Without question, the OBSERVER’s View, published (Aug. 16-17), is a classic example of muddled writing.

As a journalism teacher and high school student newspaper adviser for more than 40 years, I often challenged students to read carefully and seek the truth when we know adult writers sometimes miss the mark. This editorial that leans toward the destruction of Fredonia’s “antiquated” water plant misses the mark on several levels.

First, it assumes that the board will finish what it attempted to do nearly two years ago before a lawsuit stopped them: Ignore the multiple warnings and concerns of village residents, some with years of experience and knowledge of village finances and infrastructure. Perhaps that is the goal, from this board, but encouraging this decision that will affect residents and businesses for years to come should not be the job of an editorial writer, especially one with a possible bias.

The newspaper has a responsibility to educate, not confuse readers.

How many village meetings did this writer attend? Who was interviewed? Why are there no sources cited in this editorial? Who, besides one engineering company with limited municipal financial expertise and four trustees on this board, is supporting a complicated, risky, costly pipe dream of pumping water uphill from a water source with incompatible chemical additives? (See story Aug. 10, “County lectures Fredonia on boil orders.”)

The editorial calls on the “three or four individuals who are coming forward” to be louder. Three or four? Louder? There were packed board meetings and picketing outside for weeks. How much louder can villagers get? And, by the way, there were only two or three at those meetings who voiced support for the lake water buy option.

The editorial continues, “If there is a petition, how many have signed it?” Yes. There was a petition presented at a meeting by former mayor Landis. It was signed by many more than three or four villagers. Look it up. The newspaper missed all that? How about a few hundred signatures? However, we cannot really know how many are informed or care because of the limited opportunity from this board for serious dialogue. It has been one way.

However, it seems wiser to trust individuals with credibility, not rely on a head count or rookie trustees. We know that a number of former village officials with extensive knowledge about finances and our water system have spoken at meetings, week after week, month after month. With a three minute time limit, they were often cut off mid-sentence by a board with four who clearly preferred to listen to others.

The editorial also calls last month’s boil order an “emergency,” although the county health department clarified that it was not an emergency. The real emergency could be a collapse of the entire system if the village hastily plows ahead with their simple solution to a complex problem.

Blaming past officials is a waste of time and energy, and not really based on facts. There is work to be done. There are reasonable options that are affordable and environmentally sound, and the OBSERVER might want to do more than write off an “antiquated” system that has sustained us for many years. Every system, including Dunkirk’s, needs updates and improvements. There are ways to finance that, and it is certainly more cost effective than walking away from a gift that sustains us.

And, finally, I commend the paper for its commitment to cover local news, but editorials are best when they inform, not confuse readers.

Dadie Sedota is a Fredonia resident.