EDDINGTON-CLIFTON SELECTMEN MEET WITH SCHOOL BOARD REPS

Last night, Wednesday the 23rd, a very productive meeting was held at the Eddington Town Office. Brian Glass, Chip Grover and Joan Brooks from the Eddington Board of Selectmen, with Eddington Town Manager, Russell Smith, had arranged to meet with the Eddington School Board representatives. Karen Clark and Therese Anderson were in attendance. Pam Dorr was absent due to illness. Selectmen Charles Baker and Don Goodwin were absent. Baker was in S. Carolina and Goodwin had an appointment at the credit union.

Members from the Clifton Board of Selectmen had also been invited to attend. Two were able to do so - Two were ill and a third, Carol Jordan, a flight nurse, had planned to be there but wasn't. Present were Penny Peasley and Ed Beauchamp. Fred Rosenberg, a Clifton citizen who regularly attends Clifton Selectmen's meeting and PVCOG meetings was also in attendance. The Clifton Selectmen had their regular monthly meeting last Wednesday and the Clifton School Board representative, Chris Fickett, attended where Clifton's issues and concerns regarding the SAD63 land transference issue was discussed.

Additionally, citizens from Eddington in attendance last night were: Ralph Russell (former principal of Holbrook Middle School), John Butt (Town Manager of Holden and Eddington resident), Mr. and Mrs. Grover, parents of Selectman Grover, and this writer.

In truth, there were more people in the room than there ever are for monthly Eddington Selectmen meetings. And it was a good meeting!

After opening with the Flag Salute, Eddington Chair, Joan Brooks, read a letter from the Eddington legal counsel which, in effect, recommended that the town continue to oppose any transfer of land. As the Selectmen stated, the taxpayers of Eddington (and Clifton) have paid for the maintenance and improvements of the land in question for many years and the proposal at hand (as written) is to give the land to the Town of Holden with no compensation in return to the Eddington (or Clifton) taxpayers. Further, the Selectmen (and legal counsel's opinion) felt the wording of the proposal (which the Selectmen had only recently received) was not sufficient to address numerous concerns.

As a result, the position of the Eddington Board of Selectmen was to oppose the transfer as proposed and they strongly encouraged the Eddington School Board reps to vote in opposition.

Representatives from Clifton concurred, stating that had been their Board's position at their meeting last Wednesday. The Clifton Selectmen stated their position was based on similar reasoning as voiced by the Eddington Selectmen.

At that point, Therese Anderson brought up two points:

1. In order for the Veterans Memorial to be properly maintained, some sort of foundation or funding base needs to be established. This could not be done via the SAD63 budget or while the Memorial was on SAD63 land. If the land on which the Memorial stands were to be transferred to the Town of Holden, a special organization could be formed and funding established to maintain and pay for various costs associated with the Memorial. The Cole Foundation had been originally involved somehow with the establishment of the Memorial and is agreeable with this plan and, while they do not appear to be willing to take over the entire project, they understand the objective. It was also pointed out that the Town of Holden is currently paying the electrical bill associated with the lighting of the Memorial - not SAD63.

These facts, as they related to the transfer of that portion of land on which the Memorial (and the gazebo) is located - approximately one-half to one acre - seemed reasonable and well justified to the representatives of both Boards of Selectmen.

2. Therese stated she had solicited some legal advice (at her own expense) who stated there could be some liability to SAD63 should someone be injured while being on or using the facilities on other areas of the land being proposed for transfer to the Town of Holden - namely the Nature Trails or the Ball Field.

Chip Grover, from the Eddington Board of Selectmen, stated her information was incorrect. He has worked with ATV trails and organizations all over the state. He provided information indicating that whatever Therese has been told would not be applicable to the situation or locations under discussion.

It should be noted at this point that even before the meeting could begin, both Therese and John Butt stated that the secondary parking lot, originally drawn within the map of the area to be transferred, was not included in the area to be transferred. The lines on the map were redrawn during the course of the meeting to reflect the areas under consideration. Therefore one does not know if the surveyor lines in the "Recitals" of the original documents provided are correct or not or what, if any effect this has on the "Release Deed" that was originally provided. One does not know when this change took place or if the parking lot was never intended to be a part of the transfer BECAUSE the documents presented do not identify any of the specific locations other than the ball field which was one of the issues raised during the meeting.

Some of the subsequent issues that were raised are as follows (and I can only summarize here because of the nature of the discussion, which was cordial, informative, and in the nature of trying to find a workable solution to the issue):

1. First and foremost - it was felt by the Selectmen bodies of both Eddington and Clifton that this entire issue was brought about the wrong way - a back-door method, if you will. As a result, an atmosphere of distrust has evolved and this needs to be dealt with.

The correct way would have been for the Town of Holden (Selectmen) to have initiated the matter with the Boards of Selectmen in Eddington and Clifton first so that the towns could have worked out their issues, perhaps via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU could have then been presented to the School Board for review and approval. If and when the School Board had approved it, the MOU could have then been sent to a legal entity for development of a Release Deed etc.

