To the Editor:

I wish to commend The Deerfield Valley News for its excellent reporting of Town Meetings in the area, but I would like to make several observations.

First, in Anita Rafael’s otherwise fine article about Wardsboro’s meeting, there is a serious omission. The election of Dr. Robert Backus to a three-year term on the selectboard surely deserves mention. And to end with an anonymous quote seems a pity. Ms. Rafael could have balanced it with a comment from someone present who was willing to stand behind his or her opinion.

Finally, some thoughts about Ralph Wallace’s reflections on Wardsboro’s 225th Town Meeting, which are actually not about the meeting at all, but a virulent attack on John Moran, who represents Windham-Bennington 1 and had five Town Meetings to attend.

John Moran has served this district well. He holds office hours every month to talk with constituents; he provides periodic updates on the legislative sessions; he responds to phone calls and e-mails; and he attends public functions. Mr. Wallace’s identification of Moran as “one of the M & M twins,” the other being Ann Manwaring, of Wilmington, is both childish and inappropriate. That these representatives from neighboring districts should work together for legislation that is beneficial to their constituents is hardly surprising. Mr. Wallace fails to mention that Moran also worked closely with a Republican, the late Rick Hube.

To use words like “stupefying incompetence” and “outright malice” to describe Moran shows an appalling lack of civility. There is no place for personal invective in political discourse; the focus should be on the issues. John Moran has been deeply concerned with protecting property tax payers for as long as he has served in Montpelier. Like many others, he is aware of the inadequacies of acts 60 and 68. On the other hand, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled (in Brigham) that the state’s previous method of funding education was unconstitutional, and that means that the Legislature must continue to find ways to improve the system.

Space does not permit a point-by-point refutation of other statements in Mr. Wallace’s letter, but it’s clear that what we need is constructive criticism and useful proposals, not ad hominem attacks.

Amy Kleppner

Wardsboro