lilian King
Alastair Clements
Kirin Peagler
Lee Ann Kornacki
Laura Spector
Cathleen Mcdonald
Heidi Worcester
Bill Garlette
Robert House
Carol House
Jason Shapiro
Jessica Garvin
Lisa Kaplan
Erin Wyman
Todd Ellison
Susan Ballek
Kimberly Van Tongeren
Chrissy Cowell
Jamie Snurkowski
Annabelle Coppola
Ethan Vernon
Betsey Cooley
Hope Worcester
George Wilhelm Fowler
Josh Edmed
Greg Melville
Denise Golden
Rebecca Petersen
Deborah Giaconia
Jill Mazzalupo
Mary Ballachino
Birgit Musheno
Wendolyn Hill
Dottie Wells
Jeffrey Cooley
Carlos Martinez
Joan Motyka
Isabelle Barbour
Mal Karwoski
Christy Clement
Judith Chapman
Joab Hunt
Damon Coppola
Kristen Clark
Sakura Gemme
Abigail Block
Ann H. Brubaker
Mischa Elmoznino
Marlena Window
Konrad Kissling
Jonathan Butler
Mary Roth
Jodi Lott
Ann Aldrich
Alex English
Marcia McLean
Ann Rich
Juliette Case
Maxwell Gagnon
Abigail Cipparone
Mikhela Hull
Meghan Olsen
Sadie Bowman
Cooper Bowman
Marianne DeBruyn
Katherine Favello
Teresa Theriault
James Schwartz
Ella Halsey
Deborah Butler
Richard Wyman
Keri Procko
Kathy Hylas Doonan
Clare Conniff
Marisa Hartmann
Richard Fisler
Frederick B. Gahagan
Eliliana Felix
Jessica Murtz
Alison Conrad
Jane Bachman
Rebecca Pote
Tracy McGlinchey
Mark Hornyak
Robert Andreas
Jennifer Hornyak
John Heckman
Mary OBrien
Franceska Nebel
Scott Shoemaker
Barbara Dooley
Leslie Massa
Cameron Paynter
Jolene Brant
Alan Bradford
Curtis Deane
Imelda Koptonak
Maureen Swarts
Thomas Shoemaker
William Bachman
Pat Aldrich
Marna Wilber Schneid
Helen Cantrell
Alan Froggatt
Christopher Hurtgen
John Zaccaro
Thomas J. Britt
Ericka Moniz
Mary Stone
Holly Rubino
Alison Ritrovato
Anne Mulholland
Chris Berger
Lynn Fairfield-Sonn
Kellie Sablone
Melanie Parker
Alexandra von Raab
Jacob Olsen
Jaymie Nickerson-Buckmaster
Braydon McCormick
Howard M Fish
Donna Hurley
Liz Renaud
Jill Clark
Darren Favello
Delaney Nelson
Erin McCarthy
Erica Zapatka
Briana Hochadel
Chris Bourne
Henry Hunt
Candy Ogland
Supporters from Outside Lyme and Old Lyme:*
Andrea Manning
Denise McEvily
Sarah Bing Prineas
Jeff Moher
Alyssa Lindquist
Thomas O’Grady
Ellen Madere
Anne Newburg
Hugh Cipparone
Mary Sapka-Sams
Elsbeth Dowd
Rev. Kaleigh Corbett
Rasmussen
Sofie Restrepo
Elizabeth Enders
Lynn Williams
Liz Scott
Melissa Fournier
Gayleen Rand-Plakunov
Riley O’Bryan
Olivia Scott
Rev. Dr. Eric Elnes
Heidi Magro
Christine Penberthy
Mary Childs
Abbie Cox
Marjorie Cohen
Anne Clement
Josephine Heck Elmoznino
Thelma Halloran
Beryl Salinger Schmitt
“Greatly Troubling” That Old Lyme RTC Has Endorsed ‘Parental Rights’ Agenda for LOL Schools, Something to Remember When Voting in November
Claudia Schmaus, April 4, 2023
LymeLine.com
To The Editor:
In March I received the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee’s (RTC) “request for support” letter. I am an unaffiliated voter, and as such I appreciate understanding what the local political parties are offering in terms of policy. At first, the letter seemed innocuous, opening by noting that among the key values and priorities they would support is “maintaining the excellence of the Lyme-Old Lyme Public Schools.” While we all agree that keeping our schools strong is vital for the future of our children, the RTC explicitly noted that they would be “standing up for parents’ rights in the town school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies.”
It is greatly troubling to me that the Old Lyme RTC has joined in the national narrative being spouted by leaders like Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump and Greg Abbott. In every instance where Republicans have pushed a “parental rights” agenda, what has followed has been book bans, censorship and thought policing. The ill-defined “policy” of letting parents decide what books a school can use, what words teachers can say, and how subjects should be taught, fosters a toxic relationship between educators and parents and encourages the foolish, misguided and sometimes violent clashes we’ve seen playing out at Board of Ed meetings from coast to coast.
Science is science, math is math, literature is literature, and history is history. Let’s leave educating to the educators; it’s a policy that has served our school system well for the last 200 years.
In short, if we want to keep our schools strong, let’s make sure we don’t let them get strong-armed by partisan politicians. I hope that in November we will vote for candidates who understand that restricting information and discouraging freedom of thought undermines one of the primary functions of education: teaching students how to think critically and for themselves.
Sincerely,
Claudia Schmaus,
Old Lyme.
Editor’s Note: The author is a a member of the Town of Old Lyme’s Ethics Commission.
Claudia Schmaus, April 4, 2023
LymeLine.com
To The Editor:
In March I received the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee’s (RTC) “request for support” letter. I am an unaffiliated voter, and as such I appreciate understanding what the local political parties are offering in terms of policy. At first, the letter seemed innocuous, opening by noting that among the key values and priorities they would support is “maintaining the excellence of the Lyme-Old Lyme Public Schools.” While we all agree that keeping our schools strong is vital for the future of our children, the RTC explicitly noted that they would be “standing up for parents’ rights in the town school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies.”
It is greatly troubling to me that the Old Lyme RTC has joined in the national narrative being spouted by leaders like Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump and Greg Abbott. In every instance where Republicans have pushed a “parental rights” agenda, what has followed has been book bans, censorship and thought policing. The ill-defined “policy” of letting parents decide what books a school can use, what words teachers can say, and how subjects should be taught, fosters a toxic relationship between educators and parents and encourages the foolish, misguided and sometimes violent clashes we’ve seen playing out at Board of Ed meetings from coast to coast.
Science is science, math is math, literature is literature, and history is history. Let’s leave educating to the educators; it’s a policy that has served our school system well for the last 200 years.
In short, if we want to keep our schools strong, let’s make sure we don’t let them get strong-armed by partisan politicians. I hope that in November we will vote for candidates who understand that restricting information and discouraging freedom of thought undermines one of the primary functions of education: teaching students how to think critically and for themselves.
Sincerely,
Claudia Schmaus,
Old Lyme.
Editor’s Note: The author is a a member of the Town of Old Lyme’s Ethics Commission.
Kim Thompson, April 4, 2023
Sound Like the FCCOL Sermon Hit the Nail on the Head
The Connecticut Examiner
and Lymeline.com
Kim Thompson April 4, 2023
Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme RTC Seems to be Using Same Rhetoric as DeSantis, Extreme Republicans
To the Editor:
I received the Republican Town Committee’s (RTC) letter sent in mid-March and was immediately alarmed by rhetoric outlining their platform for the upcoming municipal election. Then I saw Mr. Nixon’s letter published in the CT Examiner on March 31st in response to a sermon delivered at the First Congregational Church.
First, Mr. Nixon’s letter sounded like the sermon hit the nail on the head and he’s just sorry that anyone outside his base properly interpreted what “parental rights” mean, like a teenager who has been caught doing something they know was wrong and is trying to talk their way out of it.
It appears the letter the RTC sent to the whole town was sent with the hope that everyone but their base would either throw it right in the recycling or were too dumb to know that “standing up for parental rights in the town’s school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies” is identical to the rhetoric used by Ron DeSantis and many others to justify the banning of hundreds of books, “don’t say gay” laws, and to prohibit the use of gender affirming pronouns in schools.
It sounds like Mr. Nixon understands these are unpopular policies among all but the far-right, and when he and the RTC decided to include that rhetoric as part of their platform and criteria for selecting candidates to run in this year’s municipal election, and as part of our State Representative Devin Carney’s platform, they should all expect significant blow-back from the community.
It is hard to believe that none of the 33 members of the RTC Mr. Nixon mentions are familiar with this rhetoric and the actions that have followed it all over this country.
It seems the Old Lyme RTC has fallen right in line with the most extreme Republicans, and we should be wary of all candidates they present as part of their slate this fall.
Sincerely,
Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.
Editor’s Note: We invited Randy Nixon, who is the chairman of the Old Lyme RTC, to submit the letter he sent to CT Examiner, which is referred to above, to us for publication on LymeLine. He has not responded to our request at this time. Therefore, for reference, we are including a link to the letter, Sermonizing a ‘Complete Misrepresentation of the Facts’ in Old Lyme, here.
Sound Like the FCCOL Sermon Hit the Nail on the Head
The Connecticut Examiner
and Lymeline.com
Kim Thompson April 4, 2023
Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme RTC Seems to be Using Same Rhetoric as DeSantis, Extreme Republicans
To the Editor:
I received the Republican Town Committee’s (RTC) letter sent in mid-March and was immediately alarmed by rhetoric outlining their platform for the upcoming municipal election. Then I saw Mr. Nixon’s letter published in the CT Examiner on March 31st in response to a sermon delivered at the First Congregational Church.
First, Mr. Nixon’s letter sounded like the sermon hit the nail on the head and he’s just sorry that anyone outside his base properly interpreted what “parental rights” mean, like a teenager who has been caught doing something they know was wrong and is trying to talk their way out of it.
It appears the letter the RTC sent to the whole town was sent with the hope that everyone but their base would either throw it right in the recycling or were too dumb to know that “standing up for parental rights in the town’s school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies” is identical to the rhetoric used by Ron DeSantis and many others to justify the banning of hundreds of books, “don’t say gay” laws, and to prohibit the use of gender affirming pronouns in schools.
It sounds like Mr. Nixon understands these are unpopular policies among all but the far-right, and when he and the RTC decided to include that rhetoric as part of their platform and criteria for selecting candidates to run in this year’s municipal election, and as part of our State Representative Devin Carney’s platform, they should all expect significant blow-back from the community.
It is hard to believe that none of the 33 members of the RTC Mr. Nixon mentions are familiar with this rhetoric and the actions that have followed it all over this country.
It seems the Old Lyme RTC has fallen right in line with the most extreme Republicans, and we should be wary of all candidates they present as part of their slate this fall.
Sincerely,
Kim Thompson,
Old Lyme.
Editor’s Note: We invited Randy Nixon, who is the chairman of the Old Lyme RTC, to submit the letter he sent to CT Examiner, which is referred to above, to us for publication on LymeLine. He has not responded to our request at this time. Therefore, for reference, we are including a link to the letter, Sermonizing a ‘Complete Misrepresentation of the Facts’ in Old Lyme, here.
https://lymeline.com/2023/04/letter-to-the-editor-old-lyme-rtc-seems-to-be-using-same-rhetoric-as-desantis-extreme-republicans/Comments
- Jill Whitney says
April 5, 2023 at 11:13 pm
Having just read these letters to the editor and Mr. Nixon’s letter to CT Examiner, I think it would be helpful if Mr. Nixon and other members of the RTC spelled out what “parental rights” would look like in Lyme-Old Lyme. If what they envision is significantly different than the book banning and teacher intimidation being done in other states…well, what would it be here? What about our excellent school district does the RTC think needs to be changed? Which parents’ rights would take precedence? (Those who support, say, a welcoming environment for LGBTQ students, or those who are uncomfortable with that?) Parental involvement in the schools has always been a strength of our district; I don’t think anyone disputes that. But the RTC’s “parental rights” language seems to be implying something more than that. What, then, is the goal? - Paul Fuchs says
April 5, 2023 at 11:48 pm
One would think that if it was not the intent of the RTC to mimic the rhetoric of DeSantis, and the meaning he implies, they would have chosen their words more carefully. - Charlotte Scot says
April 6, 2023 at 12:14 pm
This is chilling. The idea that a local political party would go anywhere near the radical DeSantis book banning, anti gender, anti-woke, etc is chilling and should be a wake-up call to people in this community to start speaking up about these issues.
