Dear Editor:

I wish to express my displeasure with MDOT wanting to shove a bypass down our throats in Wiscasset. I keep hearing the state ask us for ways to save money, well here's one by not spending $79 million on a bypass that's not needed.

MDOT seems really hung up to want to spread concrete all over this nice little area by tearing up the countryside, throwing people out of their homes, and forcing businesses to relocate or close completely. This is going to cause economic hardship not only on the people involved, but the town itself in lost revenue from people not coming through the town, and property taxes lost forever. How can this all be justified because of a two month a year inconvenience?

MDOT claims there is a "no build" option as well as the five proposed wonderful MDOT solutions. First of all, "no build" is a poor choice of words. It sounds like a punishment because MDOT doesn't get what it wants.

Something along the lines of "improved, or enhanced" Route 1 alternatives to a bypass sounds much more inviting. Seeing how they have made absolutely "NO" attempt to improve anything over the 50 years they've been talking about a bypass, how can they justify even wanting to build one.

They've made no attempt to improve bad intersections, made no attempt to try traffic lights strategically placed to break up the flow of traffic, and allow cross traffic to enter the highway, made no attempt to place "ALT 1" signs up when there is a way to go around Wiscasset at least for commuter traffic, and summer tourists, have not resurfaced the road going through the middle of town (just patched the same holes all the time that their plows make from digging up the road), made no use of webcams, no use of elevated or underground walkways for pedesterian traffic, etc., etc. The point is, they have not tried any or all of the things that could be viable. Just put on the blinders and plow ahead.

From where I sit it seems to me that you try everything and anything that might improve a situation before you commit to spending an enormous amount of money that the state doesn't have and we will pay for through some sort of tax. I'm sure that the town will end up having to maintain it which again falls back on the taxpayer. The town is already maintaining state roads.

I truly don't want "ANY" bypass coming through this town and taking away the charm that exists here. I am in favor of MDOT getting some badly needed improvements that needed to be done 30 years ago, and doing something about it NOW.

Frank Risell

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Although this letter specifically addresses actions by the Wiscasset Newspaper, given the nature of local news throughout Lincoln County and the fact that it addresses an issue that resulted from a letter that I had previously sent to both the Wiscasset and Lincoln County papers, I believe that it is appropriate to once again submit this to both papers. Equally, I think this is an issue that all readers of our local papers might find interesting and one that I think should be brought to light. I can't speak for the collective public within Lincoln County, but I would like to think that like myself, they should demand nothing less than accurate reporting and ethical conduct from the editors of our local papers.

A couple of weeks ago, I submitted a letter to the editors of both the Wiscasset and Lincoln County Newspapers regarding a number of issues surrounding the proposed coal gasification plant. As a professional engineer who's field of expertise deals with the analysis of a wide range of hazardous processes, those that present a hazard to property and the public at large, I felt there were issues surrounding the proposed coal gasification facility that had yet to be addressed and would be of interest to the public. The purpose of my previous letter was to properly outline and discuss those issues.

Subsequent to submitting my letter to both papers, I received an email from the Wiscasset Newspaper informing me that they were restricting the length of all "letters to the editor and commentaries" to no more than 300 words "until further notice." Hence, I'm not sure that this letter will be published by the Wiscasset paper; as it too exceeds the 300-word limit if this is still in effect. Also included in the notification from the Wiscasset paper was an invitation to "resubmit a shorter version" if I desired to do so. I will admit that my response (to the Wiscasset Editor) to this notification was a bit critical of such a policy. It is my opinion that an Editor should actually "edit" the paper and make determinations as to what is "newsworthy" and may actually contribute to providing new information to the public. I do not believe that a blanket restriction such as this does any service to the public. My rationale for this position is that it is nearly impossible to both state and then justify/substantiate a particular position, with any level of complexity involved, within such a restricted word limit. I specifically stated that " Such restrictions will likely end up resulting in fostering more misconceptions regarding an author's intent and authenticity. " Basically, forcing people to provide only short "notes" would likely result in letters that were essentially meaningless and without basis. Needless to say, I declined to submit a shortened version to the Wiscasset Newspaper. The Lincoln County News did not have any length restrictions and printed the letter in its entirety.

