June 06, 2008 08:56 pm To the editor: I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of Yes! for Beverly. While their campaign did not result in victory, this recent election should be looked at for what it did achieve. Beverly is no longer known as a city where an override vote has never been given a chance to succeed. Yes! for Beverly worked diligently to get this initiative on the ballot, which allowed Beverly voters to voice their opinion on how taxes are collected and distributed. This was an uphill battle for override advocates, however. Mayor Scanlon's sneaky "no override on my watch" tactics and his attempts to divide the community by pitting school against school aside, there's the fact only a quarter of the households in the city contain school-age children. Add to that the fact parents in Beverly are statistically the least likely to go to the polls, Yes! for Beverly had a small base to work with. They needed to convince a vast majority of the electorate that what they sought as a temporary fix for school financing issues was much more than a permanent tax increase. Unfortunately, this is where they made two fundamental mistakes. One of the key tenants of the Yes! for Beverly campaign was classroom size. While recent studies show again and again that smaller classroom sizes are indeed tantamount to academic success, the median age in Beverly shows that a vast majority of the population has already completed their school-age years. Drumming home the battle cry of "30 children in a classroom" simply fell on deaf ears. "Been there, done that ... and survived," was the most likely response. Playing this card simply did not work. Trumpeting that "children are our future" was another critical error. Aside from the H.G. Wellsian philosophical puzzlement of why we aren't our own futures, Yes! for Beverly simply forgot that local politics is not about the future. It is about the here and now. Local political issues are living, breathing, daily personal issues. These are the issues we see currently; the ones that affect the bottom line of day-to-day living. Many Beverly residents look to the next paycheck or to how they will pay the next fuel bill. They don't have time to worry if little Johnny or Susie will be there in 20 years to help them cure the disease du jour. It's all very, very important, but just does not play well at the local level. While Yes! for Beverly conducted an honest and above-board campaign that was noticeable and well-organized, it played out as merely a pep rally for its voting base. Granted, time was limited and given more of that time I am sure the message would have been honed and adjusted to meet its goals. But in hindsight, the sign-waving parades and promises of free t-shirts could have been replaced with community dinners and talks and Q&A periods at places like the Senior Center or wherever concerned voters meet. Neighborhood meetings could have taken the place of PTO rallies and podium-pounding school board cacophony. This is not to say that Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility won; they simply did not lose. Their inconsistent message, incorrect data and politics of derision and false, immature accusations, were not enough to overcome the lead they went to the polls with. The silent majority who kept quiet, did their homework and went about the business of voting, brought about the victory through the simple act of showing up. BRIAN G. LEWANDOWSKI Beverly ><p>
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.