I fear that the quietude of this community is being taken advantage of. First, they pushed through a vote on arming guards in our schools. The RTC ran a candidate for school board who believes that no airplanes struck the WTC. Now they are wanting to arm our police department with AR’s. My small rural community is becoming a hotbed of controversy and divisiveness and I don’t like it. I am an unaffiliated voter and I’m not sure what woke means…I do know what National GOP means by parental rights and I find it appalling.
April 10, 2023 by Steven Wilson
Lymeline.com
Op-Ed: “Parental Rights Do Not Negate Teachers Being Free To Teach in Their Own Style”April 10, 2023
Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted by Steven Wilson, who serves as chairman of the Region 18 Board of Education. The opinion he expresses here is entirely his own and not related in any way to the board of education.
“Children Should be Taught to Think – Not What to Think”
I have read several letters to editors regarding a recent [Old Lyme] RTC [Republican Town Committee] letter apparently mailed to all residents of Lyme and Old Lyme and I’d like to share a third perspective on the matter which I hope and expect will appeal to the majority of our citizens – the all too often overlooked and forgotten Moderate voters. However they’re registered, they vote with their own minds and have no misplaced loyalty to one party or the other.
I felt compelled to participate in this conversation because there are myriad parties sharing very biased opinions and while speaking under the guise of wanting what’s best for the towns, finish their statements with telling us what to think and for whom to vote in November. I would say ignore them all and instead listen to friends and associates you know and respect.
For the sake of time, I’ll focus on the “dog whistle” of “parental rights”. In my experience the term “dog whistle” is cut from the same cloth as any other strawman fallacy wherein someone misinterprets what you said and ignores your intent and replaces it with their contorted version and then attacks that instead.
“People who invoke the term ‘parental rights’ have different things in mind and different aspirations,” said Neal McCluskey, the director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. “My general impression when I see people invoking ‘parental rights,’ it’s been connected to a general idea that parents have been cut out of decisions made by schools.”
“Parental rights” is being represented as a dog whistle for banning books and censorship and anyone who utters the phrase should be summarily ignored. This is beyond ironic. The idea of dismissing anyone’s opinion based on opinion, perspective, or association is the type of bias we should all be fighting against.
The antithesis of parental rights is parental apathy and school districts that lack parental interest have suffered terribly because of the inevitable trickle-down of apathy, disinterest, and lack of motivation experienced by students when their parents “leave education to the educators”.
We have the greatest teachers in Region 18 and are lucky to have them. I have dealt directly with many of them on a variety of topics and venues and have personally observed their excellence. I have made a point to stress my personal belief that the purpose of school is to educate rather than indoctrinate and to my eye, the faculty, and staff overwhelmingly agree with this perspective.
Strong communities are built when everyone is involved and works together. Parental rights do not negate teachers being free to teach in their own style – they only keep the door open so that parents can remain involved in the education of their children. We should avoid at all costs the idea that one group or another is prohibited from expressing their perspective due to “dog whistle” words/phrases or group affiliation.
It has been my experience that when people have questions and are allowed to ask them, they find the answers to be quite agreeable. When those doors of communication are closed, the rumor mills take over and the worst and most sensational ideas take over the conversation.
There will always be ideas, classes, and curricula being taught in school with which we will disagree but after school, we’ll have co-workers, bosses, and supervisors with whom we’ll disagree too. The purpose of school is to prepare us for working together in spite of difficulties and to learn to disagree pleasantly, respectfully, and productively. Children should be taught to think – not what to think.
Let’s keep things simple and look at people based on the content of their character above all other elements. I’m sure if we do that earnestly and honestly, we’ll all find that we agree with each other far more than we’re being led to believe.
Reader InteractionsComments
4. Jonathan B. Wilder says
April 12, 2023 at 4:32 pm
I agree fully with Bill Fitzgerald’s letter,and will go one further.Believe what people and organizations say,as what they say is their intent.I have no doubt that those on the RTC know exactly what their definition of “parental rights” is and where they wish to take the rest of us with them.If they have their way,BoE meetings will come to resemble a mob choosing which courses the youth of Regional District 18 can and cannot take.Of course parental involvement is needed to avoid the apathy which many surrounding towns and cities find themselves.It also shows they actually care.But,many parents do not have the vision or education to get the youth where they want to go.Teachers do have that vision.In the 1960s,my stepfather,who was a disciple of Alabama Gov. George Wallace,ran for BoE in Old Lyme on a platform of book banning and segregation.Fortunately for us all,he lost.We need a BoE working in tandem with the districts teachers to produce self aware,functioning and educated people.We do not need a RTC going down the MAGA rabbit hole.Kudos to those speaking up about this.
Lymeline.com
Op-Ed: “Parental Rights Do Not Negate Teachers Being Free To Teach in Their Own Style”April 10, 2023
Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted by Steven Wilson, who serves as chairman of the Region 18 Board of Education. The opinion he expresses here is entirely his own and not related in any way to the board of education.
“Children Should be Taught to Think – Not What to Think”
I have read several letters to editors regarding a recent [Old Lyme] RTC [Republican Town Committee] letter apparently mailed to all residents of Lyme and Old Lyme and I’d like to share a third perspective on the matter which I hope and expect will appeal to the majority of our citizens – the all too often overlooked and forgotten Moderate voters. However they’re registered, they vote with their own minds and have no misplaced loyalty to one party or the other.
I felt compelled to participate in this conversation because there are myriad parties sharing very biased opinions and while speaking under the guise of wanting what’s best for the towns, finish their statements with telling us what to think and for whom to vote in November. I would say ignore them all and instead listen to friends and associates you know and respect.
For the sake of time, I’ll focus on the “dog whistle” of “parental rights”. In my experience the term “dog whistle” is cut from the same cloth as any other strawman fallacy wherein someone misinterprets what you said and ignores your intent and replaces it with their contorted version and then attacks that instead.
“People who invoke the term ‘parental rights’ have different things in mind and different aspirations,” said Neal McCluskey, the director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. “My general impression when I see people invoking ‘parental rights,’ it’s been connected to a general idea that parents have been cut out of decisions made by schools.”
“Parental rights” is being represented as a dog whistle for banning books and censorship and anyone who utters the phrase should be summarily ignored. This is beyond ironic. The idea of dismissing anyone’s opinion based on opinion, perspective, or association is the type of bias we should all be fighting against.
The antithesis of parental rights is parental apathy and school districts that lack parental interest have suffered terribly because of the inevitable trickle-down of apathy, disinterest, and lack of motivation experienced by students when their parents “leave education to the educators”.
We have the greatest teachers in Region 18 and are lucky to have them. I have dealt directly with many of them on a variety of topics and venues and have personally observed their excellence. I have made a point to stress my personal belief that the purpose of school is to educate rather than indoctrinate and to my eye, the faculty, and staff overwhelmingly agree with this perspective.
Strong communities are built when everyone is involved and works together. Parental rights do not negate teachers being free to teach in their own style – they only keep the door open so that parents can remain involved in the education of their children. We should avoid at all costs the idea that one group or another is prohibited from expressing their perspective due to “dog whistle” words/phrases or group affiliation.
It has been my experience that when people have questions and are allowed to ask them, they find the answers to be quite agreeable. When those doors of communication are closed, the rumor mills take over and the worst and most sensational ideas take over the conversation.
There will always be ideas, classes, and curricula being taught in school with which we will disagree but after school, we’ll have co-workers, bosses, and supervisors with whom we’ll disagree too. The purpose of school is to prepare us for working together in spite of difficulties and to learn to disagree pleasantly, respectfully, and productively. Children should be taught to think – not what to think.
Let’s keep things simple and look at people based on the content of their character above all other elements. I’m sure if we do that earnestly and honestly, we’ll all find that we agree with each other far more than we’re being led to believe.
Reader InteractionsComments
- Kim Thompson says
April 8, 2023 at 9:54 am
Words matter. The RTC chose to use the words “parental rights” that have been front and center in the news for starting fights at BOE meetings and as justification for bullying teachers and censoring learning, They knew these words carried meaning when they included them in their platform. If the RTC didn’t mean parental rights “like that” they should have chosen different words.
Reply- Steven Wilson says
April 8, 2023 at 1:05 pm
I disagree. Nobody has the right to decide what words others use. The disagreement we’re experiencing can easily be used as an opportunity to seek understanding rather than using it to attempt to infringe on the first amendment rights of others.
A good starting point might be to begin with the idea that parental oversight of content provided to minors is not the same thing as censorship or book banning.
I can only speak for myself but I’m as big a supporter of parental rights as I am against banning books- any books. Especially ones with which I disagree.
- Steven Wilson says
- Roger Nosal says
April 8, 2023 at 12:03 pm
I do not believe anyone disputes the need for transparency on what and how students are taught and exposed to in public schools. We all have an opportunity to directly address any concerns with respect to the content and approaches in our public schools through our local district school board. The concerns expressed by many who have responded to this Op-Ed and recent letters to the Editor is that the establishment of federal legislation, which is, incidentally, unconstitutional, has engendered a pervasive and publicly advocated position for leveraging transparency on behalf of initiating actions to ban books, educational content, diversity and academic freedom. In fact, these egregious restrictions on behalf of transparency and “parental rights” have already occurred through legislation passed in several states, i.e., Florida.
In order to have a clear and balanced debate about the need for parental rights legislation with respect to schools, it is important to understand where elected officials responsible for education of our children, stand with respect to the subtext of this position. Do you support banning books because they are inconsistent with your values? Do you support educational and academic freedom to explore and teach diversity in the content of the curriculum?
These are positions that warrant the judgment of voting parents in the community and should be the criteria by which those running for office should be held accountable. - Bill Fitzgerald says
April 10, 2023 at 8:38 am
The author of this letter, who is also listed as a member of the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee, opens with a quote from Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute.
As part of his work at the Cato Institute, McCluskey maintains a “Public Schooling Battle Map” that tracks when the far right invokes things like “parental rights” to harass school teachers, boards of ed, librarians, and any people who don’t fit the narrow mold of what the far right thinks is “okay”.
In other words, in an effort to show how “parental rights” isn’t being used as a cudgel for censorship and harassment, the author cites a person who *maintains a map that documents the exact type of censorship and harassment* people are talking about here.
Is it possible that the Old Lyme RTC wasn’t aware of this broader contect? Sure – it’s possible. But if that’s the case, they should retract their language, and try again. Personally, I’d respect that. We all make mistakes, and there is nothing wrong with learning and growing.
But when the OLRTC double and triple down on this language, though, they send a clear message that they meant exactly what it looks like: they are using the phrase “parental rights” in exactly the same way it’s being used in the rest of the country.
And semi-related: the “parental rights” language in the OLRTC flyer is getting so much attention that it’s drowning out any mention of the election denialism in the same platform.
4. Jonathan B. Wilder says
April 12, 2023 at 4:32 pm
I agree fully with Bill Fitzgerald’s letter,and will go one further.Believe what people and organizations say,as what they say is their intent.I have no doubt that those on the RTC know exactly what their definition of “parental rights” is and where they wish to take the rest of us with them.If they have their way,BoE meetings will come to resemble a mob choosing which courses the youth of Regional District 18 can and cannot take.Of course parental involvement is needed to avoid the apathy which many surrounding towns and cities find themselves.It also shows they actually care.But,many parents do not have the vision or education to get the youth where they want to go.Teachers do have that vision.In the 1960s,my stepfather,who was a disciple of Alabama Gov. George Wallace,ran for BoE in Old Lyme on a platform of book banning and segregation.Fortunately for us all,he lost.We need a BoE working in tandem with the districts teachers to produce self aware,functioning and educated people.We do not need a RTC going down the MAGA rabbit hole.Kudos to those speaking up about this.
