To the editor:

Adrian Malott vows to vote against the school bond issue because he doesn’t like the current school board. In particular, he doesn’t like their plans to close another school. That much is understandable, but his voting strategy is not: To voice his opposition to school closings, he would deny badly needed funding to the district.

The futility of such a strategy is apparent in the last bond/school board election. Neither the defeat of the previous bond issue nor the ouster of pro-bond incumbents prevented the closing of schools. Nor did such a strategy make our district’s problems magically disappear, for lo and behold, the new school board has once again proposed a bond.

In my view, that two different boards have proposed the same solution does not suggest mismanagement; it suggests that we really do need the bond. It also suggests that Lawrence will not elect a school board to Mr. Malott’s liking anytime soon. Let’s not wait for that day.

If you feel that the bond is a bad idea on its own merits/deficiencies, then you should vote against it. But please don’t vote against the bond just to chastise our school board. School boards come and go, but our decisions on education will have lifelong consequences for our children. Sure, you can vote against the bond to express your anger to the school board, but it won’t be the board that feels the heat; the only people who will suffer will be our children and their hard-working teachers.

Marc Briand,

Lawrence