School Board heard majority on calendar
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Roy Walton Jamison
Published: April 24, 2008
I was taken aback by your “Our view” editorial from April 16 (“SB seemed unresponsive with calendar”).
I find it very interesting that your editorial board thinks 864 signatures represent the views of the many. I am not surprised that the response of the few was, as you state, “ignored” when many of the taxpaying school-caring people of the county did not respond through your paper but instead did what should be done and talked to, wrote, called and e-mailed our School Board members directly.
It seems to me that you forgot about the other roughly 33,000 people in the county who had an equal say in what would happen within our school system through our interaction with the School Board.
I believe that an excellent signal was sent by the School Board, when the members listened to the people — I will call them the silent majority— since they did not inject their view through your paper.
I want to thank the School Board members on behalf of that silent majority for a tough job well done.
Roy Walton Jamison
Culpeper
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( MKFlemming ) on April 24, 2008 at 10:57 am
It is highly unlikely that 33,000 people shared their opinion on the calendar issue with their school board member. Roughly, how many of the 33,000 do you truly think the SB heard from in opposition to the calendar changes? It would be interesting to know that fact and how it measures up against the 864 signatures.
I find the following comment to be interesting, “many of the taxpaying school-caring people of the county did not respond through your paper but instead did what SHOULD BE DONE and talked to, wrote, called and e-mailed our School Board members directly.“
I know for a fact that many people that signed the petition for the calendar were also vigilant about calling, writing and emailing their SB member. Some of them did chose to “inject their view”, as you refer to it, through the CSE as well. If you remember there were also several letters in opposition to the petitioned calendar.
An op-ed, (opposite editorial)or letter to the editor, is similar in form and content to an editorial, but represents the OPINION of an individual writer, who is sometimes but not always affiliated with the publication.
We are fortunate in this country to have the freedom to share our opinions in many various ways, both private and public. We have to chose what we feel is the best course of action to make our opinion on a given subject known.
Your criticism of those that chose to write letters to the editor seems unreasonable, since you now use this very venue to express your own opinion.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rjma ) on April 24, 2008 at 9:08 am
865 names is a lot of names and implies that the measure had a significant backing. No doubt the SB took seriously that outpouring of support for a changed calendar. But after careful consideration still decided that that was not the best way to do.
Report Inappropriate Comment