To the Editor:

Last week’s Newtown Bee featured, front and center, an article giving the RTC’s take on the recent Board of Education meeting regarding the proposed book ban. In that article, RTC leaders expressed outrage at the public’s behavior at the meeting, pointing the finger at the DTC and NAFC for inciting the attendees at a rally that took place before the meeting.

The RTC has repeatedly called out the DTC for politicizing the issue. The RTC is mad, mad, mad. Newtownians have been very naughty citizens!

But lo and behold!

Through the magic that is the “Freedom of Information Act,” Newtown Allies For Change has been able to establish that none other than William DeRosa, chair of the RTC, was one of the 10 people who called for the banning of Flamer.

And what’s this? Of the 11 people overall who requested bans of the books in question, three of them are actively serving the community as Republicans.

That seems a disproportionately high partisan participation rate for a non-political request. But wait! There’s more! Screen caps! Lordy lordy, THERE ARE SCREEN CAPS!

The board’s own Jen Larkin, rising star of the Newtown Republican Town Committee, strategizing with the banners as to how to get this to pass. Seems a tad corrupt.

But let’s get back to the meeting, where the people of Newtown came out in force, with a ratio greater than 10 to 1, against the ban. Yes, the room was energized. This wasn’t just because of the rally. The meeting itself, with speaker after speaker after speaker passionately giving their personal experiences, or dispassionately reminding the board of the constitutional amendments the proposed ban defy, the oath the members of the board took, the process the board was supposed to follow but chose not to...

Let’s be honest, there was a kumbaya atmosphere. The people were energized because there was SOOOOOO push-back against the ban. And then the board got to deliberate.

And the Republicans, ignoring more than 90 percent of the speakers, trying to salvage the ban in some form. A compromise on a constitutional amendment is still unconstitutional, Ms Larkin and Kuzma. There would still be costly lawsuits.

The “bad behavior” was incited by a few factors. I would argue the atmosphere in the room, given the power of the speeches that was far more energizing than the rally given by the DTC or anything done by the NAFC, both of whom, despite their best efforts, have not been able to move the public effectively enough to further their goals to a place of great participation.

Add to that the disbelief in seeing how all that was being ignored by our elected representatives, and yeah, things got, well, grumbly. This is one of the ways accountability presents itself in a democracy.

This LTE is another. Accountability, my dear Republicans, not bullying as you repeatedly claim.

What is the motivation behind this book ban? To remove books? Or to spread divisiveness in our community before an election?

Linda O’Sullivan

Sandy Hook