GUILFORD-One item in this very informative article needs to be corrected: specifically, the discussion of the proposal for building an addition to the Guilford Free Library.
In short, the errors appear to result from the reporter simply repeating legislative candidate Jason Herron's rather fictionalized (and often-repeated) account of these events, without apparently looking deeper into their history.
1. First, the figure of "$1.2 million" is mentioned (as it is each time Herron discusses this topic). However, this figure is, at best, extremely misleading.
While it is true that the total cost of the project was budgeted at $1.2 million, the facts are that the overwhelming majority of these funds had little or no connection with, or effect on, the town or its budget, having come (for example) from legacy gifts to the Library, private fundraising, external grants, etc. (Specifically, the only new money that the town was asked to provide was a bond of $205,000.)
2) Likewise, the article repeats Herron's insinuations of "conflicts of interest" associated with the project.
This is regardless of the fact that neither the person mentioned, nor anyone else on the Selectboard, had any means of personally profiting from the project even if it had been passed and, more importantly, as the actual history shows, there has never been any indication of such fraud having occurred.
3) In the extensive literature campaign that Herron distributed leading up to the subsequent re-vote on this funding for the project, there were constant and repeated claims that the expansion project was being "foisted" upon the town by a handful of members on the Selectboard acting in an illegal and irresponsible manner.
However, as is usual in such cases, the Selectboard was responsible only for placing the item on the agenda of that year's Town Meeting. In other words, it was, in fact, the voters of Guilford who passed and approved the request (for what was, after all, an extremely popular project at the time).
I will admit that this may sound like simple nitpicking, or like something of interest only to the voters of a small town.
But the library is a valuable part of Guilford, it provides a great service to the town, and its staff (and its board) are diligent, hardworking, honest, responsible, and self-sacrificing.
Yet, this particular packet of distortions and misinformation has been floating around now for years, and it needs to be corrected each time it comes up.
Finally, it is surely clear that it goes without saying that each voter of Guilford was free to (and had the responsibility to) examine the actual facts of the case and, more to the point, to make up his or her own mind about the merits of this project and whether the proposed funds were appropriate. And once that was done, to vote accordingly. This, of course, is exactly how it should be.
However, what's less clear is why it has been necessary to consistently, and repeatedly, misrepresent the facts of this case in this way, yet once again, after all this time.
Nichael Cramer
Guilford
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.