We have several issues with Mr. Zimmerman's letter, among which are the following:

1- Again, all the board member, who was Mr. Baer, asked for was what the paper's policy was on checking the accuracy of the facts stated in letters. He never asked that the board see letters beforehand. Concerned about all of the misinformation that circulates in the community, Mr. Baer simply asked what the paper's procedure was for checking the facts upon which the opinions were based. He did not ask to have the board review the letters before they were published. (And even if he had, it would not have been the outlandish request that Mr. Zimmerman is making it. We know of papers that routinely run criticism and rebuttals together.)

2- Mr. Zimmerman's claim that "Fortunately a 'vote' was taken on this issue, and not one single board member voiced support for that proposal," is an outrageous fabrication. All one has to do is obtain a copy of the minutes of the Aug. 10 meeting from the school district to see that no such vote took place. The minutes reflect all votes taken at meetings. We invite any resident to review the minutes and see for themselves. This out and out deception, we think, speaks volumes about Mr. Zimmerman's credibility...or lack thereof.

3- His statement that we asked the superintendent to have his letter reviewed by the school district's own attorney before the newspaper published it, is not true at all. What we asked the attorney to do was to verify Zimmerman's statement that, in his view, the lack of oversight on the paperwork exposed the school district "to potential unknown legal liability." Let's hope that anytime board members are accused of malfeasance by a fellow board member, a paper will be double check the facts and try to get the whole story!

Ultimately, the reason we published the letter in the issue of Sept. 9 was not because we were "satisfied with that outcome" (i.e. the district's counsel said that certain board members were leaving the district open to legal exposure...as Mr. Zimmerman contends in his letter of Sept. 9.) The decision to allow his statement was based on the fact that we carried a detailed account of the board debate on the legality issue in our write-up of the Aug. 24 BOE meeting, at which it was discussed by all members of the board at length. This put the matter in some sort of context, in addition to giving our readers the opportunity to hear all sides of the matter and form their own opinion, not just get that of one board member. We also learned that the board members---whose integrity and competency was being indirectly challenged by the impression created by Mr. Zimmerman's letter--- were only following the advice of the district's counsel, who said that by paying the bills in question, the board was not being leaving the district vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Moreover, Mr. Zimmerman never even called the paper to verify what he was putting out there. It's frightening to see that armed with little in the way of facts and presuming an awful lot, Mr. Zimmerman twisted things and created scenarios that just didn't exist.

We must be able to trust what our board members tell us. They are held to a high standard and shouldn't make loose, irresponsible remarks or careless, unresearched accusations.

On one point we do agree with Mr. Zimmerman. We too encourage the presentation of a "broader exchange of ideas and varying points of view." However, in the case of the school board, when one member tells only his "version" of an issue, we get only one-seventh of the debate, with no opposing views to counter-balance it with, or way of ensuring we have all the facts which another board member may be able to provide.

If Mr. Zimmerman is sincerely interested in providing an exchange of ideas and varying points of view, why doesn't he volunteer to show his letters to his fellow board members before they're published, and, should they choose to do so, have his fellow board members respond to them in the same issue so that the public that reads the local papers can better understand all sides of the issue at one reading. For a board member, we don't think having "exclusivity" on the printed page for one week should ever be more important than presenting all of the important elements of, or diverse opinions on, the issues.

Taking this a step further, let's consider the fact that everybody doesn't read the local paper...(much to our chagrin). Additionally, the board is committed to serving the whole community... which, by the way, is one reason why the board reserves debate for the public meetings, because all taxpayers have access to them.

Why doesn't the Port Report, which is mailed to all the households in the school district, have an editorial page for board members who want to express their views. A review policy can be established and this way some of the misinformation put out there can be eliminated, and the public fully and better informed on the pressing matters currently facing the district. Additionally, some of the pointless backbiting which is so counterproductive can be reduced, and real issues focused on. (Unfortunately, good points can get lost in the swamp of unsubstantiated, irrelevant, meaningless and at times immature and mean-spirited criticisms that have been generated recently.)

In addition, the Port News will make the following offer to the board members. Following a board discussion at a public meeting, if a member feels that he/she wants the public to be made aware of a point of information, or an opinion of theirs, the reporter will include this in the write-up of the public meeting, providing the board members supplies credible evidence for any allegations they make.

Let's stop all the games, petty nonsense and gross exaggerations and establish an honest dialogue based on cogently presented viewpoints, useful criticism and logical argumentation.

'Nuff said! Any further discussion must be held simultaneously...in a public forum.

- JP