Saying “No” in SAD 48

At the SAD 48 school board meeting Aug. 10 a board member, Alta Lawn, suggested that the purpose of the board’s choice of a district meeting format, after the budget had been rejected twice at the polls, rather than another vote at the polls, was to “ram the budget down the throats of the voters.” This remark elicited a forceful denial by the chairman, Ron Fowler, saying he would not tolerate such statements or further discussion.

Not only was board member Lawn’s freedom of speech violated, she was exactly right and the chairman and remaining members are deceitful to claim otherwise. The board’s purpose in shifting to the district meeting format is to try to reverse the two “no” votes on the budget by forcing voters to attend an hours-long evening meeting and vote against the budget in full view of neighbors and teachers who support the budget. A longer secret ballot would exclude even more voters. The board’s unwillingness to reduce the budget and reversion to a legal but morally illicit “district-town meeting” is a flagrant flouting and subversion of two legitimate democratic votes as was done after six “no” votes on the March 2004 budget.

The fact that the district meeting format is legal is a result of lobbying efforts of MEA and MMA while the Legislature was sleeping.

State school laws and regulations should be changed to limit resubmission of a budget to the voters to two votes after which the budget reverts to the level of the previous year.

Hadley Smith

Palmyra