Now, moving forward a couple of days, imagine my surprise when I noted that the Wiscasset Newspaper had, in fact, included a letter that apparently was written by me. However, I wish to assure the public that it wasn't! What was presented in the Wiscasset Newspaper was a "conglomeration" of many sentences that had been "extracted" from my original letter and then "pieced together" in what, in my opinion, became a collection of disjointed statements and thoughts. To say the least, I was livid when reading what the Wiscasset paper had done. Not only had the Editor of the Wiscasset paper changed my letter, but had simply put my name at the end with no indication that it had been substantially altered from its originally-submitted form. When I challenged the ethics behind such an action, the Wiscasset Editor simply stated that "I only shortened your letter, I did not re-word it."

I guess what I find most troubling is that any newspaper editor would make such a statement. Do Editors really believe that they can simply extract sentences from an original document and then piece them together in whatever fashion they like; without this being considered as "re-writing" it? In this case, the actions by the Wiscasset Editor resulted in a set of disjointed statements that made very little sense. Although I don't profess to be a "writer," I do like to think I take the time to carefully think out my statements such that they can be understood and accurately convey the intent of my thoughts. Much of the meaning and basis for many of the points within my original letter were completely lost due to the "editing" by the Wiscasset Newspaper.

I waited a couple of weeks before following up on this issue for a couple of reasons; 1) to give myself time to "cool off" and 2) to conduct a little research into the overall ethics of what was done by the Wiscasset Newspaper. My initial reaction to what was done was that "they had no right" to change or "shorten" my words and to then simply publish them as if they were, in fact, written by me; with no indication that they were "edited."*

Over the past week or two, I have both spoken to other representatives of local newspapers and also done some "digging" into what sort of "code of ethics" apply to newspaper editors. I did not have any desire to get into any legalities regarding their "attaching" my name to something that I did not write, but was certainly encouraged that each of the newspaper representatives that I contacted indicated that such actions were, in fact, unethical and were simply "wrong." Equally, I was also encouraged to note that numerous journalistic societies and organizations, one of which the Wiscasset Newspaper is a member, have published By-Laws and Codes of Ethics. Of particular interest was a paragraph in the Code of Ethics that dealt with "Accuracy." It stated; " The newspapers should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation. " It went on to state; " It (the Newspaper) should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently ." I can only hope that all our local papers follow such codes of ethics.

In summation, my efforts at looking into what is, or is not, ethical practice by newspapers indicates that there is not really any group or organization that acts as a "watch dog" to ensure that newspapers act in a proper and ethical manner. This responsibility is left to the public itself. Equally, there is no real recourse should a newspaper act in an unethical manner. I would simply caution that we all must be diligent, if not skeptical, when reading what is published in the newspapers. If something is found to be inaccurate, it is up to the reader to query an article's authenticity and accuracy; rather than simply letting it pass. Given the many letters I have read in both our local newspapers, I am comfortable that is being done. I can only hope that whether or not it is acknowledged that what was done by the Wiscasset Newspaper in this instance was wrong, that future temptation to do something similar will be resisted.

W. Mark Cummings, P.E.

Westport Island

Editor's Note - It is not at all unusual for a newspaper editor to "edit" a letter to the editor. The recent coal gasification proposal prompted such a great response that we found it necessary to limit the length of the Letters to the Editor to give everyone a voice.

Dear Editor:

In mid-November (after the recent vote in Wiscasset), another coal gasification facility was cancelled, this time in Orlando, Fla., and this time, even after a groundbreaking ceremony was held in September. Reading about continued coal gasification proposal cancellations, I would like to see Wiscasset do the following.

Hold a community forum (open to everyone) as to what the best fuel source would be at the former Maine Yankee site. The grid down there is a valuable resource, and some type of power generation facility will open there someday.

This discussion should be held before we vote again on any use of the site. This forum would be modeled on the charette idea advocated by Leon Chatelain in 2003. A similar type of community-based forum was held in Yarmouth after the loss of the Cousins Island plant.

