SoRo Gym Vote
Was Distressing

We are disheartened by the decision made to spend $3.88 million on the Royalton School gymnasium when our taxes have already gone up this year, we are scheduled for property reappraisals next year, we need a new town office space, and most importantly a new fire station.

There are so very many reasons to have a revote on this issue. Poor voter turnout, Vermont statistics, the rumor that Vermont Law students were solicited to vote, and other pressing school and town issues including a legal, moral and ethical issue.

There was a very poor voter turnout when the decision went through to spend nearly $4 million on the gymnasium. Again, there are so very many reasons that that happened. The meeting was not publicized very well. When you are going to spend that much money, you would think that there would be an aggressive campaign to get voters to show up and have their voices heard. That is our legal right.

People are already struggling financially and have to put in longer hours at work so they can collect overtime just to pay their bills as things stand now. Adding approximately $4 million is only going to increase their burden. Increasingly, we have heard that people are concerned that they may lose their homes if taxes keep going up. Give those people who may have been working a chance to vote on this issue. Maybe hold the vote on two separate days—one weekday, and one weekend day.

Vermont and national statistics state that the average age of Vermonters is over 50. Did you know that 50% of people over 50 are single? That means that they are living on one salary. Did you also know that half of married people get divorced? (Which is sad.) That means that they, too, are living on a single paycheck. Not only are single people struggling, but many people living on two paychecks are also finding it increasingly difficult to live.

We believe that instead of building something new, we should fix what we already have, our failing infrastructure. We shouldn’t keep adding to the ever-increasing cost-of-living problem.

Work on scheduling classes differently or combining school systems. Have our school administrators learn to work together instead of worrying about losing their school and hence some of their power. Who are we serving here? We should be serving students and the townspeople. If towns got together and improved the one school that all students attended, all the towns would contribute towards a common goal and we would have less of a problem.

Vermont statistics also say that our student population has been steadily decreasing. It also states that when students graduate (even from Vermont Law School), most of them will move out of state. This only means that until we can ensure that we will have some young people making good money to help us pay taxes, we should not spend foolishly.

This does not mean that we don’t want a new gym, or even a new school for that matter. What it means is that we want to act responsibly. We need to wait for the right time. Once we have solved the problem of keeping the few students we have here in Vermont, we can think of spending money on a gym, because the young people are the ones who will be having children to send to school. It is not the 50-year-old people who will be supplying the students for our school system.

Vermont Law students use the gymnasium at the South Royalton school. It was rumored that some law students were solicited to vote for the new gym. If that is true, then we did not have an honest vote that truly represented the Royalton population. It was also said that when approached and asked if they would contribute some money toward the new gymnasium, they declined. It hardly seems fair that they should be allowed to vote for something of this magnitude, when they are only here for a few years, and then move on.

The burden of this gymnasium will fall on the older taxpayer who has been here his whole life, or on the taxpayer who wants to retire here and who may be in jeopardy of losing her/his home if taxes continue to increase. A few hundred dollars may not be much for some people, but it can make the difference of keeping, or losing, a home for others.

Schools and towns have several issues that need to be addressed all the time. It is the responsibility of the school board, and the voters to do what is moral, ethical and fiscally responsible. The use of our tax monies should be limited and insure that we do not copy the irresponsible government spending of some politicians. People’s budgets are stretched about as far as they can be stretched.

We are deeply saddened by the choice made by our school board. Although they represent our town’s educational structure, they chose not to educate the public about educational law. Instead of passing down information that was passed to them in an email from Mr. Giuliani (former assistant Secretary of State) regarding the petition, they chose deceit. They chose to take advantage of the people, even though they had a moral and ethical responsibility to act on the petition, and let the public know what needed to be done to have our voices be heard.

It would have been morally right if Mr. Honigford, who serves on both the school board and building committee, explained that we needed to ask for a rescission or reconsideration instead of a revote. Is that the way people with an educational responsibility should act?

Also, should they be the ones making this decision for us? There is a conflict of interest here. They will directly benefit from having the school remodeled and a gym built—others will lose their houses and change the way they eat. Is this the kind of example you would like to set for the children we educate?

Lastly, we agree with David Lewis and feel that it is dishonorable and a disservice to the townspeople not to have a revote on the nearly $4 million new school gymnasium project.

Judy McCullough

David H. McCullough

Gemmah F. Stone

Royalton

____________