To the editor: 

It’s been a, well, interesting start to the year for US politics. Being a new year, it’s also a good time to reflect on what we do — and don’t — want in our town. I’d like to make an early plea for two things: that we take a moment to realize there can be true honor in public service, and that democracy works best when we choose sober logic over emotional rhetoric.

The first point is easy to make. This week we celebrate the service of Buzz Guida, a long- long-time school committee member. As the whole town knows, Buzz is an honorable man — sober in judgment, patient, open-minded, fact-driven, able and willing to explain the “why” of his choices, and always - always - keeping a weather eye on his strategic goal and the district’s motto, “empowering all students to excel.”

But honor is something earned over a long period, by living the very qualities Buzz showcases. It’s not automatic. Winning an election doesn’t make you honorable, but it should give you the public chance to earn it.

The second point: unlike national politics, we control and shape our local arena. Its character directly reflects ours. We can drop the bad habits of sweeping rhetoric, worst case thinking, arguments based on fear, and close-minded recitations of “alternative facts.”

A recent letter to the Times issued a rallying cry to show up and get the school committee to “think about the taxpayer for a change.” I propose something different — all interested citizens should indeed show up, but only after: a) reflecting on Buzz’s favorite school statistic, our exceptionally low “cost per pupil ratio,” and how this proves the district has been excruciatingly respectful of the taxpayer all along, and b) after reflecting on what “return on investment” really means.

Resident says schools are taxing people to death.

“Return on investment” is more often invoked than understood. For example, absolutely nothing prevents us from implementing school start time change and the “no cost” initiatives proposed in last week’s letter. Once past this false choice, we can discuss how “return on investment” means asking how much benefit we get for each new expenditure. I suspect that start time change will prove a fantastic low-cost, high-yield return on investment — and when the budget figures come out, I’ll do my math in public so that you can make up your own mind.

In fact, let’s set fearful “facts” aside and do all our math in public. Opponents of start time change have alleged a “minimum of $2,700” per month for new child care costs. I respectfully request you show us your math. What are the variables — how many children, what grades, how many hours, how many days per week, etc. — producing this number?

It just might be that continued dialogue can dispel this fear — a win for us all! One vendor is proposing a $5.25/hour base cost for before-and-after care services — an exciting option that all families might benefit from.

Let’s “be like Buzz” and welcome the discussion with sober logic and open-minds. We are all neighbors, and there are no “forgotten taxpayers” here.

Scott Douglas

Barrington