Offers reminder of a town's right to have a school

Jen Iannucci: Urges a no/no vote on April 29

Jen Iannucci | April 21, 2014

Art Cummings' column, "Region 12 would be better off with a no/no vote on 

April 29th" (The News-Times, April 13) has inspired me to write this response.

"Given all the issues involved, and weighing all the factors, I sincerely believe the 

Region 12 school district would be better off by voting No/No on April 29 and then 

going back to the drawing board for a more enlightened, more harmonious, 

less expensive, more common-sense solution," Cummings wrote.

I couldn't agree with him more.

As the former chair of Save Our Schools, I have stayed quiet these many months

 trying to listen and understand both sides of the debate.

I could certainly spend a lot of time sharing my opinion why I think keeping 

Burnham and Booth is the more viable option, I could also spend time weighing

the benefits of a consolidated school, but I think everyone has heard enough 

reasons, and at this point in the game I don't believe too many minds will be 

changed.

What I do want is to remind everyone that we (the town of Bridgewater) and the 

PAC Save Our Schools fought hard in the 1980s, in 2005-2007 and continues to 

fight in 2013-2014 to maintain our right. Yes, it's our right to maintain our school 

in our town.

We brought this issue not that long ago to the State Supreme Court. The fact that 

we have State Statute 10-47c. (...If the majority vote in each town of the district is 

in favor of the proposed amendment to the plan, such amendment shall take effect 

immediately... ) 

In other words, if any one town votes it down, the proposed amendment to the 

plan will fail.

This is why we are being faced with two questions on April 29. Because Cited. 

169 C. 613. 

Proposal to consolidate three separate elementary schools into a single school, 

thereby eliminating elementary schools in two towns, is not an incidental change

 to the regional school plan and constitutes an amendment to the plan under 

section; conclusion in Atwood v. Regional School District... is protecting us from 

being forced to close our hometown school.

We are three wonderful towns that should be working together to come up with 

a plan that fits the needs of each community and the strong autonomy we each

hold. We should not be voting on a referendum that we all have known from the 

start would divide the region's community, create tension among friends, and 

stall the growth of these towns.

Yet here we are and I really don't understand why the Region 12 Board of 

Education thought the outcome would be any different.

I believe the declining enrollment is not due to the economic times but due to the 

ongoing unresolved debate of the Region 12 schools. While communities around 

us are building more schools because of increasing population, we are scaring 

potential buyers away with futile debates.

While we fight about where the schools should be, families who do live in town 

are sending their kids elsewhere.

I hope that once Bridgewater votes NO NO on April 29 the Board of Education 

will respect the outcome and finally move toward the more harmonious solution.

Perhaps now we might consider re-configuration of Booth Free and Burnham 

School and bring Washington students to this side of the region for the "change" 

that everyone is looking for.

Jen Iannucci is a resident of Bridgewater.