vision2020
Reply to Daily News editorial
Mr. Clohessy and members of the editorial board:
In your Monday editorial you said that as Chairman of the Moscow School Board I "thought voters were confused when they overwhelmingly voted no in November for an increase to the supplemental levy." You also said that I spoke "at a forum...designed to 'dispel misconceptions.'" Neither of those statements is true.
Other board members and I received an email from YOUR reporter under the subject heading: Clearing up some misconceptions!
The text started:
Daily News Reporter: "Hello all. I don't know about ya'll, but I would really like to clear
up some misconceptions that seem to keep hanging on throughout the various meetings!"
That was from the reporter who actually attends the meetings. She was there. She heard the people express their misconceptions and the answers they were given and she (your reporter) wanted to clear them up. So instead of reporting what she thought were the misconceptions, she asked the board what they had heard--from the public.
In fact, her first question was: "What are some of the misconceptions you have heard from constituents?"
And my answer came directly from the public--what our constituents have told us over the past few weeks in response to hearings on the budget. Some folks told us they were confused and some made inaccurate statements that we were able to correct. (Such as: "I hear teacher x has been given his notice and won't be back next fall." Not true, no one has been given notice she or he doesn't have a job next year.)
Your reporter DID NOT ASK ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE LEVY. The questions were all about the BUDGET.
Your editorial said: "Curley went on to suggest the public was again confused when they voted down the supplemental levy increase." That is, again, wrong. I said no such thing.
In short, your reporter (I think appropriately) determined that at the open public forums conducted by the district in January a number of people on different nights made the same type statements that were in the reporter's view "misconceptions." She did a story designed to shed some light on those misconceptions. You turned it into something completely different--and inaccurate.
The board has worked very hard to hear the public concerns about the current budget problems and to address those concerns. The number one priority has been to get a handle on how the district will operate while respecting the November vote on the levy--to tell voters that we are paying attention to them. Wrongly attributing comments to me that "voters were confused" sets that process back substantially.
Although your reporter's story was about budget misconceptions, board members have heard by email, telephone, letter, and public meeting comment a variety of reasons why people voted "no" in November. True, some of the current misconceptions existed in November, but no one knows better than the board that the "no" votes were not substantially a result of misconceptions. It is most unfortunate that your editorial started another inaccuracy of the type your reporter was originally trying to correct.
Mike Curley
Back to TOC