Last night (Oct. 27) I attended the Greenfield School Committee candidates forum. I wanted to actually hear what these candidates had to say for themselves, in their own words, so that I could make some sort of informed decision when casting my vote on Tuesday.
I am so glad that I did. Contrary to what the lawn signs around town would lead you to believe, good candidates on “both sides” genuinely want to serve and would be dedicated to the betterment of our schools. Not just three, and not just from whichever political “tribe” people, sadly, tend to sort themselves into. On Tuesday, I will not be voting for either “slate” of candidates. I will be voting for people from both slates, based on the impressions they made on me.
I don’t like “slates.” I especially don’t like a slate that has been predetermined without some sort of vote from the membership of whatever organization is promoting it. Moreover, when we allow an organization to dictate our voting, we have given up our own agency and are failing to meet our responsibility as engaged citizens.
It is also unfortunate that each given slate seems for some reason linked to their opinion about the proposed new apartment building, if the lawn signs are any indication. We have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss innovative approaches to city ownership and management of housing because the issue has been reduced down to whether you are for or against the existence of the building. Seeing the School Committee slates align so completely with the Yes or No on 1 signs is, to say the least, kinda weird. Setting up the dynamic that you either support these three candidates and this initiative vs. supporting those other three and opposing the initiative does not speak well of the good faith of political influencers of any stripe.
Greenfield should not be divided. We have lots of good people who want to work on improving our city. Think for yourself and make your own evaluation of the candidates. A functional future depends on it.
Benjamin Miner
Greenfield