Mayor Stack’s Predictable Response: Deny, Deflect, Dismiss

In response to anonymous letters sent by Union City parents raising serious concerns about student safety and leadership accountability, Brian P. Stack has once again reached for a familiar political script—one residents of Union City have seen many times before.

Rather than addressing the substance of the parents’ concerns in a transparent or verifiable way, the mayor’s campaign mailer follows a well-worn pattern: label the allegations as “lies,” dismiss the messengers as anonymous and politically motivated, and warn voters that “election season” brings false attacks from unnamed enemies.

It is a response that relies heavily on rhetoric—but offers little in the way of facts.

The Same Lines, Every Time

The mailer repeatedly insists that the claims made by parents are “unsubstantiated” and “false,” yet it provides no evidence to support that conclusion. There is no citation of investigative findings, no reference to an independent review, and no confirmation that any inquiry has been completed. Instead, residents are asked to trust reassurances that City Hall and the Board of Education “take allegations seriously.”

This is not new. Time and again, when faced with criticism, Mayor Stack defaults to the same defensive posture: deny wrongdoing, question motives, and cast dissent as politically driven.

But here’s the problem with that narrative—he does not identify a single political opponent.

The Convenient Invention of “Political Opponents”

Mayor Stack is currently running unopposed for his position. Yet his mailer warns residents about “my political opponents” spreading lies. Who are they? He does not say.

The parents who authored the letter did not identify themselves as candidates, campaigns, or political organizations. They identified themselves as parents concerned about student safety. By recasting them as shadowy political adversaries, the mayor avoids addressing the core issue raised in the letters and instead shifts the conversation to election-season paranoia.

This tactic may be effective politically, but it does nothing to reassure parents who are asking legitimate questions.

Deflection Instead of Accountability

Notably absent from the mayor’s response is any meaningful discussion of:

What specific allegations were reviewed Who reviewed them Whether any outside authority was involved Whether findings exist or will be made public

Instead, residents are offered something else: the mayor’s personal cell phone number.

While accessibility can be commendable, it is not a substitute for institutional transparency or independent oversight—especially when the issue involves public trust, schools, and children.

A Pattern That Fuels Distrust

Critics argue that this response fits a broader pattern in Union City governance—one where serious concerns are routinely minimized, critics are discredited, and calls for transparency are reframed as political attacks. Whether or not the allegations ultimately prove true, dismissing them outright without public accountability only deepens skepticism.

By branding concerned parents as liars and political operatives—without naming names or presenting proof—the mayor’s mailer raises more questions than it answers.

The Question That Remains

If the allegations are truly false, the solution is simple: show the facts. Publish findings. Invite independent review. Provide clarity.

Until then, many residents will see this mailer not as a reassuring response, but as another example of deflection—another round of the same talking points used to shield City Hall from scrutiny.

And in a city where trust in leadership is already fragile, repeating the same lines may only accelerate the very doubts the mayor claims are unfounded.