Shaping Our Schools: The Case for the Charter Amendments

As voters head to the polls for the school board election, they’ll also be asked to consider two proposed amendments to the school board charter. The first amendment states that no school shall be relocated without voter approval. The second requires voter approval before the school district can sell any property larger than one acre. While I signed the petition for these amendments, I wasn’t involved in planning, drafting, or gathering signatures for them. However, since I’m running for the school board, many have asked where I stand on these amendments. My answer is simple: I support them.

I support these amendments because the school board’s decision to relocate the middle school has been so wildly unpopular that the public deserves a check on the board’s power. We can debate whether these amendments are the ideal mechanism for accountability. Some might argue that oversight by the city council is more appropriate, or that budget control is key, not just school location. People have a wide variety of opinions on the best way to ensure accountability, but the key point is that accountability is necessary.

The scope of these restrictions on the school board is moderate, especially considering longstanding concerns and previous challenges to the board’s autonomy. These amendments wouldn’t impose a budget on the board or require voter or city council approval for bonds.

To review a bit of history, Concord is unique in that it is the only “autonomous” school district in the state, meaning it can tax and spend freely without needing public or city council permission. This is an extraordinary power that many voters may not fully appreciate. The portion of property taxes allocated to the school district exceeds that of the portion that goes to municipal services by a comfortable margin. Over the years, critics have argued that this autonomy leads to imprudent and unaccountable spending, while defenders believe it provides independence and flexibility that benefits Concord’s students. Several past attempts to reform the School Board have failed—some narrowly, and at least one through alleged parliamentary maneuvers.

These amendments, however, are narrowly focused on a specific issue: public mistrust of the school board’s decisions on school location. Rather than a comprehensive change to the board's autonomy, they are a targeted response to a particular concern.

Opponents of the amendments argue that the school district needs flexibility. But moving a school isn’t a decision made on a whim—it typically takes years, if not decades. Opponents also claim that Amendment One doesn’t give the school board latitude in case of emergencies like structural failure, severe weather, civil unrest, fire, or another pandemic. However, state law requires districts to educate students in a “safe and sanitary environment.” The school district’s charter cannot override state law, even if it tried. Generally speaking, courts grant government agencies implicit power to act in emergencies. Moreover, this concern seems less than sincere, as opponents aren’t suggesting that the amendment would be acceptable if it included an emergency exception; they seem opposed to the amendment regardless.

Regarding the second amendment, which requires voter approval before selling more than one acre of land, supporters offer several arguments. First, the school district has been accused of failing to capture the full value of its retired schools in the past. For instance, in 2013, it sold the Walker School—a nearly 30,000-square-foot building—to Binnie Media for $900,000. That building is now assessed at nearly $3.5 million. In fairness, the City of Concord has faced similar accusations, most recently with the sale of the former Employment Security building, which essentially resulted in a loss after subsidies and holding costs were factored in.

Another reason for supporting the land sale amendment is that some residents prefer that land held by the school district, particularly undeveloped land like most of the Broken Ground area, remain undeveloped. While I’m not anti-development—I believe housing is important—there is a balance to be struck. If a parcel is suitable for housing, development should be considered if it’s not otherwise being used. On the other hand, conservation has its merits too. I’m not sure that public voting on land sales is ideal, as local elections can be dominated by motivated special interests. However, given the middle school debacle, the school board’s history of questionable land sales, and the connection between the two amendments—since the district may need to sell land when relocating a school—I believe Amendment Two makes sense.

Finally, some have pointed out that these amendments might not solve the middle school problem because they may not apply retroactively. While I am a lawyer, I haven’t researched this specific issue, and I suspect there would not be an immediate or obvious answer if I did. The suggestion is that this will need to be litigated, tying up the middle school project in court and costing the district money in legal fees. However, the school board would decide whether to authorize any action in court. It would not be required to argue that the amendments don’t apply retroactively. Any litigation would be at the board’s discretion. Therefore, this argument seems more like a threat of litigation than a legitimate reason to oppose the amendments.

In summary, while the proposed charter amendments may not be the perfect or final answer to the issues facing our school board, they represent a necessary step towards restoring public trust and ensuring that the board is accountable to the community it serves. The amendments provide a modest but important check on the board’s power. By supporting these amendments, we send a clear message that the public’s voice matters and that the school board should act with transparency and consideration for the community’s best interests. This moment presents an opportunity not just to address a specific issue, but to begin a broader conversation about how we can better balance autonomy and accountability in our school district for the long term.