Protesting the actions of the Vermont Democratic State Party Committee

We, the undersigned, believe the Vermont Democratic State Party Committee was out of line in its July 22 meeting in Montpelier. It failed to "endorse" or "certify the validity of" Attorney General Sorrell as a candidate in the Aug. 28 primary, and we protest that failure.

The committee defined "endorsement" in its May meeting as validating that a candidate was a qualified, bona fide Democrat. The endorsement is not meant to support one candidate over the other. For that, there is a primary election.

The same committee endorsed challenger TJ Donovan at its May meeting, stating that it would endorse Attorney General Sorrell at a later meeting.

At the July 22 meeting, the chair allowed several members to engage in discussion about AG Sorrell's choice of a non-union shop to print his campaign materials. Some members objected that the discussion was irrelevant for certifying the candidate's suitability for endorsement. When the votes were counted, AG Sorrell lacked sufficient votes to be "certified."

We maintain that the introduction of the irrelevant issue tainted the proceedings and negatively influenced the outcome. The chair, in allowing extended discussion of a non-germane issue, raised the bar for Sorrell's endorsement. That tactic is unacceptable, and we vehemently object to it.

Fairness requires that the committee use the same parameters to endorse AG Sorrell as were used with Donovan, keeping irrelevant issues out of the discussion. Fairness requires that both candidates be endorsed on equal grounds. To do anything else is undemocratic. To do anything else smacks of blatant favoritism.

ROBERT M. HARTWELL

JUDY MURPHY

MICHAEL A. KEANE

WENDY R. WOODS Rumblings of mid-summer

Amid the normal and abnormal trials of life, during a mid-summer heat wave, one boldly casts aside the ordinary concerns of life to concentrate on a question of no small significance. What has agri-business done with the old fashion 25-pound watermelon?

Sure, in the beginning I thought the bowling ball size versions were a little cute, but the biggest selling point they had was no seeds.

In order to create this hassle free type they sacrificed all the sweetness, flavor and deep red color for one thing. No seeds?

Bring back the real deal, you food scientists. I wouldn't complain if they sold both varieties, like when the seedless impostors first hit the stores. But for a few years now we have been force-fed the mini's.

Forget about the mini's being cheaper. An average family having an outing at Lake Shaftsbury would have to buy several. Whereas the regular single melons would supply everyone with leftovers too.

The closest jumbo I have seen in several years was in Nevada last summer, and unless a committee organizes a mini-boycott, that Nevada sighting may have been my last ever.

And so to our future generations we have also stolen that once important tradition of summer time fun -- seed spitting.

What? Me worry? Back into the pool, ya'll.

RENE CASSANO

Bennington