April 9, 2023 by Thomas D Gotowka
Lymeline.com
Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme RTC Words on ‘Parental Rights’, Rev. Jungkeit are ‘Unfortunate’, ‘Somewhat Insulting’
To the Editor:
Despite the already robust conversation on the topic, I still feel compelled to provide my bit of input on the recent letters by Mses. Thompson and Schmaus, which detailed their concerns that the Old Lyme RTC [Republican Town Committee] appears to be endorsing a “DeSantis style” of parental rights in our schools “as part of their platform and criteria for selecting candidates to run in this year’s municipal election”; i.e., the RTC would be “standing up for parental rights in the town’s school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies”. Are the educators in Region 18 failing our children? I do not believe so.
Further, in a letter published in the “CT Examiner” at the end of March, the RTC Chairman responded aggressively, and somewhat insultingly, to a sermon delivered by the Reverend Steven R. Jungkeit at the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme, who had voiced his concerns with the endorsement, and laid out what he considered the potential longer-term sequelae of that action. The tone of the response raised my ire.
Reverend Jungkeit is a social justice advocate, and some may be uncomfortable with such advocacy. He and his fellow ministers and congregation have:
I also feel that questioning the language unfortunately used by the RTC is entirely appropriate. Why shouldn’t those of us who follow national politics react with concern over the apparent highlighting of a key part of what I think is Governor DeSantis’ dystopian agenda, which already includes: “The Parental Rights in Education Act”, commonly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which was passed and signed into law last year; and another bill just signed into law that apparently allows Floridians to carry concealed guns without a permit and without training.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Gotowka,
Old Lyme.
Lymeline.com
Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme RTC Words on ‘Parental Rights’, Rev. Jungkeit are ‘Unfortunate’, ‘Somewhat Insulting’
To the Editor:
Despite the already robust conversation on the topic, I still feel compelled to provide my bit of input on the recent letters by Mses. Thompson and Schmaus, which detailed their concerns that the Old Lyme RTC [Republican Town Committee] appears to be endorsing a “DeSantis style” of parental rights in our schools “as part of their platform and criteria for selecting candidates to run in this year’s municipal election”; i.e., the RTC would be “standing up for parental rights in the town’s school system regarding the school’s curricula and student policies”. Are the educators in Region 18 failing our children? I do not believe so.
Further, in a letter published in the “CT Examiner” at the end of March, the RTC Chairman responded aggressively, and somewhat insultingly, to a sermon delivered by the Reverend Steven R. Jungkeit at the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme, who had voiced his concerns with the endorsement, and laid out what he considered the potential longer-term sequelae of that action. The tone of the response raised my ire.
Reverend Jungkeit is a social justice advocate, and some may be uncomfortable with such advocacy. He and his fellow ministers and congregation have:
- provided physical sanctuary in 2018 for over 200 days to a Pakistani couple facing deportation;
- held a vigil and call to action with the Lyme-Old Lyme Partnership for Social Justice in May, 2022, which ended with the tolling of the bells to remember the then 32 victims of the most recent mass shootings in America;
- purchased a home in Old Lyme “to welcome refugees in perpetuity”, which included refugees from Syria, the Congo, and Puerto Rico (in the months following Hurricane Maria);
- assisted many refugees secure housing, jobs, and eventually, fulfill the legal requirements to remain in the United States.
I also feel that questioning the language unfortunately used by the RTC is entirely appropriate. Why shouldn’t those of us who follow national politics react with concern over the apparent highlighting of a key part of what I think is Governor DeSantis’ dystopian agenda, which already includes: “The Parental Rights in Education Act”, commonly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which was passed and signed into law last year; and another bill just signed into law that apparently allows Floridians to carry concealed guns without a permit and without training.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Gotowka,
Old Lyme.
Thomas D Gotowka April 3, 2023
Letter to the Editor: Negative Outcome of Old Lyme Zoning Commission’s Vote on Halls Rd. Overlay District Raises Many Questions
Lymeline.com
To The Editor:
I am writing as a follow-up to Mark Terwilliger’s Op Ed in LymeLine on the Zoning Commission’s vote against the Halls Road Overlay District proposal. Elizabeth Regan, who covers Old Lyme for the “New London Day”, also reviewed the action in an article published in that newspaper on March 29th.
Because the proposal had not been endorsed by our Town’s Planning Commission, approval required a supermajority of the Zoning Commission voting in favor (i.e., four of the five members in attendance); but the proposal only received three.
Unfortunately, two members of the Commission did not attend this important meeting; and Land Use Coordinator Eric Knapp reported that Mike Miller could not attend because of an injury; and Ms. Tammy Tinnerello was absent and could not vote because she had missed the past two meetings, and not reviewed the audio recordings, which are available via the Town’s website. Presumably, had she reviewed the recordings, she could have voted by calling in.
Alternate members Sloan Danenhower and Michael Barnes filled in for the two absent members and voted to oppose the proposed plan.
The “New London Day” reported that “Miller had previously expressed support for the overall concept, pending assurances that the language would be clarified to prevent a ‘Costco-sized building’ from going up on Halls Road”; and such restrictions seemed to have been proposed and passed at the meeting. I could find no guesses on how Ms. Tinnerello was expected to vote. Infrastructure issues were also raised, and I ask the Commission to allow the Town some input to determine whether they should be considered as “insurmountable”.
I am concerned that, after several years of very public effort by Ms. Twining’s “Halls Road Improvement Committee”, which involved regular and frequent updates, and Q&A opportunities for the community; the project was blocked by votes from two alternate members of the Zoning Commission. I am also concerned that the Commission is again out of synch with the Town in their actions (i.e., the Town provided Ms. Twining’s group with $135,000 to support design work.)
Further, these positions are elected, not appointed, and require serious commitment. I do not feel that missing three consecutive meetings reflects strong commitment.
Finally, the “New London Day” article also reported that horses and elephants came up in the discussion at the meeting. On her way to Oz, Dorothy only had to contend with lions and tigers and bears, but Ms. Twining. got trampled by an alternate who brought in horses and elephants.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Gotowka,
Old Lyme.
Letter to the Editor: Negative Outcome of Old Lyme Zoning Commission’s Vote on Halls Rd. Overlay District Raises Many Questions
Lymeline.com
To The Editor:
I am writing as a follow-up to Mark Terwilliger’s Op Ed in LymeLine on the Zoning Commission’s vote against the Halls Road Overlay District proposal. Elizabeth Regan, who covers Old Lyme for the “New London Day”, also reviewed the action in an article published in that newspaper on March 29th.
Because the proposal had not been endorsed by our Town’s Planning Commission, approval required a supermajority of the Zoning Commission voting in favor (i.e., four of the five members in attendance); but the proposal only received three.
Unfortunately, two members of the Commission did not attend this important meeting; and Land Use Coordinator Eric Knapp reported that Mike Miller could not attend because of an injury; and Ms. Tammy Tinnerello was absent and could not vote because she had missed the past two meetings, and not reviewed the audio recordings, which are available via the Town’s website. Presumably, had she reviewed the recordings, she could have voted by calling in.
Alternate members Sloan Danenhower and Michael Barnes filled in for the two absent members and voted to oppose the proposed plan.
The “New London Day” reported that “Miller had previously expressed support for the overall concept, pending assurances that the language would be clarified to prevent a ‘Costco-sized building’ from going up on Halls Road”; and such restrictions seemed to have been proposed and passed at the meeting. I could find no guesses on how Ms. Tinnerello was expected to vote. Infrastructure issues were also raised, and I ask the Commission to allow the Town some input to determine whether they should be considered as “insurmountable”.
I am concerned that, after several years of very public effort by Ms. Twining’s “Halls Road Improvement Committee”, which involved regular and frequent updates, and Q&A opportunities for the community; the project was blocked by votes from two alternate members of the Zoning Commission. I am also concerned that the Commission is again out of synch with the Town in their actions (i.e., the Town provided Ms. Twining’s group with $135,000 to support design work.)
Further, these positions are elected, not appointed, and require serious commitment. I do not feel that missing three consecutive meetings reflects strong commitment.
Finally, the “New London Day” article also reported that horses and elephants came up in the discussion at the meeting. On her way to Oz, Dorothy only had to contend with lions and tigers and bears, but Ms. Twining. got trampled by an alternate who brought in horses and elephants.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Gotowka,
Old Lyme.
Mark Terwilliger, March 31, 2023
Op-Ed: Old Lyme Zoning Commission’s Vote Against Halls Road Overlay District Proposal is Potentially a Vote “for Decay”
Lymeline.com 2 Comments
“We owe it to ourselves and to those who come after us to … meet the challenges of our own time. If we do not, we will have voted for decay“
On March 27, the Old Lyme Zoning Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the Halls Road Overlay District (HROD) proposal, with two alternate members casting the negative votes. Because the Planning Commission had previously given the proposal a “negative referral,” a vote of 4-1 was required for passage, and the measure failed.
The problems the HROD was designed to address still exist. We believe the proposal is a viable response to those challenges, and that its rejection was a set-back for Old Lyme.
The new overlay district would have created an alternative to the commercial-only C30-S zoning along Halls Road, while leaving that older zoning intact. The HROD was aimed at promoting the creation of a walkable, bike-able, mixed-use shopping street along Halls Road—a new town center for Old Lyme that took as its model Lyme Street in its centuries-long role as a living, mixed-use town center.
The HROD is a significant piece of zoning regulation. It takes some effort to understand how it works, and to comprehend the implications of its detailed requirements. Those of us who worked on it spent years talking with local residents, business owners, property owners, town officials, regional regulators, developers, and land use lawyers to create the document we presented to Planning and to Zoning. After hundreds of hours, we understood it well.
Planning took a few hours to consider it, and flatly refused to allow HRIC the opportunity to answer any of their questions. The Zoning Commission held two public hearings totaling a few hours, then held its final vote after two more hours of deliberation in which no new fact or evidence of any kind was allowed to be introduced, even by Commission members. From the comments in each body’s final deliberations, it is clear that several of the participants had only the vaguest understanding (and sometimes a total misunderstanding) of the document. This was not a reasonable way to arrive at a good decision on a measure of this importance to Old Lyme’s future.
HROD was an attempt to meet the changes now shaping our economy, and to secure our town’s main business district in that new environment. Failing to pass HROD does not make those changes go away. It just leaves us relying on 1950s approaches to 2030s conditions.
Without HROD, there will be no one to bid against those who see Halls Road as a truck stop. There have been three proposals for gas stations/convenience stores in the last couple of years, and no proposals to build anything else.
Without HROD, there will be no mixed-use, walkable town center where people can live, work, shop, and enjoy the sort of human contact the Internet can never provide.
Without HROD, smaller-scale housing—if it comes at all—will be spread over the few remaining open acres, dotted here and there, and we will lose the opportunity to create a vibrant, living, mixed-use neighborhood in the heart of our town.
Without HROD, our main shopping district will lose the support that a mixed-use neighborhood provides for retail—the pedestrian traffic and walk-in trade that makes such neighborhoods the one bright spot in retail investment.
Times are changing, as they always do. In the middle of the last century Old Lyme made radical zoning changes to meet the future they saw then. We owe it to ourselves and to those who come after us to do likewise and meet the challenges of our own time. If we do not, we will have voted for decay.
Filed Under: Community, Old Lyme, Town Hall
Reader InteractionsComments
Op-Ed: Old Lyme Zoning Commission’s Vote Against Halls Road Overlay District Proposal is Potentially a Vote “for Decay”
Lymeline.com 2 Comments
“We owe it to ourselves and to those who come after us to … meet the challenges of our own time. If we do not, we will have voted for decay“
On March 27, the Old Lyme Zoning Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the Halls Road Overlay District (HROD) proposal, with two alternate members casting the negative votes. Because the Planning Commission had previously given the proposal a “negative referral,” a vote of 4-1 was required for passage, and the measure failed.
The problems the HROD was designed to address still exist. We believe the proposal is a viable response to those challenges, and that its rejection was a set-back for Old Lyme.
The new overlay district would have created an alternative to the commercial-only C30-S zoning along Halls Road, while leaving that older zoning intact. The HROD was aimed at promoting the creation of a walkable, bike-able, mixed-use shopping street along Halls Road—a new town center for Old Lyme that took as its model Lyme Street in its centuries-long role as a living, mixed-use town center.
The HROD is a significant piece of zoning regulation. It takes some effort to understand how it works, and to comprehend the implications of its detailed requirements. Those of us who worked on it spent years talking with local residents, business owners, property owners, town officials, regional regulators, developers, and land use lawyers to create the document we presented to Planning and to Zoning. After hundreds of hours, we understood it well.
