Negative Attitude Is Unhelpful

This is in response to the letter to the editor in the Herald of Feb. 2 by William Kevan.

I do not know you personally, but I do read your letters in the Herald quite often and I am trou­bled that they all seem to have a negative tone criticizing someone or some organization in Randolph.

May I point out to you that there are many citizens in Randolph who see needs in our town and quietly volunteer to improve those needs, i.e. planting flowers for beautifica­tion (Ran­dolph Garden Club), or­ganizing monthly free community dinners, shelving books at Kimball Library, sitting in the gallery or ushering at Chandler Music Hall, working with troubled youth at WRCC, serving in various capaci­ties at Gifford Medical Center, and on and on!

I would respectfully suggest to you that if the condition of the OSSU building troubles you so much, why not approach them and offer to fix the roof, the flak­ing paint and the wall at the rear of the building? Certainly you could round up some other volunteers to do the job. You will be surprised at how much better a positive at­titude with a sense of accomplish­ment will make you feel! AND, you will truly be a Friend of Randolph.

Irene Schaefer
Randolph

What Other Town Can Compare!

Randolph is not just a town. It’s a community, built with care and pride at great expense over many years by many people. To me, the word that best sums up Randolph is “balance.”

We have programs essential for the growth of our children. The rec­reation fields, skating rink (skate board rink in the summer) and swimming pool teach our kids to compete, good sportsmanship (or draw a penalty), stay fit, socialize, and stay busy in a good way. And don’t forget the Boys and Girls Club.

We also help care for our elderly and elderly disabled. Randolph has long supported dignified living for its elderly and elderly disabled. The Randolph House, Joslyn House, Sass Apartments, Salisbury Square Apartments and the Red Lion Apart­ments, among others, provide digni­fied and affordable housing to our seniors, disabled and lower income neighbors. We do not put our folks on an ice floe and leave them to the elements.

We have a well-rounded, robust economic base that most towns in Vermont would die for. Plastics manufacturers, Vermont Castings, Gifford Hospital, VTC, a high tech defense contractor, and other busi­nesses provide Randolph with a sta­ble base of skilled, well-paying jobs that are the envy of other towns. In­nuendo to the contrary is baloney. We are not a down-and-out former mill town, but a vibrant going con­cern.

We have a community hall that draws world-class musicians of all kinds, provides facilities for every­thing from yoga to film festivals, and ends the long winter with the Mud Season Variety Show to laugh and let off steam. If you laugh yourself sick, you can go to Gifford hospital. Name another Vermont town any­where near our size that can com­pare.

We have a great library, and it’s much more than a library. Want to borrow a book from any library in Vermont? How about a book group? Knitting group? Send your child to story time? Access the Internet? Get your taxes done? Borrow an e-book, Kindle, MP3 player, DVD, or audio tape? Get expert research help? Take an online continuing ed course? Dig up references sources? Read current papers or magazines? Get help with a job search? Get help finding books you like? Hang out and have a cup of coffee? You can do all those things – for free – at the Kimball Library. Well, actually, the coffee is $1. Fantastic.

Those are some of the reasons I love Randolph. And I don’t want to see my town dismantled piece by piece, especially for a tax savings that would amount to nearly noth­ing on an individual basis. That is why I’m going to vote to re-elect Frank Reed, Larry Richburg and Dennis Brown to the Selectboard. I hope you do, too!

Gregg L. McCurdy,
Randolph

Herald Was Right In Its Analysis

I read with great amusement as well as dismay the very eloquent letter to the editor from Letitia M. Rydjeski (Herald, February 2) continuing the assault on our se­lect board regarding the recent removal of the town manager, the fairness of Herald editorials, and the continued parsing of previous selectboard vote counts for what­ever purpose.

The so called “Friends” of Ran­dolph are clearly in denial; the Her­ald got it right whether they like it or not.

Certainly, the 2011 actions of a lame duck selectboard in extend­ing the town manager’s contract and modifying the dismissal lan­guage made it virtually impossible for the current board to deal with the non-performing employee. This was the true reason why an exor­bitant amount of time and money was spent on dealing with said em­ployee.

Yes, regardless of cries to the contrary from a handful of “Friends”, the subject employee was indeed non-performing. Who did the town manager answer to, the board or the “Friends”—so therefore, who was better posi­tioned to make the call?

While nobody is happy about the expense of time and capital, except for the “Friends”, we are all quite content and happy that the deed is done and consider it money well spent.

The Herald has done more than an exemplary job of reporting the facts and keeping its readership informed; for that, it is unfairly attacked by a handful of disre­spectful “Friends.” I say unfairly, because the Herald has openly and without rebuttal published those very opposing points of view. That openness is part of what makes our country so great.

