Cara Meeker, Concord School Board

People keep telling me that I must have the hardest job in Concord right now. It’s a bit of hyperbole, yes, but I do feel like walking a tight rope has become my newest skill!

By now, I expect everyone knows why. Nearly a year ago now, I was on the losing side of a vote about the site for the new middle school. But since then, I have been affirmative in my votes to advance the middle school project at the Broken Ground location. I have not brought the decision back up for a rescinding vote, knowing full well I would be on the losing side yet again. I am moving forward because it is my personal commitment and my ethical duty to do so.

I’ve seen how hard my colleagues work and how much they value their service to their community. They are not acting out of malice; I would be honest if I thought they were. Do I always agree with them? Nope. Do I think this middle school decision could have been handled better? YEP. But there are merits to building a new school at Broken Ground – there are pros and cons to both sites. We weighed those pros and cons, and a decision was made. That’s the job.

Which brings me to the charter amendment petitions you may have seen or heard about — amendments that affect how the board does its job. I get asked a lot about these. I didn’t sign the petition, and I don’t fault anyone that did. Citizens have put passion into process, good for them. That being said, I encourage everyone to vote no on the amendments when they are on the ballot in November. I do not think these amendments are well written. I am concerned they will only aid the people who don’t want to build a new school at all and want to punish the board for their decisions. I’ve seen it already, people saying online they are only voting yes because they “want to send a message”. Friends, I promise you, message received. The board must prioritize communication and community buy-in. Amending the charter now, when it was just approved in 2022 after a thoughtful and rigorous process, feels reactionary and a step too far in the middle school debate.

The real kicker here is that it’s not clear if these amendments will ensure a rebuild at Rundlett, as so many hope for. We don’t know if these amendments apply to our past decisions. We’ve asked the AG’s office to weigh in and they have declined to do so unless these changes become effective. There are no guarantees, but we’ll have an obligation to ask questions and find out what the amendments will really do now and in the future. I feel like the courts will need to weigh in if these pass– it’s not a tactic, it’s just analysis. Until then, I have my concerns. Amendment 2, especially, could impede processes that don’t have anything to do with the middle school location. (See my detailed concerns with both amendments below)

I could spend all day reflecting on how we got here, but this is where we are. And I’ll gladly walk this tight rope, doing my best to balance the needs of the district and the concerns of my constituents. I hope to do right by my friends, my colleagues, our families. If things change, I move forward with those changes. If this middle school project gets delayed while it plays out, I’m not going to stop fighting for it to happen. We need a new school.

---

Assessment of Charter Amendments

Amendment 1 (A1)

“No Concord public school existing as of January 1, 2024, including but not limited to the District’s middle school, (Rundlett Middle School), shall be relocated from the parcel on which it was situated as of January 1, 2024, to be rebuilt or replaced elsewhere, without an affirmative simple majority vote of Concord School District voters voting on the question ratifying such relocation. This amendment shall be effective immediately upon passage.” 

Concerns with A1

I believe the proponents’ intent is to require a public vote on school locations. But the language of the amendment is confusing. As I read it, A1 only applies to schools that exist on January 1, 2024. Following that logic, anything built after that date does not require a vote of the citizens. Let’s say a future board wants to add a new elementary or preschool. Citizens could not vote on that location because that school didn’t exist on January 1, 2024. Perhaps a future board decides to build a second middle school. That doesn’t go to a vote either because it’s not an existing school being relocated.

Let’s then assume this is about Rundlett specifically. We know that site decision was made in December 2023 under the charter as it existed in December 2023. I don’t think this new charter language can apply retroactively. The proponents appear to agree with me because they specifically added language stating, “this amendment shall be effective immediately upon passage.” This appears to be a clear acknowledgement that the clause is not effective prior to passage.

Amendment 2 (A2)

“No parcel of real property owned by the Concord School District, larger than one acre, shall be sold, gifted, or exchanged by the District without an affirmative simple majority vote of Concord School District voters voting on the question. This amendment shall be effective immediately upon passage.”

Concerns with A2

I believe the proponents’ intent is to restrict the board from releasing real property without a public vote, likely with Rundlett specifically in mind. The district, though, has multiple other properties to consider that could be quite cumbersome for voters to weigh in on in the future. Requiring earlier public discussion about potential real estate transactions puts the district at a disadvantage when negotiating prices and getting the best deal for the taxpayers. The timing issue A2 creates is also difficult. If the district has a buyer for a property but is required to wait months for the next general election to get voter approval, that transaction could easily fall apart, even if it’s favorable to the community. Additionally, shifting market trends could force a less-than-ideal sale after voter approval.

It is also notable that the proponents did not include real estate purchases in this amendment. So, while the change puts restrictions on sales (revenue), there is no restriction on board spending for purchases (cost).

---

The Takeaway:

• If you’re a voter looking to have a role in choosing future locations for our schools, the amendments don’t cover new schools.
• If you’re a voter worried about protecting the Broken Ground greenspace, the amendments don’t empower you to have a vote on building on that site in the future.
• If you want to keep Rundlett where it is, these amendments don’t guarantee that result, certainly without taking it to the courts.
• If you’re worried about tax rates and district spending, neither amendment impacts the board’s financial decisions, and may have the unintended consequence of decreasing revenue on real estate transactions and increasing potential costs (elections, legal fees).