Planning took a few hours to consider it, and flatly refused to allow HRIC the opportunity to answer any of their questions. The Zoning Commission held two public hearings totaling a few hours, then held its final vote after two more hours of deliberation in which no new fact or evidence of any kind was allowed to be introduced, even by Commission members. From the comments in each body’s final deliberations, it is clear that several of the participants had only the vaguest understanding (and sometimes a total misunderstanding) of the document. This was not a reasonable way to arrive at a good decision on a measure of this importance to Old Lyme’s future.
HROD was an attempt to meet the changes now shaping our economy, and to secure our town’s main business district in that new environment. Failing to pass HROD does not make those changes go away. It just leaves us relying on 1950s approaches to 2030s conditions.
Without HROD, there will be no one to bid against those who see Halls Road as a truck stop. There have been three proposals for gas stations/convenience stores in the last couple of years, and no proposals to build anything else.
Without HROD, there will be no mixed-use, walkable town center where people can live, work, shop, and enjoy the sort of human contact the Internet can never provide.
Without HROD, smaller-scale housing—if it comes at all—will be spread over the few remaining open acres, dotted here and there, and we will lose the opportunity to create a vibrant, living, mixed-use neighborhood in the heart of our town.
Without HROD, our main shopping district will lose the support that a mixed-use neighborhood provides for retail—the pedestrian traffic and walk-in trade that makes such neighborhoods the one bright spot in retail investment.
Times are changing, as they always do. In the middle of the last century Old Lyme made radical zoning changes to meet the future they saw then. We owe it to ourselves and to those who come after us to do likewise and meet the challenges of our own time. If we do not, we will have voted for decay.
Filed Under: Community, Old Lyme, Town Hall
Reader InteractionsComments
- Howard Margules says
April 3, 2023 at 8:31 am
As a longtime member of the Hall Road Improvement Committee it certainly was a frustrating experience watching the overlay zoning application defeated by one vote in the Zoning Commission. It represented not only a significant loss of time and effort, but more importantly it represented a waste of taxpayer money, and a potential loss of future tax revenues the overlay district might have generated and a diminished chance to
influence the future development of Halls Road in a manner consistent with the wishes of most town residents.
But even more troubling was not having an opportunity to input to both Commissions during the most important phase of their deliberations. If given the opportunity, we could have addressed some of the last minute issues the Zoning Commissioners raised while answering questions that went unanswered or were answered incorrectly by themselves. Instead, we were only allowed to observe the Zoning Commission deliberations.
The Planning Commission did not even provide the HRIC with any opportunity to present and discuss the application. As an aside, in many municipalities Planning and Zoning are combined into one commission resulting in an integrated decision-making process while avoiding the dysfunction resulting from their separation. I am not sure a single commission would have changed the outcome, but given the synergy between planning and zoning issues, combining them makes sense.
Finally, we need to foster an environment where community and town leadership feel empowered to champion and shepherd issues without the typical political wrangling through the complicated town decision-making process. The decisions by Planning and Zoning were disappointing as well as very short-sighted. The residents of Old Lyme and the future of our town clearly deserved better!
Reply - Candace Fuchs says
April 4, 2023 at 10:25 am
Having served on the Economic Development Commission under Howard’s excellent leadership, I agree and would like to emphasize Howard’s closing point. Town leadership needs to lead: gaining consensus on Planning and Zoning and those commissioners need to dedicate themselves to educating themselves on the project so they are prepared to make informed votes.
Betsy Groth, March 26, 2023
Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme BOF to Consider $28K Budget Request for Weapons for OL Police, No Justification for Purchase Discussed
Lymeline.com
To The Editor:
The Old Lyme Board of Finance is expected to vote this Tuesday, March 28, on the Town’s capital budget, and money requested by the Town Police for weapons and ammunition. Initially budgeted for $32,500, this was modified by First Selectman Tim Griswold to $28,500.
The Old Lyme [OL] Board of Selectmen [BOS] has never taken a vote on approving or recommending this, and the discussion was tabled at their Feb. 24 meeting to seek input from Trooper Matt Weber to gain clarity on this topic. To my knowledge, this has not happened, and it is unclear if it is ever going to happen. The agenda for the [OL BOS] Special Meeting on Monday lists this only in generic terms, “[Discussion of …] Recommendations to the Board of Finance”.
The budget request includes purchase of military style assault rifles, weapons of mass destruction designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. All this raises concerns for the militarization of our constabulary /police.
We are a contracted State Trooper town, and expend thousands for their trained officers and their military assault rifles to support us. Also this unsupported request leaves the Town open to significant costs associated with updating these weapons and safely disposing of retired weapons.
We, the people of OL, have not received any comprehensive explanation of the reason for and benefits of using our tax dollars to purchase weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, many residents probably do not know this is even being considered. If these purchases are being justified as protective for our school children, there is zero evidence for this. Also, can anyone remember a time in recent history that police with assault weapons were able to stop a shooter with an assault weapon? My research says no — [see this article]“He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15
I would like to refer readers to the following LymeLine Op-Eds, as well as Letters to the Editor and reader comments, for background :Peter Ewart 6/1/22 and Tom Soboleski 5/27/ 2022 (Op-Eds)
Betsy Groth 6/17/22 and 7/26/22 and Charlotte Scot 9/22//22 (Letters)
Sincerely,
Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.
Letter to the Editor: Old Lyme BOF to Consider $28K Budget Request for Weapons for OL Police, No Justification for Purchase Discussed
Lymeline.com
To The Editor:
The Old Lyme Board of Finance is expected to vote this Tuesday, March 28, on the Town’s capital budget, and money requested by the Town Police for weapons and ammunition. Initially budgeted for $32,500, this was modified by First Selectman Tim Griswold to $28,500.
The Old Lyme [OL] Board of Selectmen [BOS] has never taken a vote on approving or recommending this, and the discussion was tabled at their Feb. 24 meeting to seek input from Trooper Matt Weber to gain clarity on this topic. To my knowledge, this has not happened, and it is unclear if it is ever going to happen. The agenda for the [OL BOS] Special Meeting on Monday lists this only in generic terms, “[Discussion of …] Recommendations to the Board of Finance”.
The budget request includes purchase of military style assault rifles, weapons of mass destruction designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. All this raises concerns for the militarization of our constabulary /police.
We are a contracted State Trooper town, and expend thousands for their trained officers and their military assault rifles to support us. Also this unsupported request leaves the Town open to significant costs associated with updating these weapons and safely disposing of retired weapons.
We, the people of OL, have not received any comprehensive explanation of the reason for and benefits of using our tax dollars to purchase weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, many residents probably do not know this is even being considered. If these purchases are being justified as protective for our school children, there is zero evidence for this. Also, can anyone remember a time in recent history that police with assault weapons were able to stop a shooter with an assault weapon? My research says no — [see this article]“He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15
I would like to refer readers to the following LymeLine Op-Eds, as well as Letters to the Editor and reader comments, for background :Peter Ewart 6/1/22 and Tom Soboleski 5/27/ 2022 (Op-Eds)
Betsy Groth 6/17/22 and 7/26/22 and Charlotte Scot 9/22//22 (Letters)
Sincerely,
Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.
ARCHIVES
**** MEDIA ALERT****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 28, 2022 For Information Contact: [email protected]
The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Friend Raiser Yields Generous Donation to Connecticut Foodshare
OLD LYME, CT --- The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) held its inaugural Corn Hole Friend Raiser for charity on August 27, 2022. The Old Lyme DTC selected Connecticut Foodshare to receive the proceeds from the well-attended event. Held on the lovely grounds of Katherine and Ben Thuma’s home, over 40 people joined members of the
Old Lyme DTC and candidates Martha Marx, 20th District Senate seat, and Colin Heffernan, 23rd House seat, for competition and fun. Eight teams battled for the Corn Hole trophy. The competition was fierce and ultimately the father-daughter team “It’s Not A Thuma” took home the coveted prize.
The Old Lyme DTC was pleased to be able to present a check in the amount of $1000 to Connecticut Foodshare.
“At this time of year especially, we are so grateful for all of our supporters around the state of Connecticut.” said Bev Catchpole, Chief Giving Officer at Connecticut Foodshare. https://www.ctfoodshare.org.
The Old Lyme DTC Chair, Mary Jo Nosal, noted, “It was such a good way to meet new neighbors and families. I am proud of the Old Lyme DTC for finding a creative and fun way to reach out to bring people in the community together while helping to address food insecurity in Connecticut.” She added, “The Old Lyme DTC welcomes everyone to learn more about the Old Lyme DTC at http://www.oldlymedtc.com. “
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 28, 2022 For Information Contact: [email protected]
The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Friend Raiser Yields Generous Donation to Connecticut Foodshare
OLD LYME, CT --- The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) held its inaugural Corn Hole Friend Raiser for charity on August 27, 2022. The Old Lyme DTC selected Connecticut Foodshare to receive the proceeds from the well-attended event. Held on the lovely grounds of Katherine and Ben Thuma’s home, over 40 people joined members of the
Old Lyme DTC and candidates Martha Marx, 20th District Senate seat, and Colin Heffernan, 23rd House seat, for competition and fun. Eight teams battled for the Corn Hole trophy. The competition was fierce and ultimately the father-daughter team “It’s Not A Thuma” took home the coveted prize.
The Old Lyme DTC was pleased to be able to present a check in the amount of $1000 to Connecticut Foodshare.
“At this time of year especially, we are so grateful for all of our supporters around the state of Connecticut.” said Bev Catchpole, Chief Giving Officer at Connecticut Foodshare. https://www.ctfoodshare.org.
The Old Lyme DTC Chair, Mary Jo Nosal, noted, “It was such a good way to meet new neighbors and families. I am proud of the Old Lyme DTC for finding a creative and fun way to reach out to bring people in the community together while helping to address food insecurity in Connecticut.” She added, “The Old Lyme DTC welcomes everyone to learn more about the Old Lyme DTC at http://www.oldlymedtc.com. “
###
https://www.theday.com/letters/20221004/voter-is-blue-over-signs/
Voter is blue over signs
October 04, 2022 2:39 pm
Nov. 8 is coming. Election signs are up. We are all busy, driving here or there, noticing signs as we rush by them. Just the name and the color on the sign, maybe. You know, Blue = Democrat, Red = Republican. Wait a minute! In my district, the incumbent Devin Carney, a Republican, plants blue signs everywhere - with his party never mentioned.
This year many of us have been paying attention to Carney’s voting record because this is an important election. Carney voted against many Connecticut laws I care about: Women’s health rights, bills addressing our climate problems, laws on gun safety. His views do not match mine, certainly do not represent them. Tell Devin Carney to play fair with the signs! It is untrue that he represents Blue!
June Davison
Old Lyme
Voter is blue over signs
October 04, 2022 2:39 pm
Nov. 8 is coming. Election signs are up. We are all busy, driving here or there, noticing signs as we rush by them. Just the name and the color on the sign, maybe. You know, Blue = Democrat, Red = Republican. Wait a minute! In my district, the incumbent Devin Carney, a Republican, plants blue signs everywhere - with his party never mentioned.
This year many of us have been paying attention to Carney’s voting record because this is an important election. Carney voted against many Connecticut laws I care about: Women’s health rights, bills addressing our climate problems, laws on gun safety. His views do not match mine, certainly do not represent them. Tell Devin Carney to play fair with the signs! It is untrue that he represents Blue!
June Davison
Old Lyme
**** MEDIA ALERT****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: For Information Contact: [email protected]
September 23, 2022
The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Votes to Support The
LOL Elementary School Facilities Referendum
OLD LYME, CT --- The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) supports the upcoming Regional School District 18 Referendum to upgrade the infrastructure and safety related needs of the elementary school facilities. This support was made at a special meeting of The Old Lyme DTC on Wednesday, September 14 held at the Lymes' Senior Center.
The Old Lyme DTC Chair, Mary Jo Nosal, stated today that, "The infrastructure improvements to our elementary schools have long been planned for. Town Officials in Old Lyme and Lyme have been made aware of the planned work for some time. It is prudent to have planned these safety upgrades when current debt is falling off. The decision to move forward was supported by a thorough facilities study and an independent evaluator found cost estimates to be "within scope." The educational excellence we have come to expect from Regional School District 18 is synonymous with the quality of life we enjoy in Old Lyme. I hope voters will support this referendum on November 8."
