The debate continues....

To the editor:

Mr. Baird, board member for the proposed charter school, says in his column (The Times, Monday, May 18) that he feels bullied by the overwhelming, passionate, and vocal commitment of public school parents, teachers, elected representatives, and other residents of Gloucester, who oppose the charter.

In response to our opposition, he has published a flood of derisory labels for this ever-expanding community, which evidently offends him with its expressed concern for the charter's impact.

Many people have come forward to protest the charter school plan and the shabby neglect of Gloucester residents during and following public hearings. They have come from so many quarters and so many backgrounds that Mr. Baird is in danger of running out of derogatory names in his efforts to criticize them all.

Thus, in his columns and letters he has called one parent a Democratic aparatchick, another a Bush-like Republican. The rest of us he calls "bullies," "attack dogs," "mad dogs,""barking dogs" (Mr. Baird is evidently no more fond of dogs than of his neighbors), "witch-baiters," "fear mongers," "foot-stampers," "cadre of defenders of the system,"and, oddly, "ministers of the system."

These parents have, according to Mr. Baird, undertaken a "despicable smear campaign." (That's right. "They", not Mr. Baird, are undertaking a "smear campaign"! Can we spell "projection"?)

Click here to finish reading Roger's letter.

Roger Garberg
Gloucester

To the editor:

Peter Van Ness, spokesperson for the GCA Charter School, has made the claim that the people who signed the first page of a petition making no mention of the financial impact of the charter school were harassed.

While Mr. Van Ness may have convinced some with his clever, yet questionable PR tactics, he hasn't convinced everyone.

Having been a contact person for 62 of the 151 people who wrote letters of opposition to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in December, I have been told directly by community members that they were not as informed as they could have been and simply distracted when they first signed the petition. Many have asked that their names be removed — without prompting from people opposing the school.

I have also witnessed firsthand the tenor of the opposition's campaign in the form of incredibly passionate letters written by the people of Gloucester. While I cannot speak for all of the actions of the people who oppose this school (many do not belong to a formal group), I know from the discussions, phone calls and e-mails of the people with whom I've worked closely that our interactions have been civil and intended to help people get correct information about a critically important issue.

To finish reading my letter click here.

Jane Cunningham
Gloucester