It is interesting to note that the PUC in Florida, as well as the utilities there, are looking into both nuclear power and natural gas as alternatives to coal gasification. Not only has the proposed Orlando facility been cancelled, but a proposed second coal gasification facility in Tampa was cancelled, as well.

Wiscasset does need new tax revenues. The key question now is where our efforts are best spent. According to MSNBC, less than 10 percent of all coal gasification facilities proposed have ever been built. Rather than continuing to vote on coal gasification proposals, let us begin to explore all of the alternative energy sources: nuclear, natural gas, solar, wind, and tidal.

Karl Tarbox

Wiscasset

Dear Editor,

Regardless of your position on teacher contract negotiations in Wiscasset, it is time to debunk some of the great myths that have persisted in this community and to put a face on the issues at hand.

Myth 1: Teachers are paid for summer vacation.

Teachers are paid for 183 days of work (Wiscasset teachers work three days more than most other districts in the state which must be taken into account when we compare Wiscasset teacher pay to other communities). Teaching is the only white-collar profession I know of that has NO paid vacation days, NO paid holidays and NO pay for overtime. Teachers do receive paychecks over the summer, but that is due to their salaries being split over 26 pay periods.

Myth 2: Wiscasset teachers are overpaid.

Shortly after I arrived at WHS, I had a significant raise in my salary due to my years of experience. Since that time, roughly a decade, I have not seen a cost of living increase. Wiscasset teacher salaries now rank as the lowest among all surrounding coastal communities. To put it in black and white, veteran teachers such as myself make substantially less than our counterparts. I earn $5,000 to $7,000 less per year than I would in any neighboring school system.

The single dissenting voice on the Fact Finding Panel whose report was just made public compares Wiscasset teacher salaries to the state average. With all due respect, the salaries in Aroostook and Washington counties are hardly a fair comparison. The cost of living is considerably higher in the midcoast region. Average salary comparisons are statistically invalid because salaries are dependent upon the average experience of the teaching staff. Wiscasset does have a high number of veteran teachers as compared to other districts, which is a tremendous benefit to the students of Wiscasset.

Myth 3: Wiscasset is the only community that pays taxes.

I understand that Wiscasset is one of the poorer socioeconomic communities in Lincoln County. In an ideal world, all of us would pay lower taxes. Teachers pay taxes too. Those of us that pay taxes in other towns continue to see our tax bills climb as well. Maine is among the most taxed states in the nation. Gov. Baldacci's consolidation plan will save money in the state budget, but will cause Maine citizens to dig even deeper in their pockets for local expenses. Little money will be saved… it is simply a shell game. Undoubtedly, the Governor's plan will continue to pit community members against their schools as a major consumer of local taxes. I have no children of my own, but I do believe in this democracy and the responsibility of her citizens to provide a free education to the children of our next generation. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Myth 4: Teachers in Wiscasset don't believe the school budget should be cut.

Student enrollment in Wiscasset is on the decline. There are numerous areas where belts can be tightened prior to impacting direct student services and instruction. I know of no educator in the Wiscasset system who would argue that budget cuts should not be made and that those cuts undoubtedly must include salary positions.

Those cuts should be made; however, with consideration of the impact on students and programming. What was unconscionable was the way that Supt. McIntire herded the staff of the entire district into the high school gymnasium last spring and proceeded to hand out first the seniority list followed by a list of his proposed cuts which listed 0.3 cuts in one position, 0.7 in another area, 1.5 in still another, etc. He then suggested that we should connect the dots to figure out who was being cut, before he cowardly retreated from the gymnasium. None of those staff members was given the courtesy of prior notification in a professional and respectful manner.

Myth 5: The Wiscasset Newspaper plays a positive role in the Wiscasset community.

The Wiscasset Newspaper is more tabloid than newsworthy. What other paper has a column for people to write in anonymous and unsubstantiated nonsense that frequently attacks its local schools. The Wiscasset Newspaper does this community a great disservice in taking such an antagonistic role. There are many wonderful and supportive members of the greater Wiscasset community… unfortunately the negative minority has been given the voice.