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: For Information Contact: [email protected]
September 23, 2022
The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Votes to Support The
LOL Elementary School Facilities Referendum
OLD LYME, CT --- The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) supports the upcoming Regional School District 18 Referendum to upgrade the infrastructure and safety related needs of the elementary school facilities. This support was made at a special meeting of The Old Lyme DTC on Wednesday, September 14 held at the Lymes' Senior Center.
The Old Lyme DTC Chair, Mary Jo Nosal, stated today that, "The infrastructure improvements to our elementary schools have long been planned for. Town Officials in Old Lyme and Lyme have been made aware of the planned work for some time. It is prudent to have planned these safety upgrades when current debt is falling off. The decision to move forward was supported by a thorough facilities study and an independent evaluator found cost estimates to be "within scope." The educational excellence we have come to expect from Regional School District 18 is synonymous with the quality of life we enjoy in Old Lyme. I hope voters will support this referendum on November 8."
###
Nancy Walsh explains why she feels it is time for Colin Heffernan to represent the 23rd District in Hartford
An Unwavering Proponent
BY NANCY WALSH • 09/07/2022 08:00 AM EST • 09/01/2022 04:55 PM EST
https://www.zip06.com/letters/20220907/an-unwavering-proponent/
This year's state elections are more important than ever.
The U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed an agenda that I believe threatens our freedoms here in Connecticut. The strongest protection we have is our Connecticut State Legislature, which can defend the progress we’ve made in our state by defending women’s rights, keeping assault weapons out of the wrong hands, and preserving our clean air and water.
That’s why I’m urging the people of Old Saybrook, Westbrook, Old Lyme, and Lyme to join me in voting for Colin Heffernan this November. He’s an unwavering proponent of reproductive freedom, sensible gun laws, and protecting our natural resources for generations to come.
Our current representative, Devin Carney, recently voted against the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act (H.B. 5414 Session Year 2022), which expands access to abortion and legally protects providers and patients in Connecticut from draconian forced-pregnancy laws in other states. He also voted against our latest “Red Flag Law” (H.B. No. 6355 Session Year 2021) which strengthened our Extreme Risk Protection Orders and keeps guns away from the most dangerous. Finally, voters should know he voted against the Connecticut Clean Air Act (S.B. No. 4 Session Year 2022) which will improve Connecticut’s air quality by adopting safer emissions standards, transitioning to electric buses, and promoting electric vehicle usage. Devin votes against our freedoms.
Colin Heffernan supports all three of these important bills. We deserve a representative who believes in reproductive freedom, common sense gun control and a clean, healthy environment. As a voter in the 23rd House District, I want my values represented by Colin Heffernan.
Nancy Walsh
Old Saybrook
An Unwavering Proponent
BY NANCY WALSH • 09/07/2022 08:00 AM EST • 09/01/2022 04:55 PM EST
https://www.zip06.com/letters/20220907/an-unwavering-proponent/
This year's state elections are more important than ever.
The U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed an agenda that I believe threatens our freedoms here in Connecticut. The strongest protection we have is our Connecticut State Legislature, which can defend the progress we’ve made in our state by defending women’s rights, keeping assault weapons out of the wrong hands, and preserving our clean air and water.
That’s why I’m urging the people of Old Saybrook, Westbrook, Old Lyme, and Lyme to join me in voting for Colin Heffernan this November. He’s an unwavering proponent of reproductive freedom, sensible gun laws, and protecting our natural resources for generations to come.
Our current representative, Devin Carney, recently voted against the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act (H.B. 5414 Session Year 2022), which expands access to abortion and legally protects providers and patients in Connecticut from draconian forced-pregnancy laws in other states. He also voted against our latest “Red Flag Law” (H.B. No. 6355 Session Year 2021) which strengthened our Extreme Risk Protection Orders and keeps guns away from the most dangerous. Finally, voters should know he voted against the Connecticut Clean Air Act (S.B. No. 4 Session Year 2022) which will improve Connecticut’s air quality by adopting safer emissions standards, transitioning to electric buses, and promoting electric vehicle usage. Devin votes against our freedoms.
Colin Heffernan supports all three of these important bills. We deserve a representative who believes in reproductive freedom, common sense gun control and a clean, healthy environment. As a voter in the 23rd House District, I want my values represented by Colin Heffernan.
Nancy Walsh
Old Saybrook
**** MEDIA ALERT****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: For Information Contact: [email protected]
August 8, 2022
The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Makes Endorsements
OLD LYME, CT --- The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) endorsed the following Democratic candidates
for State and Federal offices. The unanimous endorsements were made at the regular monthly meeting of The Old Lyme DTC on Wednesday, August 10.
The Old Lyme DTC applauds all who stepped up to lead and urges the community to get out and vote on November 8th
for the following endorsed candidates who reflect the best interests of the future of Old Lyme.
Governor - Ned Lamont
Lieutenant Governor – Susan Bysiewicz
Attorney General - William Tong
Treasurer – Erick Russell
Secretary Of The State – Stephanie Thomas
Comptroller – Sean Scanlon
U.S. Senator - Richard Blumenthal
U.S. Representative District 2 – Joe Courtney
State Senator 20th District – Martha Marx
State Representative 23rd District – J. Colin Heffernan
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: For Information Contact: [email protected]
August 8, 2022
The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee Makes Endorsements
OLD LYME, CT --- The Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) endorsed the following Democratic candidates
for State and Federal offices. The unanimous endorsements were made at the regular monthly meeting of The Old Lyme DTC on Wednesday, August 10.
The Old Lyme DTC applauds all who stepped up to lead and urges the community to get out and vote on November 8th
for the following endorsed candidates who reflect the best interests of the future of Old Lyme.
Governor - Ned Lamont
Lieutenant Governor – Susan Bysiewicz
Attorney General - William Tong
Treasurer – Erick Russell
Secretary Of The State – Stephanie Thomas
Comptroller – Sean Scanlon
U.S. Senator - Richard Blumenthal
U.S. Representative District 2 – Joe Courtney
State Senator 20th District – Martha Marx
State Representative 23rd District – J. Colin Heffernan
###
|
Heather Richardson discusses more differences between Democrats and Republicans.
There is no reason for the Senators who voted for the PACT bill, which supported our injured Veterans, in June to have voted against it in July. We must vote them out of office in November. VOTING IS OUR VOICE. |
Letter to the Editor: Armed Guards in Lyme-Old Lyme Schools — More Questions
Lymeline.com
July 23, 2022 by Betsy Groth
To the Editor:
Does anyone, parents or voters, know yet how much more in taxes they will be forced to pay for the salaries and insurance coverage of armed guards in Region 18 schools? Region 18, OUR schools.
If this is public knowledge, I cannot find anything.
Nor can I find any information on whether the armed guards will also be present during after-school activities, including sports practices or games. Perhaps I missed something? I would think the liability insurance will be very high, since these guards are employees of Region 18 and due to the real risk of the guards accidentally shooting a parent, teacher, visitor or God forbid, a student.
I, for one, am unwilling to pay taxes for such a dangerous and ineffective initiative. Data, not “feelings” or political beliefs inform my opinion.
Superintendent Ian Neviaser rushed this through, with the help of the Region 18 Board of Education (BOE), despite parent opposition. Of note, there are no armed guards in the community he resides in, and where his own children attended school.
Demand answers from him and the BOE, and our selectmen and woman, Tim Griswold, Matt Ward and Martha Shoemaker. All can be contacted via email at first initial, last name ( no space) @oldlyme-ct.gov.
Sincerely,
Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.
Pediatric Nurse Practitioner and child advocate
Member GAGV ( CT Against Gun Violence)
Retired faculty, Yale School of Nursing
Lymeline.com
July 23, 2022 by Betsy Groth
To the Editor:
Does anyone, parents or voters, know yet how much more in taxes they will be forced to pay for the salaries and insurance coverage of armed guards in Region 18 schools? Region 18, OUR schools.
If this is public knowledge, I cannot find anything.
Nor can I find any information on whether the armed guards will also be present during after-school activities, including sports practices or games. Perhaps I missed something? I would think the liability insurance will be very high, since these guards are employees of Region 18 and due to the real risk of the guards accidentally shooting a parent, teacher, visitor or God forbid, a student.
I, for one, am unwilling to pay taxes for such a dangerous and ineffective initiative. Data, not “feelings” or political beliefs inform my opinion.
Superintendent Ian Neviaser rushed this through, with the help of the Region 18 Board of Education (BOE), despite parent opposition. Of note, there are no armed guards in the community he resides in, and where his own children attended school.
Demand answers from him and the BOE, and our selectmen and woman, Tim Griswold, Matt Ward and Martha Shoemaker. All can be contacted via email at first initial, last name ( no space) @oldlyme-ct.gov.
Sincerely,
Betsy Groth,
Old Lyme.
Pediatric Nurse Practitioner and child advocate
Member GAGV ( CT Against Gun Violence)
Retired faculty, Yale School of Nursing
July 5, 2022
via email
Dear First Selectman Griswold, Selectman Ward, and Selectwoman Shoemaker,
In towns across the state of Connecticut both Democratic and Republican town committees marched, sometimes hand-in-hand: https://goodmorningwilton.com/wilton-democratic-and-republican-town-committees-to-march-together-in-memorial-day-parade/), in their respective Memorial Day parades. On Memorial Day, the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) did something that in most places would be seen as both apolitical and patriotic - they simply set up a tent alongside the parade route, on town property, and handed out American flags, snacks, and hot coffee. All were welcome to receive the free flags and hot coffee regardless of political affiliation, and no candidate or political issue was promoted by the organizers either orally or by signage. No fundraising was undertaken. No petitions were signed. Flags were handed out. Coffee was supplied. That is it.
As I am sure this Board knows, this action was not a first – last year, and even pre-pandemic, the DTC did the same thing with no one taking issue, and without a single word of protest. That’s because standing along the side of the parade route and handing out American flags is simply not political. Many would argue that it’s the kind of reaction the solemnity of the occasion demands.
I was surprised, therefore, to see that on today’s Board of Selectman meeting agenda, the First Selectman has decided to single out correspondence that is evidently directed at this now annual undertaking by the DTC. Of course, the Board can and should take all letters sent to them seriously, however, from my experience on the Board, I know that singling out correspondence on the agenda is at very least unusual and cannot be deemed as anything but an endorsement by the town of the views contained therein. Surely the Town of Old Lyme does not intend to openly and explicitly endorse a viewpoint critical of the exercise of the well-established First Amendment rights of Freedom of Assembly and Speech found in our Constitution. Surely the town is not going to affirmatively take the facially unconstitutional position that the Republican convention – an explicitly political event – can be held on Town Hall property, but the Democratic Town Committee should not take the apolitical action of providing flags and coffee outside.
The DTC has never received any correspondence critical of their activities on Memorial Day, but I offer this letter as counterpoint to the item as stated on the agenda. And as I am sure that the Board has not intended to quell the First Amendment free speech rights of the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee by endorsing one view publicly and omitting the counterargument, I trust this too will be officially read into the record.
Respectfully,
Mary Jo Nosal
Chair, The Town Of Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee
Former Selectwoman, Town of Old Lyme 2011-2021
via email
Dear First Selectman Griswold, Selectman Ward, and Selectwoman Shoemaker,
In towns across the state of Connecticut both Democratic and Republican town committees marched, sometimes hand-in-hand: https://goodmorningwilton.com/wilton-democratic-and-republican-town-committees-to-march-together-in-memorial-day-parade/), in their respective Memorial Day parades. On Memorial Day, the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) did something that in most places would be seen as both apolitical and patriotic - they simply set up a tent alongside the parade route, on town property, and handed out American flags, snacks, and hot coffee. All were welcome to receive the free flags and hot coffee regardless of political affiliation, and no candidate or political issue was promoted by the organizers either orally or by signage. No fundraising was undertaken. No petitions were signed. Flags were handed out. Coffee was supplied. That is it.
