Bill Glahn served on the Concord School Board for eleven years and during the construction of several new schools. He also served on the 2022 Charter Commission.

Individuals opposing the decision of the Concord School Board to relocate Rundlett propose to change the board’s charter to require a popular vote before any Concord school can be “relocated,” “rebuilt,” or “replaced” elsewhere. The proposed charter amendment would also prevent most sales or exchanges of school district property without such a vote.

Decisions like this should not be determined by popular opinion, which likely would depend on the interests of neighborhoods, or groups of individuals, rather than what is in the best interest of the community as a whole. The idea of a popular vote on such decisions is appealing, but votes on such matters are often swayed by voter turnout, or by the passions of groups who (most usually) oppose, rather than support, a particular decision.

I served on the school board for eleven years, four in the 1980s and seven between 2006 and 2013. I also served on the committee that led to the first charter commission, and on the 2022 charter commission. During my tenure on the board, five schools were closed or rebuilt. Garrison was replaced by Beaver Meadow in the 1980s. In 2012 and 2013, Walker, Rumford, and Dame were closed, Kimball and Conant were torn down, and those schools were replaced by McAuliffe, Mill Brook, and Abbot-Downing.

Imagine that the proposed charter amendments were in place when those projects were considered. Each school had its constituencies and concerns were expressed over keeping a school in a particular neighborhood, loyalty to a particular structure, or as in the case of Kimball, preserving a historic building. The most recent project involving the closure or reconstruction of the five schools in 2013 benefited from construction of all the new schools as one project. If the decision concerning each school had been subject to a popular vote, it is highly likely that the project would never have taken place, and it almost certainly would have been delayed substantially, with major potential consequences in the bond markets. School construction requires careful consideration of a multitude of issues, including the appropriate timing of bond issuance. Subjecting those decisions to the delays and the particular whims of an election is unwise.

I have no opinion on whether Rundlett should be relocated, although I do believe that the school needs replacement. One reason I have no opinion is that I do not have the benefit of the multiple meetings, assessments of costs and architectural issues, and the evaluation of potential sites that resulted in the school board’s decision. Opponents of that decision (and to some degree the Concord Monitor) leave the impression that there is a public groundswell for keeping Rundlett in the South End. I tend to believe that most Concord residents either have no opinion on the issue, or to the extent they have one, it is not based on a careful review of the facts.

That is the point: decisions of this nature should be made by people elected to carefully review the facts and, as I can personally attest from my time on the board, who spend hundreds of hours evaluating the decision. It is hard to argue against pure democracy, but it is not the best way to make these complicated decisions.

Opponents of the board vote to relocate Rundlett would restrict the autonomy of the board by substantially limiting its authority in this one area. In some cases, they argue that the board should not be autonomous at all. Concord is indeed unique in having an autonomous board as a result of its charter. I’ve long believed that the city has benefited from that autonomy and, for example, by not having to continually balance whether to hire new teachers or buy new fire trucks. I also believe that people would be discouraged from running for the board if the board’s decisions were subject to a veto by the city council, especially after devoting hundreds of hours to decisions like that on Rundlett.

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

The autonomy of the board allows Concord residents to voice their disagreement with the board’s decisions by not only appearing before it but by voting out members or running for the board. And it is worth noting that during the hearings before the 2022 charter commission, not one member of the public argued in favor of changing the charter to restrict the board’s autonomy in any way.

Fundamental documents like charters should not be changed because there is disagreement with one decision. The proposed charter amendments are unwise, and should be rejected.