Engage Hartford on PCBs

I was quoted in a recent article (“Hartford likely to demolish large portions of high school because of PCB contamination”; May 5) as discouraging the Hartford School Board from using part of the proceeds of the recent $21 million bond issue to fund the initial costs of developing a plan to remediate the presence of PCBs at Hartford High School. The quote is accurate but does not fully convey the advice I was giving the board.

I was attempting to dissuade the board from dedicating the bond proceeds for any other purpose than what voters approved. I feel that it’s important that those proceeds be used as voters intended. I suggested that the board borrow the funds needed to plan the remediation so that planning could proceed as swiftly as possible. I also suggested that the board take all the steps necessary to fully inform the public as to the scope of the issue and the potential responses by way of a special School District meeting. By doing this, the public would be better informed of the nature of the issue and have an opportunity to become part of the discussion of how to respond. Otherwise, I fear that Hartford citizens might not fully support whatever the ultimate solution might be.

The key to this issue is to fully engage the public at every step of developing a plan for remediation. This is a critical issue and addressing it successfully will involve several years and many, many millions of dollars.

Colin Butler

White River Junction

Souter on democracy

Many thanks to the Valley News for printing Noah Feldman’s tribute to the late Supreme Court Justice David Souter (“An exemplary justice”; May 15). Feldman, who clerked for Souter in 1998 and 1999, concludes by saying, “He was the best and wisest man I have ever known.”

I strongly encourage readers to access the video of “Constitutionally Speaking,” the September 2012 discussion with Souter about how the Constitution keeps pace with the times. Of particular interest is the question Souter was asked about the role of public schools in educating students about how the government works and his fears about what can happen to democracy if we are not careful. Or read the May 12 New York Times article by Adam Liptak, “A Warning From Justice Souter: Democracy is in Peril,” which recaps important points from the 2012 event.

“An ignorant people can never remain a free people,” Souter said. “Democracy cannot survive too much ignorance.”

Margaret Bragg

Hanover

Facts are inescapable

A vital component of a persuasive legal brief is a plain and persuasive statement of the operative facts. Great argument starts with a compelling slant on the situation at hand. It collapses when the asserted facts are obviously false.

We are in the grips of a president who is unable to distinguish actual fact from successful political rhetoric. His rhetoric is exaggerated and inflammatory. His policies based on the rhetoric are short sighted and damaging.

The president describes millions of immigrants admitted under programs lawfully, if too generously, administered by the Biden administration as thugs, thieves, rapists, drug dealers and even “animals.” All are treated under policies enacted on the assumption that they are criminals. Of course, by far the majority are simply men and women and families seeking better lives.

He describes the war in Ukraine as an unnecessary bloody territorial dispute in which Ukraine is sometimes characterized as starting it or a willing participant and in which the United States has no compelling interest. The president says we should withdraw to stop the killing. In fact, the war is the result of stark imperialist expansion by Russia inconsistent with orderly international relations. To walk away is to signal tolerance for rouge expansionism.

The president has digested and restated as the action of patriots the lethal Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol that was intended to disrupt an established electoral process. As if rhetoric were fact, he has pardoned and praised. Broad brushed rhetoric simplified for political advantage is not fact. The rhetoric is not “alternative fact.” Policies based on distorted rhetoric are unavoidably questionable, sometimes damaging and often needlessly cruel.

arthur gardiner

Hanover