Letter To The Editor – Answering A True Misrepresentation Of The Facts

To the Editor:
This is in response to Micky Atwater’s letter in last week’s edition of the Eastwick Press. Much of the letter misrepresented the facts and was based on the belief that information regarding the problems with petitions should not have been shared with Mr. Zlotnick. It was recommended that the basic facts should be shared with each and every candidate, and I made an attempt to do just that with very limited time before the election. I am not sure why Ms. Atwater would believe that Mr. Zlotnick should not be made aware that there was a problem with the petitions since this did impact him as well. He was not given any special information, and he was not even the first candidate to be contacted, but, yes, he too needed to know there was a problem.
I did find the statement that this was a conspiracy to be a bit puzzling. Do you think that I somehow promoted the idea for 3 of the candidates to not get enough signatures or that I somehow asked people to not fill out candidates’ petitions properly? If this was a conspiracy then why wouldn’t I have brought this up a few weeks before the election so the only recourse would be to remove the candidates from the ballot? In addition, please keep in mind that one of the candidates has been a Board member for at least a few decades so perhaps he would know the importance of obtaining extra signatures and making sure his paperwork was in order prior to handing it in.
Where is my integrity? This is the perfect question to ask. Let’s look at the facts. The District was aware that there was a problem with 3 petitions. This means the candidates in question did not have the minimum number of signatures to be legally endorsed in order to have their names on the ballot. There were two options. The first, acknowledge the error and take steps to prevent a reoccurrence. Second, tell nobody and hope that someone doesn’t find out this information after the fact. Which option speaks of integrity?
Well I would certainly agree that the second option is the typical route the District would have likely taken in prior years, but I will not now or ever be part of a “cover up.” If this is the quality you are looking for in a Board President then I would agree that you have the wrong person.
These additional signatures needed are not a “technicality” it is a legality. If you are “not sure” if all the required signatures are needed then please do take the time to research this a bit. What percentage of missing signatures would be appropriate in order to still have a candidate on the ballot, 10%, 25%, 50% ? Which candidates do we hold to a different expectation level and which ones have to follow the law? Should some candidates be given special consideration, but we expect more from others? All candidates need to adhere to the same standards, period.
As soon as I realized there was a potential problem, one of the first questions I asked is can we allow an exception so that these candidates can get the proper endorsement before the election? I wanted to go into this election with each person having the proper and legal binding documents behind them. I was informed that it was too late to allow the candidates to do this.
Yes, these petitions should have been reviewed in depth the moment they were handed in. In a perfect world, the missing signatures and all the other errors (yes it goes far beyond 1 – 2 missing signatures) would have been pointed out immediately so that the candidates could correct them. I don’t know why this didn’t occur in this election, but it didn’t, and it is something we must fix for the future. I also believe that the School District needs to educate itself on the election process because it seems to be an historical problem that we have struggled with over the years.
I have no resentment for this District. In fact, I believe our District has a tremendous amount of potential, and I volunteer countless hours of my time in hopes of making positive changes for all of us. This year alone we have had close to 40 meetings not to mention the additional work in between. If I didn’t believe in our District I would not be here advocating for the children and the taxpayers. When you are a Board member, no matter what decision you make there are people who will have something negative to say. I simply ask that before being critical, find out the facts and attend some Board meetings so that you are basing your information on true knowledge rather than on rumor.
Letters like Ms. Atwater’s are the true things that continue to foster the negative resentment that she speaks of which further divides our communities. I made a commitment to have open communication and to be transparent. This doesn’t apply only when things are going well, but it also applies when times are tough.
If you believe that being honest is unprofessional then I must be guilty. I was placed in a position to either acknowledge the error or do something that would not only be unlawful but also unethical. Withholding information like this would not only jeopardize my position individually but would legally jeopardize the entire District.
It is my belief that a mistake was made and the district is at fault, but we can’t go backwards only forward. Each candidate should have information pertaining to petitions and the entire election process at their fingertips so that they know every step to ensure they have the tools necessary to run for a Board seat.
Perhaps Ms. Atwater and others concerned about the election process could volunteer their time and work with the election subcommittee to develop ideas to prevent future complications like this from happening again. This could be a more positive way to address this matter in an effort to guide the District into a better place.
Yours truly,
Bev Stewart (Independent statement)