CVSD Board Statement: We weighed all sides, the majority believe the gains outweigh risks
Board chair issues statement reflecting on the July 30 school board meeting and the process the board undertook to arrive at its decision to accept the $6 million gift of a turf field at CVU.
(Editor’s note: This statement was issued at the same time the ‘memorandum of understanding’ with the turf field donors was released on July 15. The Record also interviewed her on that day, but her comments from that discussion will be incorporated into a story with other board comments that will be posted next week.)
By Meghan Metzler
CVSD Board Chair
I write today to share the CVSD board’s perspective on the process that led to our June 30 vote to enter into a Gift Agreement for a new field at CVU. The decision was not made lightly or quickly. It followed months of community input and deliberation, along with a sincere effort to balance student safety and opportunity, environmental responsibility, community concerns, and the evidence available to us – a process we should have better explained to the public on June 30.
Since the Community Field Project first approached CVSD with an offer to fundraise for a new field at CVU, the board has wrestled with both the potential benefits of the gift and its possible unintended consequences. We understood from the beginning that our first responsibility was to the safety of our students and broader community and that any decision would also have implications for the trust we have worked to build with our communities over many years.
We did not fully see just how polarizing this proposal would become. But it did.
The board began exploring the proposed gift last fall. The proposal grew out of long-standing concerns about CVU’s fields. During the process we heard about injuries and lost opportunities for students, as well as the possibility that a more reliable field could expand access to athletics, student activities, school events, and community use.
At the same time, significant concerns emerged about PFAS, groundwater and drinking water, long-term environmental impacts, and the proximity of the proposed field to the Hinesburg water supply.
Those concerns shaped the board’s process.
In April, two separate community meetings presented differing perspectives on the proposal. On April 8, the Community Field Project explained its proposal and responded to questions. On April 10, Responsible Growth Hinesburg hosted an event focused on environmental and public health concerns associated with artificial turf. Board members attended when they could and watched recordings of the events to hear the presentations, research, questions, and concerns directly.
Importantly, the board did not begin substantive deliberation until both community meetings had taken place. Board members wanted to hear the arguments on both sides before moving more deeply into discussion.
Following the board’s first discussion in April, members charged the Superintendent and Chief Operating Officer with answering 12 specific questions raised by the community about safety, cost, and practical use. In May, the board reviewed those answers during that month’s board meeting and commissioned an independent environmental study to examine the community’s most significant concern: the potential impacts on surface water, groundwater, and public drinking water. The board was clear that it would only proceed once satisfied the project would not pose an unacceptable risk to drinking water.
When the study was completed, its findings did not identify an unacceptable risk to surface water, groundwater, or public drinking water from the proposed field under the conditions studied. The study did not answer every conceivable question or eliminate all uncertainty. No decision involving emerging science or environmental risk can honestly make that claim. It did, however, provide independent evidence directly addressing one of the most significant concerns raised throughout the process.
Ultimately, a majority of the board voted to move forward with entering into a Gift Agreement because, after months of public input, exposure to differing perspectives, answers to specific questions, independent analysis, and thorough review of the available evidence, a majority of members concluded that the benefits of the proposed field outweighed risks.
That decision should not be interpreted as a dismissal of those who remain concerned. Reasonable people can review the same information and reach different conclusions about what level of uncertainty is acceptable. We also know that the health of a community is measured not only by whether we agree, but by whether we can remain in a constructive and respectful relationship when we do not. We remain focused on being in relationship with our community even in the face of disagreement.
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to write, speak, ask questions, share expertise, attend meetings, watch presentations, and participate in this process.
My thoughts spurred by this article just sent to the CVSD Board
Dear members of the CVSD School Board,
I've kept my thoughts private since the June 30th meeting, however, Meghan Metzler's letter in the Hinesburg Record has spurred me to jot my thoughts down.
First, to the Hinesburg representatives, Keith Roberts and Cassandra Townshend, do not seek my vote in any upcoming election, you will not get it. If you run unopposed, I will write in "None of the above". You disregarded the concerns of multiple Hinesburg Boards and Commissions as well as almost 1000 Hinesburg residents. You failed to represent us.
Second, to the board member who used his time questioning the hydrology study to point out that there was no regulation on PFAS release, I would point out that there was no regulation prohibiting the burial of drums of chemicals at Love Canal when it occurred. Common sense would have said it wasn't a good idea, but financial gain and expediency won the day. I would also point out that even if the report is correct and we don't contaminate the local groundwater, contaminants will go somewhere, into the sludge in the storm water pond to be dealt with later or downstream to places and recipients unknown, not as a necessity, but as a choice.
Third, to those on the board that busied themselves with their computer screens during the public comment period, nothing says public concerns are being dismissed more than not being paid attention to. I say this as a former Hinesburg commission member and chair. You owe it to every single person who shows up at your meeting, either in-person or virtually, or writes in, to pay attention. Constituents who are listened to respectfully are more likely to respect an eventual decision.
To Meghan Metzler, in your letter, you state: "a majority of members concluded that the benefits of the proposed field outweighed risks". Let's be clear on a number of points. Hinesburg bears the vast majority of risks, the other towns in the district, at least some of which would not allow such a field in their town, bear little to no risk, especially if you believe that any future contamination couldn't be definitively traced to the fields. Further, Hinesburg bears the intangible cost of more traffic and associated burden when / if the facility is rented out in an effort to pay for eventual replacement. This is an unequal partnership and the division you speak of is not fostered by a necessity to do something with the fields; they've worked for decades, it's a choice. Your choice.
Finally, to the hard working dedicated teachers and staff of Chittenden South, I apologize in advance because I can no longer support any school budget generated by a board that chose a "want" for a "free" turf field over the concerns of the hosting community. Private money should not have more sway over a publicly funded school system than constituents. I suggest other residents of Hinesburg do the same. It's the only voice we have where we are "equals".
Best Regards,
Joe Iadanza
The CVSD Board Chair fails to mention the opposition of over 900 people who signed the petition against the plastic turf. And the concerned public was not allowed to address questions to the author of the so-called "study."