Bridgewater residents should have voters rights
Newstimes
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:44:31 PM EST
To the Editor:
This is why Judge Pickard's decision on the Region 12 vs. Bridgewater should be reversed on appeal.
It is a "Voters Rights" issue not a "Replacement of Buildings" issue.
The first referendum to form Region 12 in 1967 failed. The towns did not approve the temporary regional school study committee plan.
The committee went back to work and addressed the concerns of the residents by adding the following to the plan:
"Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home town schools." The original 1967 approved plan is posted on the District 12 Web site.
The second referendum was worded:
"Shall the town of Bridgewater join with the following named towns of Roxbury, Washington, in the establishment of a regional school district with schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of public schools."
This referendum was approved by the voters in each of the towns as required and Region 12 was established by the state Board of Education.
If the voters in Bridgewater in 1967 knew that a judge could override their vote in 2008 and rule that Region 12 could "Close their local school" or have "No school" in Bridgewater, then they would have voted no.
Judge Pickard used the 1975 legal action brought against District 15 as the basis of his decision.
In this case, District 15 replaced its high school in Southbury with a new building at another site in Southbury.
The old high school became the Middle School and no schools were closed in Southbury or Middlebury.
This is obviously a "Replacement of Buildings" issue and does not fit the situation in Region 12.
Region 12 is a "Voters Rights" issue.
The residents of the town of Bridgewater must have the right to approve the closing of their local school and approve having no school in Bridgewater, as outlined in section 10-47c of the state education department statutes.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bridgewater Town Appove Added legal Funds
Bridgewater OKs more money for court appeal
By Lynda Wellman
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:43:59 PM EST
Bridgewater residents voted unanimously Tuesday night at a town meeting to add $37,360 to the current budget to continue a state Supreme Court appeal.
In an effort to retain control over the fate of its primary school, last spring Bridgewater appealed Litchfield Superior Court Judge John Pickard's decision in favor of the Region 12 School District that includes Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington.
Judge Pickard ruled March 3 that a vote on any proposed consolidated primary school is essentially a facility issue. Bridgewater, however, argues it is a matter of voter rights, not a facility issue.
The town argues primary school consolidation is a fundamental change in the decades-old regionalization agreement that kept K-5 schools in each of the region's towns.
"Each individual town has to be able to vote "yes" to change the plan, that's the key thing," Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart said. "Our votes are important to us."
If Judge Pickard's ruling stands, consolidation could be decided by a majority vote of residents of the region as a whole, even if the majority of Bridgewater residents vote against consolidation.
Members of the political action committee "Save Our Schools" urged the town to spend the additional money to pursue the appeal.
Nancy Hawley, the SOS treasurer, said after the vote she was happy with the result since "we are so close to a decision in this case."
"It's been a long battle preserving a small Town's rights," she said, remarking a larger town, such as Washington, should not have the right to determine if the Burnham School in Bridgewater should be closed.
A "very happy" Mr. Stuart said after Tuesday's town meeting vote that with the current economy the idea of building a new school is on hold, but he expects it will be back in the future.
Mr. Stuart said the law firm handling the Supreme Court appeal, Horton Shields & Knox, has agreed to cap its fees at $50,000 since the firm can use the research and preliminary work done by the town's initial appeal attorney, Charles Bauer.
"This will be the end of it," Mr. Stuart told the four dozen residents who attended Tuesday's 10-minute town meeting.
He said the case is expected to be argued before the state Supreme Court sometime this spring, in March or April.
Jen Iannucci, an SOS member, said she was "extremely pleased with the result" that showed "townspeople are behind the appeal."
The town has spent $61,000 on the case -- $19,600 on the Superior Court lawsuit and $41,400 on the appeal as of Dec. 31.
By Lynda Wellman
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:43:59 PM EST
Bridgewater residents voted unanimously Tuesday night at a town meeting to add $37,360 to the current budget to continue a state Supreme Court appeal.
In an effort to retain control over the fate of its primary school, last spring Bridgewater appealed Litchfield Superior Court Judge John Pickard's decision in favor of the Region 12 School District that includes Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington.
Judge Pickard ruled March 3 that a vote on any proposed consolidated primary school is essentially a facility issue. Bridgewater, however, argues it is a matter of voter rights, not a facility issue.
The town argues primary school consolidation is a fundamental change in the decades-old regionalization agreement that kept K-5 schools in each of the region's towns.
"Each individual town has to be able to vote "yes" to change the plan, that's the key thing," Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart said. "Our votes are important to us."
If Judge Pickard's ruling stands, consolidation could be decided by a majority vote of residents of the region as a whole, even if the majority of Bridgewater residents vote against consolidation.
Members of the political action committee "Save Our Schools" urged the town to spend the additional money to pursue the appeal.
Nancy Hawley, the SOS treasurer, said after the vote she was happy with the result since "we are so close to a decision in this case."
"It's been a long battle preserving a small Town's rights," she said, remarking a larger town, such as Washington, should not have the right to determine if the Burnham School in Bridgewater should be closed.
A "very happy" Mr. Stuart said after Tuesday's town meeting vote that with the current economy the idea of building a new school is on hold, but he expects it will be back in the future.
Mr. Stuart said the law firm handling the Supreme Court appeal, Horton Shields & Knox, has agreed to cap its fees at $50,000 since the firm can use the research and preliminary work done by the town's initial appeal attorney, Charles Bauer.
"This will be the end of it," Mr. Stuart told the four dozen residents who attended Tuesday's 10-minute town meeting.
He said the case is expected to be argued before the state Supreme Court sometime this spring, in March or April.
Jen Iannucci, an SOS member, said she was "extremely pleased with the result" that showed "townspeople are behind the appeal."
The town has spent $61,000 on the case -- $19,600 on the Superior Court lawsuit and $41,400 on the appeal as of Dec. 31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)