After the May 20 defeat at the polls of its ambitious $75.1-million bonding proposal, the Onteora School Board discussed at its June 3 meeting how it will carry out its consolidation plans.
“I’ll speak for myself. I’m very disappointed that the bond failed. But I am not devastated,” board president Cindy Bishop said. “I do think that with some work we can get the bond passed and continue to work toward my dream and many of our dreams of a central campus. I was very happy that the community voted for two board trustees who are also in alignment with our goal of moving toward a central campus.”
The majority of the board seemed inclined toward another vote on an identical or similar bond proposition as the one that failed on May 20. Schools superintendent Victoria McLaren suggested scheduling another vote perhaps this September or October,
What was faulty, several of the trustees said, had not been the amount nor the content of the defeated Proposition 2 but their failure to communicate effectively to the public why passing it was the best course of action for the Onteora district; A demographic and geographic analysis of the vote would reveal what needed to be improved.
“Given the extremely large voter turnout and excellent polling information, Onteora will continue to learn about the views and concerns of the school district voters,” trustee Clark Goodrich said.
“We do know a little bit about how people felt and the demographics of age ranges and all that information was really interesting to see,” Bishop said. :We had a much lower number of young people, people who we believe are parents of young children voting, and a really much greater number of older people and up, all the way up into their nineties, which was kind of remarkable.”
Trustee Rick Knutsen noted that the anti-centralization candidates did not win, and for him that said a lot.
“I will point out that it’s the second year in a row that the candidates who espoused that [anti-centralization] position out of four they came in third and fourth,” said Knutsen.”And the reason I mention this is that there’s narratives that this board is ignoring the voice of the people. But, you know, if you look at the policymakers for two years running now that the people have chosen, they were all openly and transparently in favor of centralization as the most sustainable, equitable, financially, fiscally responsible path.”
Of the trustees who spoke, Emily Mitchell-Marell was perhaps the most articulate in explaining the “no” vote.
“I understand that a community cannot vote on whether or not to close the school, but the helplessness of our constituents combined with the bitter divide we as a board helped create makes me wonder if we approach the process in the right way,” she said. “I think because Woodstock and West Hurley parents and community members felt so out of control with the potential school closure, voting no on Prop 2 was the only possible way they could feel any control, the only option given to them to voice their opinions.”
It was their only chance to have their voice heard on this issue, Mitchell-Marell said. That it came with the potential sacrifice of other things they wanted only further shows their desperation
“Unfortunately, the reality is that the result of this vote means that it may not be tax-neutral, and Woodstock could close and there could not be a beautiful elementary school that’s big enough to house them,” she concluded. “So by voting this way we’ve actually defeated our self-interest — and that’s really upsetting.”
Trustee Sarah Hemingway Lynch said she “implored everybody to think differently about how you’re getting your information and ask anybody at this table but most importantly the superintendent, who’s been at this a while, to be informed when this comes up again. And it will, and it’ll hopefully be much better communicated, and certainly will be hopefully meeting a lot more people’s self-interest.”
Superintendent Victoria McLaren was ready to explain the arrangements if the board decided on a second public vote this year on a bond referendum.
“I just wanted to let everyone know that according to our attorney, in terms of a time line, the law requires that if we are going to resubmit a defeated proposition, it can be resubmitted no more than twice within the twelve-month period and provided that the second proposition is not
submitted less than 90 days after the same or similar proposition was presented,” McLaren said. “If [the board] were to present the same proposition, it could be at a special district meeting as early as August 18th. We would need to publish a legal notice of the meeting at least four times within the seven-week period prior to the vote date, with the first publication occurring at least 45 days prior to the vote date.”
The board is not required to hold a public hearing for that vote, she said, but it could at its discretion. The recommendation is not to have a vote over the summer, but rather in September or October.
Join the family! 