John Lussier
Randolphbad

Seek Alternative To Dollar Stores

Dollar stores make their profit by featuring goods that have not sold elsewhere, often near the date of expiration. They minimize staff (there have been complaints of managers shaving hours from time cards); they organize merchandise for impulse buying; they go into areas where bigger box stores are restricted—often putting two stores in close proximity to minimize ef­fort. They leave when their profits decline.

In contrast, local businesses are proven to keep more money in com­munities than box stores.

Since some dollar stores already exist in central Vermont, couldn’t the community get help from elected officials, or the people at RACDC, VLS, VTC, Council on Ru­ral Vermont to attract businesses that would make a strong contribu­tion— rather than send profits to Wall Street and Tennessee? We are fortunate to still have enough farm­land to grow food, and the goods one makes or buys locally are ef­fective and less expensive!

The area near the Ellis Music Store already feels like a strip mall. The Lucky’s location near the high­way could be useful as a distribu­tion point for food or other local products.

South Royalton is doing a great job to encourage farmers and get nutritious food into schools. The location could also be good for small companies that gave jobs that would keep youth here. Such a goal would take some focus, but the re­wards would be many.

Christine Lilyquist
Chelsea

Who’s Right, Who’s Wrong?

I thought there was some good news about the economy when the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the unemployment rate had dropped to 8.3% until I turned to CSPAN and witnessed the Joint Economic Committee hearing with John Gal­vin from the BLS.

The Democrats had it easy be­cause the report seemed favorable to them and they tried to capture what credit they could. The Repub­licans had a tougher job because they viewed the report as favoring the Democrats at the expense of the Republicans and they wanted to ne­gate any credit the Democrats might get. So I wondered whether it was good news or bad news. I guess it depends on which side of the aisle you’re on.

Of course it’s a forgone conclu­sion that if the economy improves it’s good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans who are running for election. I repeatedly make the mistake of thinking that members of Congress might evalu­ate reports about our economy from the point of view of what is good or bad for the country.

CSPAN helps me to look at the news realistically and see how can­didates regard it. But CSPAN is not that much help to decide between news and good news because they try to take both sides and there never seems to be a hint of compro­mise. In fact, John Boehner seems to think compromise is a pejora­tive and consistently avoids it with “common ground,” by which he means his own weedy garden.

Charles Cooley
Randolph Center

Court’s Decision Must Be Appealed

Judge Garvan Murtha’s decision to rule Vermont’s Act 160 as un­constitutional, by virtue of being preëmpted by the Atomic Energy Act, is an affront to democracy and free speech. Vermont and all other states which host nuclear power plants should join together and vig­orously appeal the ruling.

The judge declared that the leg­islature’s motive in passing Act 160 was all about regulating radiologi­cal safety. He did so based on sound bites of legislative inquiry Entergy placed into evidence.

In effect, Entergy asked the judge to declare a smattering of comments and statements taken out of context to represent absolute proof that the entire legislature was engaged in a conspiracy to close Vermont Yankee solely on the basis of out-of-bounds radiological safety concerns.

In fact, many of the legislators who voted for Act 160 and Gov. Douglas, who signed the bill, were, and many continue to be, ardent supporters of continued operation of Vermont Yankee. That the judge bought Entergy’s argument, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, may well create an overly cautious legislative environment and have a chilling effect on our citizen-pow­ered legislative process.

If our elected representatives are barred from speaking openly and educating themselves about the intricacies of crafting sound public policy, we will have lost far more than the right to determine our energy future. We will have lost the very basis for engaging in our democratic process.

Atty. Gen. Sorrell should gather the necessary resources and allies and fight to overturn this terrible de­cision. To let it stand without a fight is to surrender Vermont’s freedom and unity.

Christopher Williams
Hancock

Vacation Hours Are Questioned

Just when you think the town manager situation has gone away, it gets worse. We give Mr. Champy a full year’s salary and a $27,500 bo­nus to go away, and now we taxpay­ers find out that he convinced the selectboard that he needed to work into January to “finish some things up.” In fact it was so that he could collect, not only the one week of va­cation pay carried over from 2011, but three additional weeks that he had not earned for 2012.

(I realize the rule is that vacation days are vested as of January 1, but this proves that the rule should be changed to prorate vacation over the year.)

Mr. Champy reminds me of the Energizer Bunny in reverse: he just keeps taking and taking. A couple of weeks ago, my husband came home from the town offices and told me that when he arrived, Mr. Champy was just leaving. Cin­dy said “Have a good day, Gary,” and he responded, “Oh I will... on the town!” And, by the way, Mr. Champy doesn’t pay any taxes in Randolph.

