The Glendale News-Press article ("Protest gets personal," May 27) indicated that a group of 50 or so participated in the vigil. The May 29 editorial, "Union strategy tough to endorse," was more descriptive in their commentary of the antics of the Glendale teachers union and a pointed remark about their postured method of bargaining.
It appears that the leadership of the teachers union is and has been for the past few years somewhat of an embarrassment to our community with their public demonstrations, their press releases, and now this latest episode of overt intimidation of a school board representative, elected, at large, by the citizens of Glendale to serve and represent Glendale, not the teachers union, in such a way as to benefit the city's school-age children.
It was especially disappointing to view the picture of the father and child in the News-Press actively engaged in the "vigil." What kind of impression does this child take away from this demonstration? Is it one of solving problems and achieving "my way" by demonstrating in front of my opponent's home? Or is it a very real and subtle message exhibited by the nearby adults that, this is problem-solving at its worst.
What was the reaction of the Krikorian children to this kind of harassment? I would think it would be the opposite of the little girl pictured. It is obvious that this was no place for children.
Since when is a visible attempt to intimidate, to coerce and to harass called a vigil — candle-lit or not? When do the able teachers in our community begin to assert themselves and choose leadership that not only they, but the entire community can take pride in?