The fact that (1) the towns of Eddington and Clifton were not included up front, (2) the resulting legal documents were held back by the School Board Chair for a month once he received them, and (3) the School Board Chair did not invite discussion or review with the Eddington or Clifton Selectmen in conjunction with the School Board before expecting a School Board vote has not only bred distrust, but has fed the flames by inferring there is some urgency (or hidden agenda) which neither Eddington nor Clifton find justified.

In all honesty, John Butt did not appear to be pressing for a quick decision for any of the areas other than the Veterans Memorial and that was for the reasons explained above. He would just like to get the matter off his desk as would any chief executive with too much work and not enough time. And he felt the Town of Holden had incurred legal costs that, as of this date, had not been justified. This writer does not believe his feelings are totally unwarranted.

HOWEVER, if this matter had been done correctly - with a constructive member of the Town of Holden, knowledgeable of the areas in question and the rationale for the transfers for each, requesting a series of meetings with comparable individuals from both Eddington and Clifton to work out the issues - none of these legal costs would have happened out of order.

When the towns of Eddington and Clifton sent their original letters of objection (to the transfer) to the School Board several months ago, the School Board Chair took it upon himself to direct the current course of action. When the Town of Holden chose not to call upon the towns of Eddington and Clifton to initiate open communication it only added to the illusion of "back-door politics." That may not have been how it was intended but that is how it has been perceived.

Until last night's meeting - and it was a good meeting - and I say that with genuine respect for all who attended, spoke and worked to find a resolution - there has not appeared to be much Openness to all three towns who do represent the taxpayers who pay for the School District's expenses. As Joan Brooks pointed out last night, 51 percent of Eddington's tax bills are for the town's assessment from SAD63. Even John Butt stated that one of the reasons he was at the meeting last night was because, as an Eddington resident, he was concerned about taxes going to the school district's budget. Welcome to the club, John!

Bottom line of the official meeting, Eddington's Selectmen took a position that they support the transference of that portion of the land that contains the Veteran's Memorial and gazebo to the Town of Holden. They do not support the transference of any of the rest of the land at this time. The Clifton Selectmen representatives agreed to this change in their previous position and stated they would communicate this new position to the Clifton School Board rep before this coming Monday night's School Board meeting. (More on this further down in this posting).

There was an agreement that members from Eddington and Clifton would work together, hopefully with John Butt or his designee, to specify the terminology needed for various issues, i.e. the absolute gifting (not lease or purchase) back of the land in question to whatever school district may exist (should consolidation cause the name of the district to change) at any time the land may be needed for whatever reason, issues of easement or right of way, issues pertaining to the land never being sold or built on by the Town of Holden, issues involving the sharing of proceeds should the land ever be sold, and other issues that may need to be addressed.

It was agreed that there is no need for a rush to judgement on the remaining parcels of land other than to work out a better understanding of maintenance responsibility of the Ball Field during various times of the year. It was entered into the record that SAD63 custodial staff DO provide services to the Nature Trails when needed.

This is how the meeting in the Town Office concluded. And my compliments to Joan Brooks for the openness, friendliness and productivity of the meeting.

And then there was the aftermath.....

Yes - the members of the School Board are elected to their positions.
Yes - the School Board is an independent governing body.

BUT... the members are elected by their communities, not one generic community confined within only one geographic jurisdiction. The eight members of the Board do not even have equal votes. Each vote represents a certain number of people based on the population of the town they represent. And so each vote is "valued" or "weighted" differently, unlike the Board of Selectmen.

For instance, the 1 vote for Clifton is valued at approximately 752 (the latest population count I received for that town).

There are 3 reps from Eddington. Each one carries a value of 1/3 the current population of Eddington. (I don't have that number at hand.) If Pam Dorr is not at the meeting on Monday, and she won't be because of her medical condition, Therese will carry a value of 1/3 and Karen will carry a value of 1/3 of Eddington's population.

There are 4 reps on the Board from Holden. Each one of those reps carries a value of 1/4 the population of Holden. I have heard that Kevin Mills will be absent from Monday night's meeting. That means that Don Varnum's vote will carry 1/4 the value of Holden's population, Sylvia Ellis will carry 1/4, and Mario Teisl will carry 1/4.

Depending on whether Mr. Varnum is willing to accept the new idea of just voting Monday night on that parcel of land that contains the Veteran's Memorial and gazebo - or whether he wants to force through a vote on the entire kit and kaboodle, and whether or not the three votes that will be there representing Eddington and Clifton actually vote in accordance with how their town selectmen have urged them to vote, based on the feelings and reasonings that the whole package can be worked out in time if done correctly, is another matter.

I'm just remembering a remark Mario Teisl made at the August 24th meeting - that it does not benefit SAD63 if the towns are divided against each other -if they do not trust each other. No, it doesn't. But trust is built on respect for the feelings and opinions of others. It's also built on performance. For reasons identified in recent months, our communities have decided they need to be more closely monitoring the performance of the School Board because it is the taxpayers in the ALL THREE communities who are paying the bills. Somehow, certain members of the School Board have forgotten that fact.

More on this tomorrow.