On Tuesday, Lebanon voters will be asked to pass the renovations on our schools. We have spoken for three years regarding this proposal and voted “NO.” What part of “NO” do our elected board members not understand. The costs not only affect home owners but renters as well. All you need to do is look up rental unit fees to realize even those are unaffordable. Senior citizens in our community no longer can afford to stay in their homes. It is time for our elected school board members to wake up and listen to the voters. Once more, VOTE NO on the renovations. Lebanon voters, get out and make your voices heard on March 8 once again.
Jacqueline Minard
Lebanon
At what financial threshold would the cost for Lebanon school renovations be deemed reasonable and valuable by our community? The Lebanon School District has worked for over four years to present needed improvements, scaling back former plans and budgets each year, moving the threshold. Kids’ potential to learn is greatly affected by school spaces. A certain amount of space is essential for learning to take place, for teachers to teach. Space is sorely needed to support LHS’s and HSS’s music and art programs. Plans include a new cafeteria for elementary students and expansion of student support classrooms and offices, the nurse’s room, media center and library. The fire alarm system and school entrances need updating to fulfill safety standards and ADA accessibility.
Given the history of the buildings, it makes good fiscal sense to pass this resolution. All buildings degrade over time and must be maintained. The shared elementary and high school building was built in the ‘60s, and it’s been almost two decades since substantial upgrades were made. If maintenance and improvements are continually put off, upgrades could become very expensive and a larger scope of work will be needed.
The property tax impact of the bond is projected to be 16 cents per $1,000 valuation in the first year, an increase of $48 for a $300K house; and an average of 46 cents per $1,000 valuation in years 2-6, an increase of $138 for a $300K house; decreasing thereafter. This is a reasonable investment that will have significant positive impacts on many people in our community. This decision is much more than a financial equation — we are investing in supporting our kids’ growth and learning. What a positive difference this renovation will make for all the kids attending Lebanon schools!
The time has come to support the well-planned and forward-thinking Lebanon School District Renovation Plan and to view this as a long-term economic and societal community investment. Such an investment is particularly necessary at this time as kids, teachers and administrators have been challenged by pandemic disruption. Every vote to reach a 60% majority counts. Please show your support on March 8 of our schools, our community and our children.
Suzanne Church
Lebanon
Claremont needs Miles, Skillen
Elections for the Claremont School Board are coming up on March 8. I will be supporting Bonnie Miles and Whitney Skillen (write-in) for the two seats open this election cycle. These races come at a critical time for our public schools. Recent community conversations revealed alarming transparency issues with the school board, with some members having access to crucial budget information that others did not have. Stevens High School has the third-lowest graduation rate in the state. The Sugar River Valley Technical Center (SRVTC) once boasted eight vocational programs but is now down to four and a half. It was encouraging to see the community come out in force at the Feb. 9 budget deliberative session to voice overwhelming support for the SRVTC. But that by itself isn’t enough. Claremont schools desperately need a board dedicated to fixing our local issues, finding innovative ways for the district to improve student outcomes and exploring new possibilities to return the SRVTC to full capacity. Bonnie is a respected businesswoman and Claremont resident of four decades. A realtor, Bonnie put three children through our Claremont public schools, one in particular who benefited greatly from the programs SRVTC provided. Bonnie is determined to see that the SRVTC will thrive for years to come. Whitney, a recent resident of Claremont, chose to move here because of her family’s roots in the city, which she visited every summer as a child. Whitney has prior experience in community programs meant to benefit youth. Her commitment is to center the needs of our students in every discussion of the future of our schools. Between them, these women would make formidable additions as our school board works to improve its transparency, secure the SRVTC’s future and shore up our educational resources. Please join me in supporting Bonnie and Whitney (write-in) on March 8.