Myth 6: Teachers are the enemy.

Teachers are NOT the enemy! I have never been more proud to be part of a teaching staff than I am now. Few in the community truly have a sense of just how special this staff is, how innovative, how progressive, how dedicated this staff is.

The teachers of this district work hard and that work has been met with success. Wiscasset Schools were one of the very few school districts to meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) this year. This is a state based method of testing students to determine if improvements are made each year. We want Wiscasset to be successful and for the town to be prosperous. Good education is critical in attracting new businesses and new families to this community. Under the outstanding educational leadership of Principal Sue Poppish and Vice Principal Matt Carlson, WHS has never had a more accomplished, knowledgeable, talented and visionary faculty.

Sincerely,

Shari Templeton

Wiscasset High School Physics

Teacher

Newcastle

Dear Editor,

Thank you to all who made generous donations to the Wiscasset town office for Thanksgiving. Because of the thoughtfulness of many people and organizations, 26 families consisting of 78 people enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving dinner.

This year we tried collecting Shaw's Points, which were turned into additional meals. The project was a huge success. Many people brought in their "extra points" or dropped them off at the transfer station which we then gave to those who needed them.

It is incredible to know that we have such caring persons in our community. Once again, thank you all for you continued support in the program.

Sue Varney

Wiscasset Town Office

Dear Editor:

The "trio" that has been throwing out every roadblock possible to stop the Ferry Landing Project stated a couple of weeks ago that they were not against the project.

Now they want to meet with the selectmen and "settle out of court." Fine! Just as soon as the "trio" delivers a check to the Westport Island Town Office for all the costs they have caused with their roadblocks and a check to the state for all the extra costs they have caused the project funds with their roadblocks, plus a check for $500,000 to the Westport Island Town Office for all the pain and disruption they have caused the town with their roadblocks -- then and only then should the selectmen meet with the "'trio!"

Richard DeVries

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

After your story ["Hunter shooting near Maine Yankee worries resident," Nov. 23, 2007], it might help the residents of your community sleep better at night if the mayor of your city and your Chief of Police, and perhaps a few County Commissioners demanded a personal inspection of the waste storage facilities out at the Maine Yankee Wiscasset power plant to see exactly what the setup is, if they don't already know.

While even a wannabe terrorist would be nuts to try to steal a barrel of fuel rods (he'd be dead within a few days of opening the top - the radiation is that strong), dynamiting a fuel rod storage pool building with enough force to crack the pool so the rods would reach an explosive critical stage is a totally different story. So would be the "dry" storage of the rods in large outside canisters. If one of those was somehow split open, a multi-mile radius of any farm or residential land surrounding the plant would be unusable for decades.

I don't blame the guy who saw the hunter shooting at the deer on the plant's property one bit for being upset about no guards showing up. That says to me at least the hunter knew about some way or ways to get into the fenced areas* to retrieve his prize... and if he could get in, someone else with even more terrorist motives could, too.

And, I certainly wouldn't trust the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's word that the surveillance cameras were working.

Sincerely,

Jim Casey

Virginia Beach, Va.

*Editor's Note, the field where the deer were standing is Maine Yankee land, but that part of the site is not fenced.

Dear Editor,

We are writing to explain our position regarding the ongoing contract negotiations with the Wiscasset Teachers' Association. The school committee and the association have been bargaining for more than 20 months for a new contract to replace the one that expired in August 2006. In that time, we have resolved many difficult issues, but we have not been able to reach agreement on the two most important issues - salaries and health insurance benefits.

The school committee has four goals in these negotiations: 1) to provide the very best education to our students; 2) to settle a contract that our taxpayers can afford; 3) to ensure that our employees have a competitive compensation package; and 4) to bring our school expenditures closer to the averages across Maine and in our geographic area.

Here are a few facts to consider:

• The school department's overall budget this year is $1.4 million over the budget that the state recognizes as necessary under the Essential Programs and Services funding model.

• Wiscasset's per pupil cost for 2005 was $11,343 compared to the state average of $8,230 - a difference of 38%.

