GUILFORD — I'd like to correct a misstatement that appeared in the article concerning the recent revote on (and subsequent recension of) the funding plan related to the proposed expansion of the Guilford Free Library.
The article contained an interview with an individual who favored overturning the original vote. The individual presented his arguments in a well-formed and thoughtful way.
However, he then went on to say, “[T]he people who made the decision to use that money were only two people, Selectboard Chair Richard Wizansky and Town Administrator Peder Rude. How did they get to be the ones to decide that?”
I think it worth pointing out that this issue was not decided by Wizansky and Rude. Rather, the proposed action was, in fact, approved by the majority of voters who participated in the original vote on Town Meeting Day in March.
Granted, the majority in question was small, but the basic fact remains that it was the citizens of Guilford who made the decision in a free and fair election.
(Likewise, an anonymous, glossy flyer expressing similar views - i.e., implying that the proposed funding plan was somehow foisted on Guilford by a small handful of actors, as well as other inaccuracies - was sent to residents shortly before the revote.)
It goes without saying that those who might oppose town projects like the proposed plans for the funding of the library expansion - or anything else, for that matter - are, of course, free to vote against them or to exercise their right to take actions like calling for the revote.
I think it is also reasonable to ask why those who wished to oppose the funding plan didn't do so when they originally had the chance on Town Meeting Day.
But more to the point, regardless of which side of this issue someone might come down on, I think it is less clear what purpose is served by misrepresenting the facts of the case in this way.