As I am sure this Board knows, this action was not a first – last year, and even pre-pandemic, the DTC did the same thing with no one taking issue, and without a single word of protest. That’s because standing along the side of the parade route and handing out American flags is simply not political. Many would argue that it’s the kind of reaction the solemnity of the occasion demands.
I was surprised, therefore, to see that on today’s Board of Selectman meeting agenda, the First Selectman has decided to single out correspondence that is evidently directed at this now annual undertaking by the DTC. Of course, the Board can and should take all letters sent to them seriously, however, from my experience on the Board, I know that singling out correspondence on the agenda is at very least unusual and cannot be deemed as anything but an endorsement by the town of the views contained therein. Surely the Town of Old Lyme does not intend to openly and explicitly endorse a viewpoint critical of the exercise of the well-established First Amendment rights of Freedom of Assembly and Speech found in our Constitution. Surely the town is not going to affirmatively take the facially unconstitutional position that the Republican convention – an explicitly political event – can be held on Town Hall property, but the Democratic Town Committee should not take the apolitical action of providing flags and coffee outside.
The DTC has never received any correspondence critical of their activities on Memorial Day, but I offer this letter as counterpoint to the item as stated on the agenda. And as I am sure that the Board has not intended to quell the First Amendment free speech rights of the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee by endorsing one view publicly and omitting the counterargument, I trust this too will be officially read into the record.
Respectfully,
Mary Jo Nosal
Chair, The Town Of Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee
Former Selectwoman, Town of Old Lyme 2011-2021
From The Town of Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee, Chair
What an emotional week! We had the high from seeing the stalemate on safe gun legislation crack open in Washington, to extreme lows due to recent Supreme Court decisions. Locally, we experienced our Regional School District 18 Board of Education behave in the most undemocratic matter imaginable. What can we do in response?
First, we must VOTE. Voting is our right, privilege, and our duty. We must commit to prioritize voting. Every election and every vote does matter. Alarmingly, there are those who analyze voter turn-out, from local referendums to national elections, and use this data to reduce voter turn-out. Seems undemocratic, doesn’t it?
Next, obtain credible information on issues you are concerned about. Call a friend, attend public meetings, or join a caucus that focus’ on issues of concern, e.g., Voting Rights, Veteran Issues, LGBTQ Rights, or Women’s Rights. I believe that participating in postcard writing campaigns are amazingly powerful ways to channel energy towards supporting candidates and issues that matter to me, personally.
Use your voice to fill up the voicemail and email of officials with positive feedback and constructive criticism. It is an immediate way to convey your concerns and these communications are tallied. Set a weekly reminder to send an email and/or voicemail to officials. Provide our local Superintendent of Schools, elected members of the Board of Education, and Board of Selectmen direct feedback on issues, policies, or their decisions. Ask that they respond to you and read your comments into the public meetings.
Finally, candidates that share our values do need our time, talent, and financial support to get their messages out. We must stay laser focused on the election in four months.
Over these past days it is glaringly clear that we cannot assume that our elected or appointed officials will lead with the will of the people in mind. We can use our energy and collective strength to support those who do and will.
Remember in November,
Mary Jo Nosal
Chair-Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee
What an emotional week! We had the high from seeing the stalemate on safe gun legislation crack open in Washington, to extreme lows due to recent Supreme Court decisions. Locally, we experienced our Regional School District 18 Board of Education behave in the most undemocratic matter imaginable. What can we do in response?
First, we must VOTE. Voting is our right, privilege, and our duty. We must commit to prioritize voting. Every election and every vote does matter. Alarmingly, there are those who analyze voter turn-out, from local referendums to national elections, and use this data to reduce voter turn-out. Seems undemocratic, doesn’t it?
Next, obtain credible information on issues you are concerned about. Call a friend, attend public meetings, or join a caucus that focus’ on issues of concern, e.g., Voting Rights, Veteran Issues, LGBTQ Rights, or Women’s Rights. I believe that participating in postcard writing campaigns are amazingly powerful ways to channel energy towards supporting candidates and issues that matter to me, personally.
Use your voice to fill up the voicemail and email of officials with positive feedback and constructive criticism. It is an immediate way to convey your concerns and these communications are tallied. Set a weekly reminder to send an email and/or voicemail to officials. Provide our local Superintendent of Schools, elected members of the Board of Education, and Board of Selectmen direct feedback on issues, policies, or their decisions. Ask that they respond to you and read your comments into the public meetings.
Finally, candidates that share our values do need our time, talent, and financial support to get their messages out. We must stay laser focused on the election in four months.
Over these past days it is glaringly clear that we cannot assume that our elected or appointed officials will lead with the will of the people in mind. We can use our energy and collective strength to support those who do and will.
Remember in November,
Mary Jo Nosal
Chair-Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee
Letter to the Editor: Armed Security Guards in Lyme-Old Lyme Schools are Not the Solution to Gun Violence
June 17, 2022 by Betsy Groth
To the Editor:
This past Wednesday, the Board of Education voted 7-2 to place armed guards at District 18 schools. Though many board members expressed reservations, including to NBC News, it passed. I am submitting this letter as a child advocate and as a pediatric nurse practitioner with certification and expertise in pediatric mental health. I am a parent and a community member. I have many friends and family in the teaching profession. I make my decisions based on data, not emotions. At the same time, it is impossible not to be emotional about children blown to unrecognizable bits. As a former pediatric critical care nurse, I have taken care of young gun violence victims, but have not been forced to bear witness to a massacre, as first responders have been.
I think after the tragic massacre in Uvalde, our immediate reaction is “do something, anything.” That something should not be armed guards at school. There is zero evidence that armed guards make schools safer, and plenty of evidence that they do NOT. The recent mass murderer in Buffalo was not deterred by an armed guard. This is anecdotal, but typical.
Placing armed guards in District 18 schools would be expensive and in no way is a solution to mass murders in school or elsewhere, and it would be a daily reminder to children that they are not safe. No one will be safe anywhere until gun laws are passed to ban assault weapons, enforce waiting periods and background checks. Further, teenagers do not have developed frontal cortexes. This is the part of the brain responsible for judgement. They cannot control their impulses. They have no business owning lethal weapons. Parents, teachers and school administrators who really want to protect children should relentlessly advocate for these changes. Armed school guards are not even a bandaid, much less a solution. My letter with this information as well as links to studies was submitted to the BOE before Wednesday’s meeting. It was not even mentioned in the discussion that night.
Sincerely,
Betsy Groth,
APRN (active); Faculty Yale School of Nursing (Retired); Member, CT Against Gun Violence,
Old Lyme.
Comments
June 17, 2022 by Betsy Groth
To the Editor:
This past Wednesday, the Board of Education voted 7-2 to place armed guards at District 18 schools. Though many board members expressed reservations, including to NBC News, it passed. I am submitting this letter as a child advocate and as a pediatric nurse practitioner with certification and expertise in pediatric mental health. I am a parent and a community member. I have many friends and family in the teaching profession. I make my decisions based on data, not emotions. At the same time, it is impossible not to be emotional about children blown to unrecognizable bits. As a former pediatric critical care nurse, I have taken care of young gun violence victims, but have not been forced to bear witness to a massacre, as first responders have been.
I think after the tragic massacre in Uvalde, our immediate reaction is “do something, anything.” That something should not be armed guards at school. There is zero evidence that armed guards make schools safer, and plenty of evidence that they do NOT. The recent mass murderer in Buffalo was not deterred by an armed guard. This is anecdotal, but typical.
Placing armed guards in District 18 schools would be expensive and in no way is a solution to mass murders in school or elsewhere, and it would be a daily reminder to children that they are not safe. No one will be safe anywhere until gun laws are passed to ban assault weapons, enforce waiting periods and background checks. Further, teenagers do not have developed frontal cortexes. This is the part of the brain responsible for judgement. They cannot control their impulses. They have no business owning lethal weapons. Parents, teachers and school administrators who really want to protect children should relentlessly advocate for these changes. Armed school guards are not even a bandaid, much less a solution. My letter with this information as well as links to studies was submitted to the BOE before Wednesday’s meeting. It was not even mentioned in the discussion that night.
Sincerely,
Betsy Groth,
APRN (active); Faculty Yale School of Nursing (Retired); Member, CT Against Gun Violence,
Old Lyme.
Comments
- Steven Wilson says
June 17, 2022 at 11:48 pmThis is Steven Wilson, Chairman of the Region 18 Board of Ed. Due to the FOIA (Freefom Of Infirmation Act), I cannot discuss points made in this letter outside an official board meeting but I would like to clarify two points of order.
1. Wednesday’s meeting was a Special Meeting and therefore, no email (or other correspondences) were mentioned in the meeting as they would have been during a Regular Board Meeting.
2. There is no record of an email from Ms. Groth in my inbox so I’d ask that it be resent or that Ms. Groth comment to whom it was sent so we can ascertain what went wrong. Correspondence and in person comment are high priorities for this Board.- Betsy Groth says
June 18, 2022 at 6:51 pmI prepared the email very early in the morning before the BOE meeting, before I left for work. That I was not aware of this until then is proof that it was rushed through and not well thought out.
I sent it to a BOE member asking it to be shared. Receipt was acknowledged. Obviously it was not share.
I have spoken to several parents who attended this meeting and feel strongly they were not heard.
I work long hours as a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner , so was unable to attend. I would have definitely tried to re arrange my schedule if I had known.
The “ poll” that was sent out to parents by the superintendent, as reported to me, certainly would not have passed any test of accuracy or precision.
I repeat my offer to present data to any group requesting it.
Betsy Groth
Reply - Charlotte Scot says
June 21, 2022 at 4:51 pmI am very opposed to the BOE’s decision and I hope the Board will rescind it and schedule another meeting to answer the following questions:
What research did you find that showed guns provide the best security for our young people? (Anyone who saw video reports of the tragedy in Uvalde learned that 19 armed police officers did not save children. My own research shows that arming security DOES NOT protect students.)
What is the proposed cost for this venture?
How will the board determine the type of weapon to be purchased?
Will there be a procedure for getting bids on weapons?
Will the guards be trained with these specific weapons?
Will they be forced to re-qualify every six(?) months?
How long will the number of officers be increased to 5? Is there a limit to the number of security personnel hired? How was that number derived at?
What the police play additional roles?
Has anyone polled students and teachers about their preferences for guns on campus?
Have the FOIA questions been answered?
This issue does not just affect our schools, it has an impact on the entire community.
- Betsy Groth says
- Danielle Kuczkowski says
June 18, 2022 at 9:19 pmIt is very upsetting that this measure was passed in such a rushed way. A letter from the Superintendent was sent out on June 3rd about this policy proposal and it was voted through on 6/15 despite overwhelming lack of public support at the BOE meeting and mixed support from the “thought exchange online “tool”. In fact, the main consensus from the thought exchange poll was that a more thorough investigation should be made into what measures should be taken in the face of gun violence. Instead, guns were voted into schools, inviting greater potential for injury and sending the very wrong message to our children that violence comes from the “other” and can only be stopped with guns. - Olaf Bertram-Nothnagel says
June 19, 2022 at 5:22 pmHi!
Point of order: Enacting this policy at a special meeting twelve days after the email announcing its proposal, with no opportunity for regular meeting or public correspondence seems insufficient.
All but two of the many public comments Wednesday night opposed approval unless it was evidence-based and until we could hear from relevant experts and school counselors. These comments were not really responded to either, beyond denying the board was being “knee-jerk”. No research was cited in a meaningful way, other than a passing reference to unspecified study by a member, and saying they’d given it “a lot of consideration”. It may not be knee-jerk, but to the extent there was public notice or discussion of points raised it isn’t any better. It leaves little voice or choice beyond dis-enrollment to folks uncomfortable with guns in their kids’ school. I’m ashamed to even suggest how much that might make this steamrolling a happy pileup of dovetailing political goals for some!
In the summary Wednesday of the supposedly supportive (but mostly fig leaf) online forum, no mention was made that among the top one hundred rated comments submitted online, there was not a single one in favor of approval.
Before casting one of the two opposing votes at the meeting Shoemaker made the point: compare this process to the amount of deliberation and research the board did in determining how it would tackle Covid.
A quick thought experiment: Imagine two schools: one with armed guards and active shooter drills, and one without guns in school, without students doing shooter drills? Which one would you think more likely to produce a shooter?
