Focus on age misses point on tax debate

An article (``Tax vote dividing residents/Override seen as defining moment for Milton" by Peter Schworm, Globe South, June 11 ) leaves the reader with the lasting impression that if one supported the override or, in the alternative, questioned it, those persons would have to fall into certain age demographics. Either way, it was an example of ageism and an incorrect assumption.

Mr. Schworm mentions seven Milton residents by name in the article but refers only to one resident who opposed the override by a specific age ``72." Those who favored the override were not mentioned by a specific age but a reader could presume that they were in a younger demographic, as they referred to their young school-age children.

At the very least, characterizing support and opposition to this specific override by age is a simplification of a complex issue. Many individuals who rose against the override crossed the entire age spectrum. In fact, one the leaders of the ``Vote NO" committee is in his early 30s, as are many supporters.

The override procedure has become a Band-Aid over an oozing budgetary pathology. The state mandates unfunded school-based programs, yet severely limits state aid to cities and towns that might cover those costs. At the local level, the structure of town departments demonstrates an incapacity to produce budgets in a timely form . Presenting bottom-line budget summations to elected committees does not give a sufficient item-by-item, line-by-line accounting. Credibility requires complete oversight. Even as I write this letter the weekly town newspaper, The Milton Times, is editorializing today about the ``standards and practices" of the School Department's FY 07 budget, which it says it has failed to release in its entirety.

One uses ageism as a means to pre judge a complex issue at his own risk. The budget problems in Milton and many other towns are complex and need an open and complete discussion. Age should have nothing to do with it.

Paul Yovino Milton