I am writing in response to statements made during the recent factuality and clarity recall hearing regarding the language used to describe the rain garden issue. During that hearing, Monica Dziesinski, along with Eric Lawson and Sarah Costain, objected to the characterization that they voted against a “grant”. They argued that they did not vote down the “grant,” but only voted against installing the rain garden itself.

To many of us in the community, that feels like a difference that doesn’t matter. If the grant would have fully funded the rain garden project, then voting down the project effectively meant rejecting the funding attached to it. You cannot separate the two. Declining to move forward with the rain garden was, in practice, declining the grant that would have paid for it.

What was even more troubling and not in the Alpena News article was Mr. Lawson’s suggesting that accepting the grant for a rain garden was similar to accepting a grant to tear down the school. That analogy is just wrong. A rain garden is an educational tool. It offers students hands-on learning opportunities about environmental stewardship, water management, and sustainability. It enhances learning. Tearing down a school would destroy every educational opportunity within its walls. The two scenarios are not remotely comparable.

Our community deserves thoughtful, measured leadership, especially when discussing educational opportunities for our students.

Vicky Lindsay

Alpena