How the then-selectboard could hire Mr. Champy is beyond me. Wasn’t any due diligence done? And how could anyone think about re- hiring this man, as is the word on the street, if Mssrs. Porter, Orleck, and Sault or Champy are elected to the selectboard?

The more I hear, the more I think the current selectboard has done the right thing in getting rid of Mr. Champy. Vote for Reed, Richburg and Brown!

Sally Penrod
Randolph

Tasers Represent Great Innovation

The recent use of a Taser by an officer in Randolph should be good news to local citizens. While most of us may cringe at the thought of being subdued by a Taser, it is, most likely, the greatest innovation for officer and citizen safety since the use of Mace was introduced and eclipses that product innovation in all ways.

In the old days there was the gun…not a great alternative in most cases, but a vital tool in the protection of our citizens. Then the nightstick or baton was introduced to the force continuum, nothing more than a good old piece of hickory that could be used to convince an unruly person to submit to arrest.

The innovation of the collapsible baton took the familiar stick of most officer’s belts, looked less menacing, but remained the go-to alternative when less-than-lethal measures were called for. Call them what you may, they are all a basic club, and used by well-trained personnel under ideal circumstances they are fraught with danger by the laws of physics; they are imprecise instruments at best.

In the 70s Mace was introduced to most police agencies, not without raising eyebrows I might add; after all, in the Vietnam era the use of a chemical (other than those ingested by the “hippies”) was frowned upon.

Mace had its own set of problems. Early CN & CS were highly concentrated and the aerosolized product usually ended up blowing back on the officer(s), causing many to be incapacitated to a degree by their own deployment of the product.

The position of Mace on individual department’s force continuums varies and again, they are not a point-and-shoot system. Contaminated subjects need medical attention in most cases and the effects can be long lasting (hours). In addition, persons who have been Maced once may become desensitized to a degree to the psychological effects and thus be less debilitated, rendering them more of a danger to the officer(s), others, and themselves.

Tasers made the scene in Vermont just a few years ago and were met in some communities with lessthan open arms. The Vermont State Police only recently began to carry them as a regular addition to an officer’s already in place options for use of force.

Several incidents, in which poorly trained or untrained officers deployed these tools, resulted in many communities either choosing not to use Tasers or limiting their use in some ways. Randolph is among the many communities with a wellarticulated policy (designed by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Randolph’s insurance carrier) that governs the use of Tasers that is backed by or standard operating guidelines (SOGs).

SOGs are different from SOPs (standard operating procedures), in that they anticipate the chaos that surrounds incidents that require use-of-force and allow officers to utilize discretion rather than trying to predict what MUST be done in a given circumstance.

Tasers are highly sophisticated devices that can deliver a very precise charge or more properly discharge of electrical energy in a timed, automatic manner that can be overridden by the officer. In the Randolph case, the officer reduced the time duration (normally five seconds) of discharge by some 40% because the Tased individual was effectively subdued in the first three seconds. (Tasers download data to be analyzed later for training and policy/SOG review purposes.)

In addition, officer safety is greatly enhanced in jurisdictions where EDDs (Electronic Discharge Devices) have been introduced; further, the complaints of police brutality and so-called “suicide by cop” cases go down in these jurisdictions, mainly due to less use of firearms and batons.

Lastly, the citizen (even the criminal) is safer with an EDD. Control, precision, the less-than-lethal nature of the device and the speed with which the subdued subject recovers full function are all beneficial results in a less-than-perfect situation.

In my class, we examine closely Taser and other uses of force, both lethal and less-than-lethal, and the cases that spring from these uses. I am convinced that the first Taser use here in Randolph was a very measured and controlled response to a bad situation in which either party (or a third party) could have suffered a far worse fate.

The policy, SOGs and training were all in place months ago, that no uses occurred until now is a good sign that Randolph’s Police are being cautious and judicious in the use of this technology, and we should be glad that we are protected and served by individuals who have these tools available to them.

Tom Harty

Randolph

Tom Harty is a former State Police officer who teaches criminal justice and public safety at RTCC. He is a certified instructor in the use of Mace and other less-than-lethal force options.

OSSU Building Does Look Shabby

I agree with Mr. Kevan about the state of the school superintendent’s offices on Central Street. The building becomes shabbier and sadder each year. This is simply unacceptable.

There used to be a pretty sweep of lawn from the street to the back of the high school. It was a nice little view when driving by. This is now blocked by the new metal supply building.

It seems even more reason to restore the offices of our superintendent. It is a handsome structure, and the longer it sits uncared for, the more pitiful it becomes.

The word should be maintain, maintain, maintain.

