Healthy Debate Is Essential To Address Community Issues

To the editor: I would like to address the recent criticism surrounding the Board of Health appointments and the disappointing rhetoric that has accompanied the discussion.

First, the two new appointees bring an extraordinary amount of knowledge, experience, and expertise to the Board. Ernie Strang provides a much-needed voice on issues involving septic systems and wastewater management, both of which are under the control of the BOH. Anyone who attended the PFAS presentations hosted by the Town would understand that wastewater treatment facilities and septic systems represent a far more immediate and significant concern to our sole-source aquifer than many of the issues currently dominating public debate.

Kate Garette is a certified nurse with more than 25 years of experience in healthcare. Throughout her career, she has consistently emphasized science, data, and evidence-based decision-making. These are exactly the qualities we should expect from those entrusted with protecting public health.

We can all agree that protecting our community and our island is a shared goal. However, difficult choices and trade-offs are unavoidable. We cannot oppose fertilizer use and nitrogen-loading associated with maintaining natural grass fields, oppose irrigation and water consumption, and simultaneously oppose alternative field surfaces. We cannot selectively condemn materials used in one project while ignoring the very same materials being used throughout the island in countless other applications.

Much has also been made about one of the new appointees allegedly having an “agenda.” Yet the same criticism could easily be applied to a Board member who was not reappointed. Meredith Lepore publicly opposed synthetic turf long before it became part of the current athletic field proposal. As a private citizen, she actively campaigned against the project and sought to influence Town Meeting voters. Whether one agrees with her position or not, it is difficult to argue that one form of advocacy is acceptable while another is disqualifying. Holding one standard for those who agree with us and another for those who do not is both hypocritical and shortsighted.

What is perhaps most troubling is the growing tendency to attack the character and motives of people who volunteer their time, apply for public service, and work to address difficult community issues. Reasonable people can disagree. Healthy debate is essential. But public discourse should be based on facts, not personal attacks, misinformation, or social media outrage.

If residents are dissatisfied with the direction of local government, there are meaningful ways to participate. Run for office. Apply for a board or one of the many committees with a current vacancy . Attend meetings. Engage in the process. Democracy depends on citizens who are willing to contribute, not simply criticize or troll from the sidelines.

Before rushing to judgment or repeating the latest online narrative, I encourage everyone to become better informed, review the facts, and engage with these issues thoughtfully. Our community deserves a debate grounded in evidence, consistency, and respect; not one driven by outrage, stunts and misinformation.

Sincerely,

Erin Myers