What special interests?

In a column titled “Let’s start the school work” (BDN, May 24), David Flanagan, Richard Silkman and Michael Moore claim that the primary opponents of the school district consolidation proposal are “special interests.” What special interests? “Special interests” is an expression so overused and thrown about these days that it has come to mean almost nothing except the groups or people on the other side of an issue. The “primary opponents” of the proposed consolidation of school districts, and all that it might lead to, are not “special interests,” but citizens of the towns who see themselves being disempowered. “Citizens!” Remember that term? It, sadly, has been largely replaced by the word “taxpayer.”

It was citizens of the town of Easton – not special interests – who turned out in large numbers on two separate occasions to consider the school district proposal and then to oppose it. These citizens were exercising their rights and duties of citizenship – nothing more, nothing less. Understandably, these citizens do not want to lose what has been theirs through generations of practice. With respect to their school district and their school system, they have confidence in their own judgment. They do not want to have their oversight taken or diluted so much that their oversight is practically neutralized.

Pointing the finger at one’s opponents and calling them “special interests” is meant to belittle and discredit and, in this case, shows little respect for the concerned citizens of our many towns.

In truth, district consolidation is an issue of such importance and far-reaching effects that it should have been afforded the time needed for a statewide debate. Every concerned citizen should have been given the time to chew on it for a while. Perhaps, even now, the issue should be debated on its own merits.

Carolyne Mahany

Easton