(Not that all responsibility is with the schools, of course!
Of course in the event of an accidental shooting, much responsibility will lie with those members of the Board who voted to enact this policy over the objections of parents.)
I paste below my compressed for the three minute cutoff public comments that evening (misquoted in the CT Examiner):
“Hi and thank you all for your work. I am a friend of the Second Amendment. I believe in the right to self defense, and that we must protect the innocent from harm. However, I think that arming our fine security staff would be a grave mistake, no matter their training.
Our district response to the threat of a school shooting should not be based on our feelings, or on the protective psychology we all share, or on anecdotes, or our intuition. It must be based on the relevant science and on the psychology of potential perpetrators.
The most comprehensive study I was able to find, which was also cited in the online survey, showed a dramatic increase in fatalities for school shootings where there was an armed guard. The deaths almost triple with an armed guard.
Some suggest that arming guards will act as a deterrent. That might be true for a sensible person with a healthy will to live, but that is not who commits school shootings. Most often school shooters are deeply disturbed and suicidal students. The threat of death or bodily harm DOES NOT deter a suicidal attacker. It does the opposite.
What do the armed guards accomplish then? They may lower response time, but if it comes to response time, really, it’s already too late. Prevention, not reaction, must be our watchword. There is very well documented and ample evidence that the presence of weapons increases aggression. The weapons effect it’s called.
No matter how staff conceal their guns, every single student on campus above the age of six will doubtless know about them by the end of the first week. Many even well adjusted boys will begin gaming out cat and mouse schemes to outsmart and supplant such authority figures. We don’t want to go down this road!
No matter our good intentions, and that this policy might be enacted for their protection, our students will understand that these guns and the bullets in them, could be for one of them. What does this do to how school feels to them? How do the disaffected respond?
Our security staff will know very well that the first bullet in any premeditated school shooting will be in the back of their head. What does this do to their relations with students? Arming them not only puts an itchy target on their backs, and introduces guns into the school, it completely undermines the trust and camaraderie a truly healthy school environment depends on.
How much arming guards traumatizes and incites kids, undermines a supportive school environment, and increases the chances of a shooting and its potential body count should be at the core of deciding whether to do so. Arming guards must be done with the informed and thoroughly thought through—not knee jerk—approval of the school community. I don’t believe that’s what is happening here, despite what I’m certain are the best of intentions in a climate of great urgency.
The science speaks against arming guards. Developmental psychology and the psychology of violence also speaks against it. And there has not been sufficient community consideration of the consequences. I understand wanting to do something and wanting security, but arming security staff will hurt rather than help. I therefore ask you please do NOT do this.
I’d also suggest for similar reasons that you reconsider the practice of involving students in active shooter drills, which I suspect only ups the chances of a shooting, but that’s a discussion for another day. Thank you for your consideration.” - Charlotte Scot says
June 20, 2022 at 10:33 amAs a non-parent I have no problem helping to fund the education of young people in our community.
However, I have a tremendous objection to funding guns in our schools.
Research: Armed campus police do not prevent school shooting https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/26/ted-cruz/research-armed-campus-police-do-not-prevent-school/?fbclid=IwAR0QcXY0-GNnMYqF3r9dYEIvlXtuv8Yco_v0W0EKY-V0yEw3djg_SnCC2ZI
Our Superintendent needs to provide copies of all his research which identifies the need to buy guns while not improving security in the schools. I am sure that the people who have pushed for weaponizing our schools have good intentions but, I don’t think a ruling should have been approved without a complete presentation of facts. Once facts are presented and, if parents still feel our schools are not safe, they need to hire people to protect their kids, not charge taxpayers. Arming security personnel is a unnecessary and costly slippery slope. Who will decide how the security personnel will be armed? Will there be a bidding process for weapons? Should guards be given Assault rifles and who will decide what kind of arms will be purchased?.. Will personnel also need bullet proof vests? Next year will the parents want ten armed guards or guards in every class room?
Promoting an armed environment incorrectly teaches children that guns solve problems. It also gives kids a false sense of security. (School likely will be the only place where they are protected by guns, unless we want guns at the library, and grocery store, and local restaurants, or on our neighborhood streets). This is not just a school issue. This is a community issue. Let’s take more time to make this decision and not rush to subsidize gun manufacturers. - Roger and Mary Jo Nosal says
June 20, 2022 at 1:14 pm Chairman Steve, Under The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), correspondence is most certainly allowed in a special public meeting if correspondence is noted on the agenda. We would also argue that correspondence is public comment when it is addressed to the Superintendent and The Board of Education (BOE). The BOE leadership should have and could have included correspondence on the agenda of this special public meeting, especially, if as you say, “Correspondence and in person comment are high priorities for this Board.” Like Betsy Groth, our letter to the Superintendent and BOE was not addressed in this public meeting. - Jim Ward says June 21, 2022 at 7:37 pm I have been involved in education for over 40 years serving as a board member and board chair, a teacher now finishing my career as a technology coordinator. Next year will be the first time I will vote against an education budget. I can not and will not support Region 18’s recent decision to arm security guards.
Superintendent Neviaser says this was not a knee-jerk reaction to the Texas shooting? It was only a couple of weeks ago we hear Region 18 is considering arming security guards, then at a recent Special Board meeting, they vote to arm security personnel while many residents and parents were saying please slow down. Show us the evidence.
I want to thank Martha Shoemaker and Anna James for voting against this proposal.
More guns are not the solution! - Jonathan B. Wilder says
June 21, 2022 at 9:11 pm Once again, we have collectively decided that guns are the solution to the gun problem. I would like to know how the people carrying these guns are chosen and who they are. Just because they may be ex-military does not mean they are wonderful. What kind of guns will they be carrying? Police at Uvalde backed off due to feeling outgunned by the shooter. Can we be assured that the security guards in our school system will charge in to neutralize any shooter or shooters?
All of this is a bandaid approach by school systems across the country because nationally, second amendment enthusiasts and gun worshippers will not allow us to collectively solve the problem. We are all hostage to “their” cultural proclivities. Really sad. Very very sad.
Old Lyme Democrats <[email protected]>Fri, Jun 10, 12:26 PM
to neviaseri, deanfrazierl, jamesa, kempj, millerj, powellstlouism, shoemakerm, staabc, thompsons, wilsons
June 10, 2022
Dear Superintendent Neviaser, and members of Region 18 Board Of Education,
The Town Of Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee (DTC) understands that the Region 18 Board of Education (BOE) is currently considering a proposal to arm the security guards in our schools and that public comments are being solicited. We also understand that the proposal will be addressed at a BOE meeting to be held on June 15. The DTC fully appreciates the importance and urgency of this issue and the reasons why arming the security guards may seem to be a good idea. However, we are also concerned that doing so might have adverse consequences. Our children’s safety is paramount. We therefore strongly urge the BOE not to decide this issue precipitously but only after careful consideration of the existing research on the subject and the opinions of knowledgeable experts, regarding both the physical safety and emotional impacts this action may entail.
Sincerely,
The Town of Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee
http://www.oldlymedtc.com
Letter in support of HVAC upgrades, Air Conditioning, and creating more space in Elementary schools by Kimberly Thompson
To: The Region 18 Board of Education and Mr. Neviaser,
I attended the Board of Education meeting on May 4th and found myself very confused by some of the discussion happening around the school renovation. As members of the Board of Education you were elected to make decisions on the behalf of the district that are in the best interests of the students the schools serve, you are empowered to be the decision makers. Members of the board reported that they toured the elementary schools and students are learning in the hallways, teachers are on mobile carts because they do not have classrooms, and teacher prep space is in a closet. Suzanne Thompson reminded you all that families move to our town because of the high quality of the schools and seeing learning in hallways and teachers on carts does not align with that vision. The residents of Lyme and Old Lyme expect you to be good stewards to maintain the high quality of education that increases the value of all our properties; Students learning in hallways, conference rooms, or temporary spaces doesn’t seem to fit the definition of “high quality”.
Earlier this year you were presented with half a dozen options to fix the HVAC systems and solve overcrowding to maintain the low class sizes that are attracting tax payers to Lyme and Old Lyme, The Board decided to move forward with the option to renovate Mile Creek, while this is not the option that I would have personally preferred, it is disheartening to see the board continue to see evidence that more space is needed and then to continue to question whether more space is actually needed.
I think it would be helpful to see a master plan for the district, it seems that renovation projects seem to pop up on relatively short notice and don’t necessarily consider all long-term plans for the district. For example, the Pre-School was expanded 3 years ago, I recognize that there was unexpected growth in the population due to the pandemic after that expansion, it was short sighted not to use that renovation as an opportunity to build a robust early childhood learning center with PK3-K at Center School. Other districts are now offering universal PreK starting with 3-year-olds, is that part of Region 18’s vision? Are we going to get 2-3 years down the road and be looking at needing more classrooms for PK3? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but it seems that they might inform some decision making around this construction project.
I drive by the schools and see old window AC units hanging out the windows, clearly in use. My daughter comes home in May, June, August, and September complaining about it being hot in her classroom. I have also visited in the winter and found some classrooms to be freezing and others extremely warm because the current heating system is not working correctly. Window AC units are extremely inefficient, and a “high quality” school also means providing a “high quality” environment for learning.
As several members of the Board pointed out, AC is not just about comfort, even when buildings are not occupied, AC can be important in controlling indoor allergens. Anyone who has sought medical help from an Allergist will tell you that the first things they will advise new patients to do to control indoor allergies are to 1. Replace your carpets and 2. Install air conditioning. Apparently, at Mile Creek the hot water/heat gets circulated through the library in the summer to decrease the humidity and prevent mold/mildew growth, that is a complete waste of energy, and I can’t imagine it makes for a very comfortable environment if anyone (custodial staff or the librarian) needs to use the space. COVID has also taught us that frequent exchange of air and the use of HEPA filtration can be important components of maintaining a healthy environment and decreasing the spread of disease.
Sadly, the tragedy in Uvalde, TX, has also taught us that maintaining a comfortable indoor environment can be a component of security as well, it seems that a propped open door that did not close properly played a part in the shooter accessing the school. While the reason the door was propped open hasn’t been published, I’ve frequently heard about windows and doors in our schools and many other older school buildings being opened to increase air circulation. If HVAC systems are working properly, it would mean that there would be fewer reasons for exterior windows and doors to be opened.
Please do not cut the air conditioning component of this building project, it is vital to the health and safety of our students and teachers and important for maintaining the buildings and the school assets they house. I ask you to please consider putting expanding center school back on the table as a potential solution to reduce crowding in the schools and/or to prioritize building plans that will further enhance the learning experiences of our students by maintaining small class sizes and making sure students have an appropriate environment for all the educational services they receive. If there is a 5-year or 10-year master plan, I would like to see that maintained somewhere it is easy for the public to access so we can have perspective on how these building proposals fit into larger plans for the district. If there is not a master plan, I would like to see one developed.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Kim Thompson
Old Lyme Resident
Parent to Students in the Class of 2033 and 2039
To: The Region 18 Board of Education and Mr. Neviaser,
I attended the Board of Education meeting on May 4th and found myself very confused by some of the discussion happening around the school renovation. As members of the Board of Education you were elected to make decisions on the behalf of the district that are in the best interests of the students the schools serve, you are empowered to be the decision makers. Members of the board reported that they toured the elementary schools and students are learning in the hallways, teachers are on mobile carts because they do not have classrooms, and teacher prep space is in a closet. Suzanne Thompson reminded you all that families move to our town because of the high quality of the schools and seeing learning in hallways and teachers on carts does not align with that vision. The residents of Lyme and Old Lyme expect you to be good stewards to maintain the high quality of education that increases the value of all our properties; Students learning in hallways, conference rooms, or temporary spaces doesn’t seem to fit the definition of “high quality”.
Earlier this year you were presented with half a dozen options to fix the HVAC systems and solve overcrowding to maintain the low class sizes that are attracting tax payers to Lyme and Old Lyme, The Board decided to move forward with the option to renovate Mile Creek, while this is not the option that I would have personally preferred, it is disheartening to see the board continue to see evidence that more space is needed and then to continue to question whether more space is actually needed.
