By John Burton
SHREWSBURY – Borough voters sent a strong message of “no” to the Board of Education with the outcome of this week’s school referendum.
Borough residents defeated the four-part $28.1 million referendum which was intended for some upkeep and improvements, to purchase a neighboring property and to cover the cost of constructing an addition for the Shrewsbury Borough Elementary School, 20 Obre Place.
As of Wednesday afternoon, according to the county clerk’s office, the unofficial vote totals –which include mail-in ballots but not provisional ballots – had the vote for Question 1 at 844 no and 525 for yes, for whether the public school district could bond for $13.4 million to do upgrades to the existing building, including putting on a new roof and installing new windows and improving the heating and ventilation system; for Question 2, to spend roughly $11.2 million for an addition, the tally was 1,048 no and 309 yes; Question 3, which asked for approval to install roof-mounted solar panels for approximately $1.6 million, the vote was 1,011 no and 348 yes; and for Question 4, to purchase property for an addition, 1,098 voted against the proposition, while 248 endorsed it.
The district would have been eligible to receive 40 percent state aid reimbursement for portions of the projects.
School Superintendent Brent A. McConnell was not immediately available for comment on Wednesday following the vote.
Residents were clearly divided on the proposals, waging battle by way of social media and competing lawn signs, with supporters touting the benefits the projects mean for the greater community, while opponents voicing fear of the tax impact on property owners. Referendum critics sent a mailer to borough voters just prior to the vote laying out their objections to the proposal.
Resident and parent Maura Galligan said of that mailer, “They were misleading and muddied the water.”
Three of Galligan’s four children attend the school, with her youngest attending in a couple of years. She actively supported the referendum believing it was in the best interest of children and the community.
As to the results, “I’m saddened and upset,” said Galligan, especially for Question 1’s defeat. “In my heart of hearts I believed number one would have passed,” given the work to the school’s infrastructure is vital, she said.
Jim Halpern, a former board of education member who opposed the referendum, observed “the thing that was most significant was that 43 percent of registered voters came out” on an off-election, less than two weeks to the holidays. “Which I think we got a pretty good read on how the town really feels about this,” he said.
Halpern offered a more nuanced perspective on the vote: “It’s not ‘no.’ That’s not what the town said,” he said. “In my opinion the town wants the board of education to rework the referendum taking input from everybody this time. That’s the difference.”
That lack of input from some quarters of the community was what, in part, had Jacqui Caruso-Smith vote against all four provisions. Caruso-Smith, also a former board member and a former educator, said “There needs to be better communication,” between the board and the greater community.
“You have to consider there is a senior population in town,” and they and “more of the stakeholders needed to be involved in the planning,” she said, criticizing the board for an alleged “lack of transparency.”
“If you want to have something pass, you have to involve the stakeholders and listen to what they’re saying and not just come up with this expensive proposal and not communicate what’s in it for everyone,” Caruso-Smith said.
The board conducted a series of public information sessions and tours of the existing building.
Pam MacNeill, a retired educator, voted for the solar panels and infrastructure work, thinking, “it’s too bad it was bundled together like that,” with four provisions. If school officials had tried to get what was most needed now and waited to try for the addition at some other point the referendum might have stood a better chance, she said.
Given the price tag attached, “I’m wondering if that might not have scared people,” MacNeill said.
“It involved a lot of what the school needed but some of what the school wanted and I just thought there were more cost effective ways of doing what they wanted to do,” was how it boiled down for Caruso-Smith.
“I don’t think there was a lot of constructive criticism,” coming from opponents, Galligan said.
“Hopefully, on the bright side, we’ll be able to mobilize the community to move in the positive way,” in the near future.
The next board of education meeting is Dec. 20 and Galligan plans to attend to hear what the next move will be.
