THE SAGA OF SURRY VILLAGE SCHOOL

Part III: But Was There A Vote?--The Facts

“There was no vote to close the Surry school September 2005.”
Saga of Surry Village School, Part III
Friday, August 26, 2005

“The Monadnock School Board has closed the Surry Village School without authorization—there was never a vote to close the Surry School this September,” asserts Attorney Bill Clauson during our recent interview. “There is no responsible reason not to let Surry children continue in the Surry School for next year. People have a misimpression about the Board’s actual vote.”

Attorney Clauson helped Surry's community go to court to require the school board to revote the Surry closing issue. They based their appeal on irregularities with how the board advertised its June 27th meeting. The Board posted the meeting in Surry's public school but after the school had closed for the year-so no Surry parents or community members could see the notice. The point of the Right to Know Law is to assure citizens know the business their government is going to transact, so citizens can watch and intervene. The court filing suggested the board’s non-posting in Surry didn’t meet the requirements of letting people know their agenda. In fact, the agenda didn’t mention “Closing Surry School.” The judge’s ruling, released August 25th, did not require the Board to vote again. Surprisingly, when attorneys for the town and school district went over records, everyone realized that the Monadnock School Board hadn’t voted to close the school anyway. What a confusion! And there was no affirmative vote to cancel the Board’s prior vote to have a transition year.

There was a School Board meeting early in June which had contradictory votes. So there was an emergency meeting established for June 27th to, again, go over the Northern Schools Facilities Committee report recommendations. “At the June 27th meeting, the Board’s motion and affirmative vote was to accept the recommendation of the Northern Schools Facility committee,” said Clauson. “And the Northern Schools Facility Committee\s written recommendations do NOT recommend closing the Surry School. The committee’s recommendation regarding Surry was: ‘Sullivan or Surry would house grades 1, 2, 3.’ The Facilities Committee followed its charge which outlined that there would be a transition year before any recommendation was put into effect,” said Clauson. “The committee’s recommendations do not mention any action for this September.”

A distraught community member, asking not to be named, said “the Monadnock School Board voted unanimously last November to guarantee northern towns a year for transition if there was a decision to close a northern town school. This was a promise and commitment to Surry by the Monadnock School Board. This guarantee came about because Mr. Thackston, now the Monadnock school board chairperson, had advanced a motion, out of the blue, to close Surry school. When people in Surry heard about this, they were very alarmed and went to the next School Board meeting. Many people voiced concerns that Mr. Thackston seemed determined to close the Surry School without discussion. And THAT is when the Monadnock School Board voted to guarantee and reassure Surry residents they would not close Surry’s school without a year’s notice and transition. They voted unanimously last November to reassure us.”

”The School Board is putting our children in harm’s way and we have no time to make other plans. Our kindergarten children will be bussed on hour with students in grades 4, 5, and 6. They won’t ride busses with any young children. This same School Board just asked us to pay taxes to operate Surry School next year…so now they take our money and close our school anyway, breaking their recent commitment to the Surry community citizens. Every resident in every Monadnock district should be concerned about a school board that behaves this way. If the board doesn’t honor its commitments, any district could be harmed.”

Clauson says he’s concerned that any Surry residents have to spend time and money in court over something that is just plain unfair and unreasonable. “There is no responsible reason not to let Surry children continue in the Surry School next year,” he said. “What the school board didn’t consider was that parents do not want their children bussed an hour in two different directions. This is an age when little children can be terrified on these long bus rides.. There are differences of opinion between the school board and parents about multiage teaching. But the real issue is that the School Board voted a commitment to Surry and has now broken its contract with the Town of Surry. The school board voted a year of transition; there has been no vote to cancel the prior transition year vote.”

Have Your Say!?

A small town in a multi-town district is concerned about abrupt school facility changes. The School Board hears the concern and then votes a guarantee that towns whose schools are closing or changed would have a year for transition. And then, after two chaotic board meetings a year later, the board votes to accept a Facilities Committee recommendation to close the Surry Village School. Bedlam ensues. When attorneys get together they realize that Facilities Committee didn’t recommend closing the Surry Village School. And there was no affirmative vote to cancel the prior vote for a transition year. Meanwhile, school begins soon. Retired Surry School teachers say they will step in to open school again this year. What should be done? Have your say.

Susan Hollins

Read The Saga of Surry School Part-I and Part-II

Return to the newsletter.

Go to our Weblog on this topic.

NHCSR'S Homepage.