Jim Contois
Claremont
I write this letter in reference to Lebanon’s warrant Article 6: “To see if the school district will vote to discontinue the School Resource Officer Program created in 2004.” I encourage a “yes” vote on this article; in short, I encourage people to vote to eliminate the SRO position. It is hard to take this position and encourage others to do likewise without appearing to be a naysayer. Those in favor of the SRO position in public schools paint a picture of the SRO as a model of good citizenship and effective mentoring. I do not criticize that opinion.
But we should stop to think about whether school counselors, teachers, coaches, school nurses and tutors aren’t better equipped to mentor students, instructing them in the fundamentals of decision making, safe sex and conflict resolution skills. The presence of a uniformed, armed officer often gives rise to feelings of apprehension, anxiety and resentment, rather than building a bridge for positive, instructive interactions.
Many schools in New Hampshire do not have SROs and appear to get along just fine without them. Let us use the resources we would save by not having an SRO position and instead hire social work professionals to mentor our youth and help them deal with conflict situations in their lives. Vote to defund the SRO position; vote yes for Article 6.
Margaret A. Campbell
West Lebanon
What will the decision be regarding School Resource Officers (SROs) in Lebanon schools?
The recent Lebanon School District Annual Report outlines important work for the coming year, including: completing the 2023-25 Three-Year Strategic Plan; gaining approval for and starting needed renovations in three schools; meeting district-wide improvement goals for curriculum development, professional learning and technology; making progress on goals for diversity, equity and inclusion; and supporting the needs of all learners while also cultivating academic excellence.
Are SROs a good investment for meeting the challenges of the work ahead?
We know there is no conclusive evidence that SROs prevent or reduce crime in schools. And national and local data show not only that schools with SROs have higher rates of exclusionary discipline, but that students of color and students with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to experience both in-school and out-of-school discipline as well as referral to law enforcement, priming the school-to-prison pipeline.
In my previous experience as a special education teacher and school director, I understood that teaching, counseling, mentoring and disciplining students are the responsibility of trained and certified educators, counselors, social workers and other teaching and service personnel and volunteers — people who are an integral part of the school community and whose chief mission is the education and well-being of all students in the school. We can solve problems together and find fair and just solutions using collaborative community justice models. We can do this without the presence of law enforcement in our schools, and our investments in personnel, programs and various goals for improvement should reflect that. The attorney for the Lebanon School District has made it clear that the upcoming vote on SROs will be advisory only. I am hopeful that the people who finally make this decision will stand wit h their school community and invest in our schools, not law enforcement.
Lindsay Dearborn
Lebanon
By placing Article 4 on Enfield’s 2022 town warrant, the Enfield Planning Board seeks to remove section 405.2, the “Village Plan Alternative,” from Enfield’s zoning ordinance.
The board argues that because both the cluster development provision and the village plan alternative ostensibly create “open space” in conjunction with prospective housing development, the village plan alternative is redundant; the board argues that because the village plan alternative has not been used since its adoption, it has no value; and the board claims that by removing the village plan alternative, the planning board will gain flexibility.
Public decision-making bodies are only permitted to do what voters have permitted them to do. They are prohibited from making up their own rules and procedures as they go along. NO public body, and especially no “planning” board, will ever gain “flexibility” from having decision-making options removed from its purview. According to the last two census counts taken in 2010 and 2020, and emphasized in Enfield’s 2021 Town Report, for twenty years now, Enfield’s population and number of available housing units have declined. Because there has been no growth in Enfield, neither the cluster development provision nor the village plan alternative provision has had any cause to be implemented. You’d think Enfield’s “planning” board would know that.
Enfield’s zoning ordinance provides three ways for housing development to occur: development where, apart from streets and sidewalks, every available square foot is divided into house lots; cluster development, which spreads housing clusters around, separated by strips of “green space” (useless for agriculture, forest management or wildlife habitats); and the village plan alternative to cluster development, which seeks to concentrate housing on 20% or less of the available land in a village-like setting, leaving the 80% remainder for agriculture, forest management and wildlife habitats. It’s crazy for the planning board to want to eliminate the best of the three development options.
Please vote “NO” on warrant Article #4.
Paul Mirski
Enfield Center