Reaction to 9-1-2005 PD Article

Email from Dr. J. Martin Rochester

Dear Members of the Joint Study Committee: I read the Post Dispatch article today regarding the proposed Clayton-Richmond Heights merger, and I wish to comment on what I see as an ongoing problem with this process. I continue to be extremely upset with the intellectual dishonesty of this entire process -- in particular, the lack of balance in discussing the issue -- and what seems to be an effort on the part of some to railroad a merger decision (granted it ultimately has to be voted on by the people of each municipality).

Why do I say this? From Day One, I have complained about the fact that all we ever hear from the mayor and city manager of Clayton -- I will allow Richmond Heights citizens to speak for themselves -- is how wonderful a prospective merger would be, i.e., what the potential "advantages" are, WITHOUT ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER OF POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES !!! For example, Mr. Shoedel in today's PD article, according to the reporter, spoke of "advantages" but uttered nary a word about possible "disadvantages." Indeed, other than the "skepticism" mentioned by Dan Human -- who at least was truly balanced in his views -- there was ZERO mention of ANY disadvantages. We predictably heard from Mr. Denlow and Ms. Eveloff about what the merger had to offer Clayton -- they have been outspoken supporters of the merger, as reflected in their public comments at a meeting I attended -- but there was no mention of any downside. Btw, the committee seems stacked with pro-merger folks, no?

Sorry if I offend anyone, but I will insist on an honest dialogue and discussion in this process. I will continue to complain UNTIL I hear the mayor, the city manager, and other officials be willing to publicly cite possible DISADVANTAGES in the same breadth and with EQUAL mention as they cite advantages. If you are truly being fair and balanced and objective and open-minded about this study as you claim, as opposed to pushing a hidden or not-so-hidden agenda (e,g. the eventual merger of the two school districts, which, if a merger would occur, would receive relentless pressure to bring about and would be a disaster for Clayton based on academic achievement disparities), then let's see evidence of presenting BOTH sides of the issue. I have no problem with a study going further, and I do not doubt there are some potential benefits to a merger of the cities, but my sense is that there are at least as many costs and negatives to a merger. I want these articulated and not spared public discussion. Thank you. --Marty Rochester (7425 York Drive, Clayton)