Why is There a "Do Over For Consolidation" Again

A do-over coming?
Sunday, April 1, 2007

Copyright © 2007 Republican-American

One of the endearing aspects of professional sports is once the final buzzer sounds or the last out is recorded, the decision stands. There is no talk whatsoever of handing the 1985 World Series trophy to the St. Louis Cardinals because umpire Don Denkinger's bad call in game 6 gave the Kansas City Royals a chance to win. The National Football League is not contemplating awarding the 2006 Super Bowl trophy to the Seattle Seahawks because poor officiating benefited the Pittsburgh Steelers.
In politics and government, however, there are do-overs. How many times did voters in Oxford, and in Beacon Falls and Prospect, reject high-school proposals? Not enough, apparently. Rare is the election result that is more important than the need to accept it in the name of national stability and move on, a point Richard M. Nixon, of all people, understood after massive voter fraud cost him the 1960 presidential election.
Which brings us to Region 12. Whenever voters in Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington have been given a chance to abandon their three elementary schools in favor of a single super-duper school serving all three towns, they've said, "No, thank you. We'll keep our little town schools even if they cost more and don't offer as many programs." But they have been unable to reach agreement on the cost of renovating the three schools.
There always has been a lurking suspicion that one-school advocates on the school board and administration have inflated the cost of preserving the three-school option in the hope of wearing down the majority, thereby getting the outcome they want in some future referendum. They're pushing ahead with a plan to buy 20 acres in Roxbury for $1.85 million for a districtwide elementary school.
On the contrary, the people have spoken. The duty of Region 12 leaders is not to convince the people they were wrong -- they knew going in that the three-school option would come with extra costs and program restrictions -- but to implement their will in the most cost-effective manner possible. Buying land for a project voters manifestly have not authorized is tantamount to malfeasance.

Editor's Note:
Why not a Referendum now on "Consolidation" or "Not"