Fluoridation is outside the public works commissioner’s wheelhouse of expertise. He is not a doctor. It is notable that, during reexamination of fluoridation, opponents and proponents of the measure testified but not the public works commissioner, the one with the decision-making authority.
I admit I should have insisted he take part, but I felt and still feel that, if an unethical, unsafe and marginally effective health measure is to be enacted, it is the aldermen who should make the decision. Commissioner Rotondo has promised me a written statement on his reasons for fluoridating, which I’m waiting for. He told me in person, however, he felt he could not go against the recommendations of the authorities in the field, which I took to mean public health officials and dentists of the American Dental Association.
Having now declined to put on the March ballot a charter change to end fluoridation, the aldermen are at least on record pro and con on fluoridation, an accountability they have avoided until now. Based on the voice vote Dec. 5, only Alderman Anna Tadio was willing to let voters weigh in on the proposed charter change. While Alderman Tom DePoy is against fluoridation, he didn’t support the charter change referendum.
Jack Crowther lives in Rutland.
*Original full-text article online at: https://www.rutlandherald.com/opinion/commentary/crowther-fluoridation-authority/article_348948d7-cf89-5e5d-99f8-be3bcfdb3bb3.html