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.
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".
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."
It would have been a much better process if the Board had not gone into Executive Session. You ostensibly represent the people and interests of the Towns. Who voted for and against this field? You want trust, start with transparency.
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."
It would have been a much better process if the Board had not gone into Executive Session. You ostensibly represent the people and interests of the Towns. Who voted for and against this field? You want trust, start with transparency.