To the Editor:

I am in shock that both Megan Cowette and Ashley Rahill were not hired back for the Candia Summer Rec program, and as a resident of Candia, I want answers from our selectmen.

As I was reading their letter to the editor in last week’s Hooksett Banner, I was growing increasingly dismayed at the poor decision-making of our selectmen. I, for one, want to know why this was a political decision, and how it could not be personal in any way. Is someone on the board of selectmen related to both of these girls so that neither of them could be hired? (I highly doubt that.) If I had gotten that phone call from Mr. Brennan saying that I wasn’t hired back (especially after three years of being an outstanding employee and being well-liked by the users of the program, the parents and children of the town of Candia who you are supposed to represent, by the way), and was told that “It was nothing personal, just politics,” I would be very confused. How could it be anything but personal?

Who could be better “qualified” to be counselors for the Candia program than people who have been in the program for three years? These two young women know the children that participate in this program, and for some of the kids, working with completely new people could be very frightening. Couldn’t at least one of these girls have been hired back for a transition period? This would have been their last year with the program, and for the children, having someone familiar helping them adjust to the change of staff could be nothing but beneficial.

To both Megan and Ashley, I would like to thank you for your years of service to the Candia Summer Rec program; your enthusiasm and caring is very much appreciated. I hope that both of you enjoy the bright future ahead of you.

To the Candia selectmen, I am very disappointed with your decision-making in this matter. I think this could have been handled much better, and instead of shutting out two experienced people for this program, you could have hired at least one of them. Who are the people you hired instead? Where are they from? What qualifications do they have that make them so special? And you should all be ashamed of yourselves (especially you, Mr. Brennan) for crushing these girls’ spirits. Also, thank you for taking a good program and wallowing it in the mud of Candia politics, I know it was appreciated by our residents. I know I don’t feel adequately represented at all in this matter, and I don’t think the interests of the children of Candia were either. Good job, I‘m proud I voted for people who don‘t represent their constituents.

Joshua Mann
Candia

To the Editor:

Pardon the tone of last week’s letter, but it is a daily source of aggravation and worry, which there is enough of, already. I just don’t want to see any of the many children who play in my neighborhood killed or crippled by someone saving about 5 seconds on their commute. I have seen my share of the results of careless driving, and don’t want to see more, especially when it could involve mine and other well-loved children on my street. Another worrisome concern has come to my attention which deserves some commentary this week.

When you send someone an e-mail letter, you expect them to get it and read it, just like a snail-mail letter. After reading the mail, they save the good ones and trash the junk. Is it a reasonably expected result, that a third party would copy your letters and distribute them, secretly? Do you think it is proper? I don’t. In fact, I contend it would be a betrayal of trust to the author and a violation of their expected and perceived privacy.

To be the recipient of such material, and withhold that fact from the author, would be an aggravation of the violation; (like receiving stolen property is of theft) especially when the fact of, and participation in, the concealment is known and maintained. To have the public trust and do so is extremely unethical, in my book. Whether an elected official or the press, this would be indefensibly unacceptable behavior, especially if the author was a known private citizen. Perhaps it’s not a crime, but it is definitely wrong to do. Of course, if the method of getting them was in question, that could certainly be a different issue.

Positions of public trust require transparency and honesty in your actions while performing the duties entrusted. Editorializing and postulating are fine, in their place. Being elected demands obedience to your constituents and the highest ethical behavior, in all matters. Lose trust, lose elections. In the press, lose readers. In life, lose friends. Trust takes a lot more to gain than to lose, like freedom.

David Ross
Hooksett

To the Editor:

Our daughter will be attending West High this fall. She is currently an eighth-grader at Cawley Middle school in Hooksett. I would like to see all of the Hooksett students sent to one school. I’m sure other sending towns would agree that their student body would like to continue on together. I am sure it would make up a great student body for West High School.

My other thought would be to look into having a co-op between the sending towns so as not to have to go into Manchester. Rumor has it Manchester Sand and Gravel was going to donate a parcel of land to the town for the sole purpose of building a high school for Hooksett students. If that was true, why not work towards that goal and have the other sending towns work on that project with us?

Diane Bergeron
Hooksett

Editor’s note: We’re happy Ms. Bergeron wrote. We are still interested in hearing from you about the high school situation. Please send your letter to editor@hooksettbanner.com.

To the Editor:

Mr. Armand LeSelva, the superintendent of SAU 15 (Hooksett, Candia and Auburn) will be leaving us this July. Let’s take a little time to reminisce on some of the memorable moments of his time with us.

Who can forget that first Thanksgiving in 2004 when the assistant superintendent was put on the chopping block. But that wasn’t a clean kill, as we had to pay him until July, about $60,000. I still remember the first e-mail I sent the super -- but he didn’t, yet somehow he managed to add a comment to it and forward it to one of the school principals. Funny thing is, when I found out about it, somehow I had received confidential information. That Armand -- he always keeps you guessing. I know I will miss all of those memorable dances he used to do at the school board meetings -- “It’s a Rule Not a Law,” “Do The Hand Gesture” and, of course, “Let Me Interrupt You.”

