Residents, Newfound board differ on interpretation of new law, future of Danbury school

BRISTOL — As the Newfound Area School Board considers the fate of the now-closed Danbury Elementary School, residents are expressing doubts about the interpretation of a new state law requiring unused facilities to be offered first to charter schools.

Historically, when the cooperative school district has abandoned elementary schools, it returned them to the towns which had originally donated them to the district.

Francine Wendelboe, of New Hampton, a former school board member and current member of the district budget committee, submitted a list of five questions (and subquestions) she wanted answered under the state’s right-to-know law.

“I believe the RSA and co-op votes were termed as ‘being associated together and taking over operating control of those schools within such district it is organized to operate,’” she said.

The documents concerning the 1962 formation of the Newfound Area School District have not been located, making it unclear what, if any, understanding voters at the time had about the disposition of those schools if no longer needed by the district.

Wendelboe’s first question was, “What documents are in the SAU’s possession that suggests [sic] (PROVES) the intent/understanding of the voters that the SAU would own these former town school properties and what would be done with them if ever declared no longer needed by the SAU?”

She also stated she wanted to know whether it was the school board or district who had voted to return buildings in the past.

“The precedent appears that they were returned,” she wrote. “Were there any financial terms? What process was used?”

The third question was why Danbury’s closing is handled differently. The school board has operated under the belief the new law requires it to offer the building to a charter school, but Wendelboe contends, “The law dealing with the right of first refusal to a charter school bid is only if the SAU leases or sells. It does not preclude the property being returned.”

There also is the question of whether the new law would invalidate the conditions set forth during the formation of the school district.

“I think voters were very vocal when the SAU proposed buying the bank building and leasing some of the property,” Wendelboe wrote. “They were clear the district had no business getting into rentals. And the purchase was abandoned.”

She asked whether the district holds a warranty deed for the Danbury school, or any other town elementary schools.

“What impact will this have on the disposition of Bristol Elementary School and New Hampton? Will their property not be returned to them, either?”

The fourth question was whether the district is looking to profit from the sale or lease of Danbury Elementary School.

“I understand the business admin is seeing $$$$$ dancing before his eyes,” she wrote. “And he is suggesting the SAU HIRE someone to come in and analyze the property for sale/lease value. Ka-ching.”

She asked from where the money to pay for such a study would come.

“How much has been spent on legal fees about Danbury and what advice did you request?” she asked. “Is it true there has been no discussion with Danbury by the board NOR the SAU regarding Danbury? That they are claiming their attorney told them not to?”

According to Wendelboe, the Danbury Selectboard wants the school returned to the town, which could then potentially lease it to the new charter school, formed for that purpose. “I believe it is the right thing to do,” she said.

Wendelboe was not the only one to express dissatisfaction with discussion about the school’s future.

“Our community is working on plans to open a charter school in the near future," wrote Joan Laplante of Danbury. "We are hopeful that SAU will sell the community school building to our community for the fair price of $1, as was the case with the Hebron Community School. We have a group of folks who are working very hard to keep a school in our community. Please consider doing the right thing and sell our community the school building for $1.”

Karen Paget also wrote to express “disappointment with the way the closure of Danbury Elementary School has unfolded, and particularly with the decision surrounding the future of the school building.

“I understand that the district has faced financial challenges and that the board has had to make some very difficult choices," she wrote, "I recognize that these decisions are not easy, and I appreciate the responsibilities that come with serving on a school board. However, I believe the closure of Danbury Elementary represents more than a budgetary decision; it represents the loss of an important part of our community, and the process has left many Danbury residents feeling that their voices and their town’s interest had not been adequately considered.”

She said the timing of the board’s closure decision, ahead of the effective date of a new law requiring voter approval, “is especially disappointing."

"The fact remains that voters were not given the opportunity to weigh in on the closure,” and “that has understandably left residents questioning whether the community had a meaningful voice in a decision with such lasting consequences.”

Paget referred to other schools being returned to the towns, and said, “It is difficult to understand why Danbury should be treated differently now.”

She praised the efforts of Audrey Pellegrino, and other residents who have been working to establish a charter school in Danbury.

“This is a constructive attempt to preserve educational opportunities locally, put an existing community asset to good use, and give our town a path forward," she wrote. "I hope those efforts will be met with genuine cooperation and a willingness to find a workable solution.”