• Wiscasset ranked 14th in the state for mills raised for education in 2005. Why are our costs so high? There are many reasons, including the cost of salaries and benefits for staff, our staffing levels, our facilities, and the number of programs we offer. All of these costs were easily funded when Maine Yankee contributed large sums to the local tax base. Since the decommissioning of Maine Yankee, however, school costs have continued to rise, even though our student enrollment has decreased, and the burden of supporting our schools has increasingly fallen on local taxpayers. Taxpayers have expressed their concern about school expenses and taxes loudly and clearly, resulting in reductions to our school budgets in the past two years totaling $645,000.

Why is the school committee focusing on teacher salary and benefit costs?

Salaries and benefits comprise over 80% of the school department's operating budget. In regard to teacher salaries:

• The average classroom teacher salary in Wiscasset in the 2006-2007 school year was $45,957 compared to the state average of $40,855.

• Teacher salaries in Wiscasset in the 2006-2007 school year were 5.2% higher than the salaries recognized under the state's Essential Programs and Services funding formula.

• Under the school committee's current proposal for salaries, the salaries of Wiscasset teachers would still be higher than salaries recognized under the Essential Programs and Services model and the average in neighboring districts for K-12 schools. For example, a new teacher with a B.A. degree would receive $29,891, while the area average is $28,674 and a teacher with an M.A. degree at the top of the scale would earn $54,453 compared to the area average of $53,896.

And what about health insurance? Over the past 10 years, health insurance costs have increased by 173%. This year, the cost of a single subscriber plan is $6,096.96 and the cost of a family plan is a staggering $16,725.12. Currently, the school committee pays 100 percent of the single subscriber premium and 90 percent of the cost for dependent coverage. Thus, the school department has absorbed nearly all of the premium costs for years. Compare this with:

• The average contribution to health insurance premiums in neighboring K-12 school districts where teachers have 95% of their single premium and 82% to 85% of their dependent coverage paid by the district; and

• Studies from the Maine Department of Labor showing that employers similar in size to the Wiscasset School Department paid 72.6% of the single premium and 49.8% of dependent coverage for their employees.

What is going on with negotiations right now? In October, the parties received the report of a fact finding panel that listened to the positions of both sides and issued their recommendations for how the salary and health insurance dispute should be resolved. Unfortunately, even the panel's recommendations were not unanimous, demonstrating how difficult these issues are. Consequently, the parties have been unable to agree on accepting the panel's recommendations.

At the last negotiation session, the school committee made a salary and health insurance proposal that we believe is a fair compromise between the high and low recommendations of the fact finding panel; is respectful of the hard work done by our teachers; and is also respectful of the concerns and burdens on our local taxpayers. The School Committee's proposal would:

• Raise each teacher's salary between 1.5% and 6.0%, with the higher percentages going to those lower on the scale (an average increase of 2.6%) for the 2006-2007 school year - resulting in an increase of the average teacher salary from $47,073 to approximately $48,282.

• Raise each teacher's salary between 2.5% and 4.3% for the current school

year (with the average salary projected to increase to approximately $49,680).

• Raise each teacher's salary between 2.3% and 5.3% in the 2008-2009 school year (with the average salary projected to increase to approximately $51,272), based on current staffing.

• Gradually increase teachers' share of health insurance premiums over the course of the three-year contract so that by the 2008-2009 school year, the district would pay 100% of single premiums and 92% of dependent premiums, basing premium payments on the previous year's costs of coverage. This would enable the school committee to build budgets with exact health care costs rather than projections. The school committee has offered that in 2008-09, it would pay $6,096.96 toward the insurance of single subscriber and up to $15,387.11 toward the insurance of a teacher and their multiple dependents.

The school committee believes that its salary and health insurance proposals balance the legitimate needs of teachers with the economic realities facing Wiscasset's taxpayers while preserving educational programs for students.

Unfortunately, however, the association has now chosen to break off negotiations and wage a media campaign instead. The school committee stands ready to go back to the table.

The Wiscasset

School Committee