I think it would be helpful to see a master plan for the district, it seems that renovation projects seem to pop up on relatively short notice and don’t necessarily consider all long-term plans for the district. For example, the Pre-School was expanded 3 years ago, I recognize that there was unexpected growth in the population due to the pandemic after that expansion, it was short sighted not to use that renovation as an opportunity to build a robust early childhood learning center with PK3-K at Center School. Other districts are now offering universal PreK starting with 3-year-olds, is that part of Region 18’s vision? Are we going to get 2-3 years down the road and be looking at needing more classrooms for PK3? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but it seems that they might inform some decision making around this construction project.
I drive by the schools and see old window AC units hanging out the windows, clearly in use. My daughter comes home in May, June, August, and September complaining about it being hot in her classroom. I have also visited in the winter and found some classrooms to be freezing and others extremely warm because the current heating system is not working correctly. Window AC units are extremely inefficient, and a “high quality” school also means providing a “high quality” environment for learning.
As several members of the Board pointed out, AC is not just about comfort, even when buildings are not occupied, AC can be important in controlling indoor allergens. Anyone who has sought medical help from an Allergist will tell you that the first things they will advise new patients to do to control indoor allergies are to 1. Replace your carpets and 2. Install air conditioning. Apparently, at Mile Creek the hot water/heat gets circulated through the library in the summer to decrease the humidity and prevent mold/mildew growth, that is a complete waste of energy, and I can’t imagine it makes for a very comfortable environment if anyone (custodial staff or the librarian) needs to use the space. COVID has also taught us that frequent exchange of air and the use of HEPA filtration can be important components of maintaining a healthy environment and decreasing the spread of disease.
Sadly, the tragedy in Uvalde, TX, has also taught us that maintaining a comfortable indoor environment can be a component of security as well, it seems that a propped open door that did not close properly played a part in the shooter accessing the school. While the reason the door was propped open hasn’t been published, I’ve frequently heard about windows and doors in our schools and many other older school buildings being opened to increase air circulation. If HVAC systems are working properly, it would mean that there would be fewer reasons for exterior windows and doors to be opened.
Please do not cut the air conditioning component of this building project, it is vital to the health and safety of our students and teachers and important for maintaining the buildings and the school assets they house. I ask you to please consider putting expanding center school back on the table as a potential solution to reduce crowding in the schools and/or to prioritize building plans that will further enhance the learning experiences of our students by maintaining small class sizes and making sure students have an appropriate environment for all the educational services they receive. If there is a 5-year or 10-year master plan, I would like to see that maintained somewhere it is easy for the public to access so we can have perspective on how these building proposals fit into larger plans for the district. If there is not a master plan, I would like to see one developed.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Kim Thompson
Old Lyme Resident
Parent to Students in the Class of 2033 and 2039
Statement on Uvalde by Colin Heffernan, Democratic nominated candidate for the 23rd House District.
As the news of yet another shooting came out of Uvalde, on the heels of the shooting in Buffalo, I’m reminded of how little progress we’ve made since Sandy Hook. We still have craven politicians blaming everything but guns for the massacres that steal our children and threaten our lives in every corner of public space. We still have talking heads fantasizing that a “good guy with a gun” can stop monsters, even when we just saw that they can’t. I’d like to say “enough” but that won’t do. It will never be “enough” until we demand that lawmakers denounce the culture of death that values an AR15 over a child. It’s far too easy to get a weapon of mass carnage in this country, and no amount of bad faith whataboutism will change that fact.
Oh, and here’s the thing: I’m a gun owner. I bought a shotgun while I was living in post Katrina New Orleans where there were precious few police and the National Guard was patrolling the street under a state of emergency. It was a scary time and I know first-hand that there are legitimate reasons to purchase and keep a gun.
But what we have now is madness. When a kid can go and buy two assault rifles for his eighteenth birthday and then murder nineteen children a week later, the issue could not be starker. It is far too easy to obtain assault weapons and the results are horrific. We passed good laws in Connecticut after Sandy Hook, but rifles and madmen don’t respect state lines and the easy access to assault weapons in the USA threatens all of us and all of our children.
Let’s get to “enough” and demand that every one of our lawmakers commit to using every tool at their disposal to enact nationwide comprehensive gun reform. If they refuse to do that, they shouldn’t represent us…..because they never will.
Colin Heffernan
As the news of yet another shooting came out of Uvalde, on the heels of the shooting in Buffalo, I’m reminded of how little progress we’ve made since Sandy Hook. We still have craven politicians blaming everything but guns for the massacres that steal our children and threaten our lives in every corner of public space. We still have talking heads fantasizing that a “good guy with a gun” can stop monsters, even when we just saw that they can’t. I’d like to say “enough” but that won’t do. It will never be “enough” until we demand that lawmakers denounce the culture of death that values an AR15 over a child. It’s far too easy to get a weapon of mass carnage in this country, and no amount of bad faith whataboutism will change that fact.
Oh, and here’s the thing: I’m a gun owner. I bought a shotgun while I was living in post Katrina New Orleans where there were precious few police and the National Guard was patrolling the street under a state of emergency. It was a scary time and I know first-hand that there are legitimate reasons to purchase and keep a gun.
But what we have now is madness. When a kid can go and buy two assault rifles for his eighteenth birthday and then murder nineteen children a week later, the issue could not be starker. It is far too easy to obtain assault weapons and the results are horrific. We passed good laws in Connecticut after Sandy Hook, but rifles and madmen don’t respect state lines and the easy access to assault weapons in the USA threatens all of us and all of our children.
Let’s get to “enough” and demand that every one of our lawmakers commit to using every tool at their disposal to enact nationwide comprehensive gun reform. If they refuse to do that, they shouldn’t represent us…..because they never will.
Colin Heffernan
Statement on Uvalde
by Mary Jo Nosal
I am deeply grieved to witness, again, the senseless mass murder of children, in their school, due to unfettered access to weapons that only belong in the hands of our military. If our babies are not safe in school none of us are safe. Having seen the parade of hearses in Newtown, a nightmare I can't shake, I implore you to support sensible gun control laws in this country. It is clear that only the American people can make this happen.
Mary Jo Nosal, Old Lyme DTC Chair
by Mary Jo Nosal
I am deeply grieved to witness, again, the senseless mass murder of children, in their school, due to unfettered access to weapons that only belong in the hands of our military. If our babies are not safe in school none of us are safe. Having seen the parade of hearses in Newtown, a nightmare I can't shake, I implore you to support sensible gun control laws in this country. It is clear that only the American people can make this happen.
Mary Jo Nosal, Old Lyme DTC Chair
The Regional School Board #18 Budget Referendum passed on May 3.
Thank you voters for supporting the kids and teachers of regional School District 18!
https://lymeline.com/2022/05/lyme-old-lyme-school-budget-passes-overwhelmingly-in-both-towns/
Thank you voters for supporting the kids and teachers of regional School District 18!
https://lymeline.com/2022/05/lyme-old-lyme-school-budget-passes-overwhelmingly-in-both-towns/
Learn about uniting for Ukraine
https://ukraine.welcome.us/explainer
https://ukraine.welcome.us/explainer
Find out what the CT Legislature did during the last session.
https://ctmirror.org/tag/2022-legislative-session/
or
https://ctmirror.org/2022/05/31/video-ct-mirrors-legislative-session-recap-and-2022-election-preview/
https://ctmirror.org/tag/2022-legislative-session/
or
https://ctmirror.org/2022/05/31/video-ct-mirrors-legislative-session-recap-and-2022-election-preview/
May 3, 2022
Governor Lamont Joins Coalition of 17 Governors Urging Congressional Leaders To Take Immediate Action Protecting Reproductive Rights
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/570979556/governor-lamont-joins-coalition-of-17-governors-urging-congressional-leaders-to-take-immediate-action-protecting-reproductive-rights
Governor Lamont Joins Coalition of 17 Governors Urging Congressional Leaders To Take Immediate Action Protecting Reproductive Rights
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/570979556/governor-lamont-joins-coalition-of-17-governors-urging-congressional-leaders-to-take-immediate-action-protecting-reproductive-rights
Update: Reproductive Rights Bill passes the CT House
"The bill had electoral as well as policy implications, giving the first-term Democratic governor and lawmakers an opportunity to highlight their defense of reproductive rights in an election year.
The bill passed on 87-60 vote that blurred party lines."
https://ctmirror.org/2022/04/19/lamont-pledges-to-sign-abortion-rights-bill/
"The bill had electoral as well as policy implications, giving the first-term Democratic governor and lawmakers an opportunity to highlight their defense of reproductive rights in an election year.
The bill passed on 87-60 vote that blurred party lines."
https://ctmirror.org/2022/04/19/lamont-pledges-to-sign-abortion-rights-bill/
SIGNED By Governor Lamont!
Public Act No. 22-2 AN ACT REVISING CERTAIN ABSENTEE VOTING ELIGIBILITY STATUTES.
Public Act No. 22-2 AN ACT REVISING CERTAIN ABSENTEE VOTING ELIGIBILITY STATUTES.
Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker and the Old Lyme DTC honor First Responders.
Despite a unanimous vote by the Board of Selectman to honor Essential Workers on Valentine's Day, the First Selectman subsequently changed the date of the honor. Why did Mr. Griswold make this unilateral change? The First Selectman is currently out of the country on vacation .
Despite a unanimous vote by the Board of Selectman to honor Essential Workers on Valentine's Day, the First Selectman subsequently changed the date of the honor. Why did Mr. Griswold make this unilateral change? The First Selectman is currently out of the country on vacation .
Let's Appoint Pro-Community Volunteers
Connecticut Democrats Continue To Support Public Safety
Democratic Caucus Announcement
In The News
- https://www.msnbc.com/the-sunday-show/watch/sen-chris-murphy-calls-out-lawmakers-amid-saturday-s-mass-shooting-in-buffalo-140049477601
- Remembering January 6 by U.S. Representative Joe Courtney bit.ly/32MXlV3
- School boards need to let the professionals teach
- Aaron Emma's LTE - Colwell's Beliefs, Her Endorsement by Old Lyme RTC, Raise Serious Questions
- Dave Rubino's LTE - We Cannot Afford Conspiracy Theorists on the Board of Education
- Shoemaker and Lampos make a case for Selectman of Old Lyme
- Old Lyme selectwoman’s request for racism resolution continues to be ignored
- Martha Shoemaker's LTE - Shoemaker Explains Decision to Run for Old Lyme’s ‘Top Job’ + BOE
- Paul Fuchs' LTE - Taxes Can Always be Kept Low if Expensive Town Projects are Pushed into the Future
- Op-Ed - Lampos Makes His Case, ‘I’m Not Running “Against” Anyone, But Rather “For” Old Lyme’
|
Coffee with the Dems - Stay Tuned! |
|
Past events we loved!
|
Election Day With Young
Old Lyme Democrats |
Young Dems make s'mores with Town Treasurer, Mike Reiter
|
|
Meet the Authors & Book Signing
Saturday Oct 9th - DTC HQ - 24 Lyme Street Local Old Lyme Historians and authors Jim Lampos & Michaelle Pearson shared their books on the history of Old Lyme. All book sales will benefit the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee. |
|
|
Meet & Greet - Meetinghouse
Thursday Oct 14th 5pm - 7pm - 11 Meetinghouse Hill Rd Join the candidates and your neighbors and learn more about the DTC and the candidates running for Old Lyme election on Nov 2nd. |
|
|
Meet & Greet @ The Thompson's
Saturday Oct 17th 3pm - 5pm - 2 Littlefield Ln Learn s'more about the Old Lyme Democratic candidates. Casual fireside chats with the candidates. |
|
|
Campaign Kick-Off 2021
We had a wonderful afternoon introducing our 2021 candidates! We were joined by Governor and Mrs. Ned Lamont, Lt. Governor Susan Bysiewicz and Senator Richard Blumenthal. |
|
Memorial Day 2021
Handing out flags to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, and remembering their families.
Handing out flags to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, and remembering their families.
|
The Old Lyme DTC and Friends sponsored the ice cream social at the Lymes' Senior Center Concert |
from near right: Gil Soucie, Anna Reiter, John Pote, Roger Nosal, Candace Fuchs, Kim Thompson, Bonnie Reemsnyder, and Paul Fuchs. Missing -Joyce Soucie, Christine Gianquinto and Mary Jo Nosal
|