At the SAU board meeting in the fall of 2005, it took some Hooksett residents almost a half an hour to share some of their favorite superintendent stories with the board. He has touched so many lives.

I will never forget the “Little Finger Speech,” you know, when he told a group of Underhill teachers that he had “more math background in his little finger then all of them put together.” What a knowledgeable man. They have always said he is a “Change Agent” and we have certainly got some changes in Hooksett. We now have a classified labor union, no teachers’ contract, $18,000 worth of lunch computers that will soon be obsolete, a committee to withdraw Hooksett from SAU 15 and a general feeling of “What happened?”

Many were saddened that day in the fall of 2005 when Mr. LeSelva announced that he would be leaving us. But not to worry, one of his biggest moments was yet to come. In the spring of 2006 he fired the Hooksett tech director, or misfired. Well, anyway, the tech director disappeared, then about six weeks later he was back. Maybe it was a backfire or a fire back. I guess Mr. LaSelva’s aim isn’t as good as it used to be.

As we say goodbye, I’m sure many of you have your own special memories to add to the legacy.

One might ask why I would take all of this time to reminisce about the superintendent? It’s elementary -- we must learn about history so we won’t repeat it.

David Pearl
Hooksett

To the Editor:

Several times a week, I walk through my quiet Pembroke neighborhood. As I do, I notice several cats. Some look out at me through picture windows. Others I encounter on the street; this one darts away, that one follows me for a bit. These are the outdoor cats; the ones who are free to go inside or out, depending on their whim. My cat, Cheezy, until her unexpected death on the Tuesday after Memorial Day, was one of them.

I can only imagine the last few moments of my cat’s life. After she finished breakfast and I let her out the side door, she probably sat in the carport for a few moments, then padded off to a favorite spot in the back yard, near a fringe of woods. There she might have lingered for an hour; adopting her sphinx pose: body in repose, head erect, tail curled around her, eyes like slits. The day was sunny; she might have closed her eyes when the sun beamed through the tree leaves above. She was most likely at peace.

Then, from nowhere, two dog-like creatures, possibly coyotes, discovered her in the grass. They attacked.

My wife Carolyn, alone in the house around 8:30 a.m. that morning, heard what sounded like a monster catfight in the back yard. She saw the dog creatures attacking and our cat trying to fight them off. By the time Carolyn had thrown on some clothes and dashed to the scene, Cheezy’s limp body hung from one of the dog’s mouths. The two dogs loped into the woods until they were lost to sight, taking our beloved pet with them.

Cheezy, short for Cheez-It, was an outdoor cat. She’d been that way since kittenhood (we knew her previous owners) and the land around our house was her natural environment. She had long, silky orange-yellow fur. At her annual visit to the pet groomers, we always gave her the Lion Cut; she stalked our lawn like a miniature king of beasts.

Our cat was a member of the family. Like one of the kids. Cheezy was known for getting underfoot. She liked frequent meals and would rub our legs with her body to ask for food. None of us liked it. But we did like the way she leapt into our laps, curled up and went to sleep whenever she could. In the winter, she loved to warm her feet on us. She was just the same way in summer.

Cats are adaptable creatures. They can leave a familiar house, look at brand new owners and adopt them on sight. We acquired Cheezy relatively late in her life, but she loved us all the same. All of us. She would even tag along on the occasional family walk.

Over three years, we watched Cheezy’s outside activities. She seemed afraid of nothing. She could sit in a patio chair and stare down two neighborhood mutts barking in her face. She never ran; it was always one of us who shooed the dogs away. And we would hear a kitty scuffle now and then. Unlike other cats I’ve owned, Cheezy always came home without a scratch.

Except for the time she didn’t come home.

Cheezy had been gone for about 12 hours when Carolyn called us together as a family. With tears falling, she gave us a brief version of Cheezy’s final minutes, and the attempt to save her. We came together for a group hug. My 13-year-old daughter sobbed, my young son’s face was blank. I was simply in shock. “It’s not sinking in,” I told my wife.

It did sink in for me overnight as I lay tossing and turning, the violent images cascading in my head.

I know that keeping Cheezy inside would have prolonged her life. I’ve read the literature, I know it’s true. In 10 years, I’d not seen or heard of any coyotes in our vicinity, even though they live just about everywhere. One was even found in New York City’s Central Park.

Sadly, it’s too late for Cheezy. But I now realize that cats and small dogs are not safe in my neighborhood, and must be kept indoors. I’m told that animals that stay indoors from the beginning don’t miss being outside and are perfectly happy. These are the voices of experience.

Don Kelley
Pembroke