Opinion: See the public as a partner, not an opponent

Robert Maccini wears a Vote Yes headpiece for the proposed charter amendments on the Concord ballot in front of the Ward Nine polling place on Tuesday. Geoff Forester / Monitor staff

By BERT COOPER

Published: 11-10-2024 3:00 PM

Bert Cooper lives in Concord.

At last Tuesday’s election, the public resoundingly confirmed what hours of previous public testimony, hundreds of yard signs, and a plethora of communications to the school board had already said: “Don’t move the middle school from its South Street parcel.”

A 67 percent vote in favor, with almost a thousand more votes in favor than the board’s own 2022 charter amendments, came in the context of the board’s stated desire to move to Broken Ground (contingent on a variety of unstated issues). It came after a concerted attempt by the board and its president to convince the public that moving to Broken Ground would be better than remaining at the Rundlett parcel.

Anyone who was satisfied with the board’s arguments, and with the board recommendation printed on the ballot itself, would have voted “no.” This includes those who felt that Rundlett was a better location but were worried about the board’s claims of delay and extra expense.

To suggest that the two-thirds majority of the public weren’t clearly communicating that they wanted the rebuilt middle school to stay at Rundlett flies in the face of many, many hours of public testimony witnessed by the board in 2022, 2023, and 2024. This testimony was based upon unrebutted facts, such as: 196 students within walking distance of Rundlett losing that opportunity in favor of 43 students near Broken Ground, in the most affluent census tract in Concord. The move requiring more buses and more students on the bus. 29 acres of forest cut down (three times the amount represented in December 2023), destroying public walking trails and a prized, contiguous habitat for wildlife.

The vote suggests that the public agrees with the board’s own 2022 determination that Broken Ground was unsuitable because of traffic, tiny roads, cost of infrastructure, destruction of habitat, and safety (concentration of 40 percent of the school population, or up to 1,700 students, at one location with limited access). It suggests that the majority agreed with East Side community representatives who preferred that the middle school be at Rundlett, near desirable locations they could walk to (Memorial Field, the high school, the library, downtown, local stores, public transportation) rather than in an isolated, unwalkable location far away from any such amenities.

Some on the board imply that they would prefer to litigate rather than accept the public’s vote. What are the implications of that path? Delay, extra cost, and uncertainty compared to rebuilding at Rundlett. The downside doesn’t stop there. The board, choosing litigation rather than Rundlett, would be burning additional “civic capital” for no gain. People who would have been boosters and supporters of a rebuilt middle school, and who were ambivalent or even supporters of board autonomy, will disengage.

The board will have conclusively demonstrated to the public, including “moderates” in the coalition that spearheaded the charter amendments, that those who oppose school board autonomy were right: the board has zero respect for the public’s opinion. If the board rejects the public’s vote to remain at Rundlett, the next public vote the board may face could be charter revocation.

Article continues after...