Nancy DuBois
Randolph

Tunbridge Selex Create Animosity

As a tax-paying citizen of Tunbridge, I am writing to express my concern over our selectboard’s handling of the allegations against the ambu­lance squad.

This is the latest in a long line of incidents in which the selectboard has given the appearance of indulging in favoritism and willful ignorance of the law.

Many Tunbridge citizens may be unaware that for the last nearly half-dozen years, there has been a pervasive atmosphere of distrust and outright animosity within the town offices, and the inability of the selectboard to deal fairly and promptly with the real underlying issues that caused that discord does not inspire confidence that it will handle the current crisis more justly or competently.

They have acted with impunity to destroy the reputations of people who do not agree with them, and have shown poor discretion in their handling of the personnel issues that have come before them.

It should be noted, however, that one member has made the effort to understand the roots of the myriad of issues plaguing the town, but given the current climate and balance of power, they are limited in their ability to act. I would like them to know that their efforts have been recognized and appreciated.

I myself signed a petition requesting an inquiry into the serious allegations leveled at the ambulance squad; however, I added to my signature the statement that there should be an investigation of the allegations by an impartial, qualified third party, NOT by the selectboard alone.

Unfortunately, the selectboard chose to act on its own, and did not even take the most logical first step, which would have been to immediately contact the board of the ambulance; instead, they chose to contact the Chelsea selectboard, who, to their credit, refrained from becoming involved.

The Tunbridge selectboard has dubious authority in this matter, in addition to having a member with a strong conflict of interest. It is also questionable whether the selectboard had the authority to fire Ms. Caron for her exercise of free speech in this paper; regardless, they appear to have wasted no time in choosing someone to take her place.

The level of discourse and judgment exercised by our selectboard as a whole has, over the last few years, seriously degenerated. I am appalled at the thought that my tax money is supporting bias, internecine conflict, and incompetence, and I urge my fellow citizens to demand more accountability from those elected to our town office.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Lori J. Berger
Tunbridge

Extols Quality Of Public Schools

The recent dust-up over private schools using public money has generated a great deal of debate concerning education, fairness, and public financing. I think public debate over these maters is, in general, a good thing.

What I don’t find reassuring is the message that emerges on the edges of this discussion which says “Private Schools are special places that are better than public schools.” In this parent’s experience, that is a whole bag full of nonsense.

I have read letters recently from students and parents extolling the virtues of The Sharon Academy. Admittedly, it is a fine place. I am sure it is just as inviting, rewarding, and special as advertised. But the unspoken message is that it is inherently so much better than a public school, and kids could never be educated in a public school as well as they are at TSA.

I am the father of five children who are all in the South Royalton system, from preschool into the high school. I can match story for story with any parent from TSA about the administrators who know and greet all kids and parents on a first name basis; about dedicated teachers who deal with and care about every type of student, from high honors kids to those with IEPs; small class sizes, great offerings for all types of students, even efforts as seemingly small as trying to bring healthier and more local foods into the breakfast and lunch programs.

Students from SRHS leave here and go to great colleges, including Stanford, Dartmouth, and MIT. Other students go on to the military or the trades. And this is all accomplished while offering classes not only for the college bound students, but also those students for whom a high school diploma is the most education they’ll receive.

There is a sense in the U.S. in general, and judging from some recent letters to The Herald, in Vermont as well, that public schools are failing. At least in Vermont, nothing could be further from the truth.

By any measure Vermont public schools have among the highest test scores in the nation; coming from a state that is below average in income, that is a tremendous achievement. Public schools in Vermont do this while taking all kids, of every ability and stripe, without picking and choosing.

Before sending your kid to a private school, tour the public schools, find out what they offer and what their environments are like—don’t assume you know what they are like. Make an informed choice.

Patrick Dakin
Royalton

Citizen Complaint In Royalton

This is to inform the residents of Royalton of ways our town officials are operating town business.

I made a complaint to the Royalton Police chief, Robert Hull and Larry Trottier about a town employee driving town equipment with a large plow with wing and a load of salt, through the streets of South Royalton, speeding and failing to slow down and stop for stop signs.

At the police station I filled out an official police statement and asked that the driver of this truck be penalized. The following day, the police chief informed me that the selectboard had taken the police report into their hands and given the driver a verbal warning.

What gives the selectboard the right to take police matters into their hands? I feel that they are taking matters into their hands that are damaging to town taxpayers and town property.

Another issue I have is that back in March I was robbed. Approximately $9300 worth of property was taken. The police chief said he knew who did it but told me I needed to prove it.

I called my attorney, who told me to call the state police and request their presence. Within ten minutes the state police had a confession from this person. It’s time our selectboard starts taking concerns and complaints more seriously.

Greg Lamson
South Royalton