MONTPELIER – The Washington Central Unified Union Supervisory District (WCUUSD) board was divided in a six-to-five vote as it denied a valid petition with more than 450 signatures that called for a special meeting to vote on amending the district’s articles of agreement beginning with the 2027-28 academic year.
If passed, the meeting would have decided whether to require all district voters to weigh in on closing any school. A majority of those voters and a majority the board would then be required prior to closing a school.
Currently only a majority of voters at the school being considered for closure and a majority of the board need to vote on doing so.
The petition was received on June 15, giving the district 60 days, until mid-August to warn a special meeting under Vermont law.
Members voting against holding the August 11 meeting were Chris McVeigh (Middlesex), Patrick Whelley (Middlesex), Marty McMahon (Worcester), Natasha Eckhart (Worcester), Julia Hewitt (Worcester) and Elizabeth Brown (Calais).
In favor of holding the meeting were Ursula Stanley (Middlesex), Michelle Ksepka (Calais), Daniel Keeney (Calais), Flor Diaz Smith (East Montpelier) and Zach Sullivan (East Montpelier).
A majority of names on the petition are from East Montpelier and Berlin, though Calais, East Calais and Middlesex are represented too.
Following the vote, meeting minutes indicate the board discussed what can be done next, with Ursula Stanley asking whether defying statute might result in communities taking the board to court and eroding trust.
Diane Nichols-Fleming asked whether those voting no had interest in discussion about the timing.
Marty McMahon said there is a lot of anger in the communities. More time to listen would be great, he said, but he is hearing from constituents that we say we are listening and yet there is no response.
In response to a question about the history of the articles of agreement from Elizabeth Brown, Flor Diaz Smith reviewed the process from back when the articles of agreement were approved by voters.
Daniel Keeney said the discussion is embarrassing. The board’s responsibility, based on the legal interpretation of an attorney, is clear and he said he can’t understand why the board is debating whether to carry out its role.
Ursula Stanley agreed that it is an embarrassment to act as a small group in taking away the rights of constituents to vote. She said she felt they are not doing a good job as a board.
Natasha Eckart suggested warning within 60 days as required, and setting the date for November. More people would come out to vote then, she said.
Keeney’s interpretation is that a date must be set within 60 days.
Bernie Lambek clarified that the warning cannot be less than 30 or more than 40 days before the meeting.
When Diane Nichols-Fleming suggested meeting with the petitioners to explore some flexibility, Maia Stone noted there were over 500 signatures and it would be impossible to meet with all of them.
Diane Nichols-Fleming asked Bernie Lambek to counsel the board on what are possible next steps and he agreed to look into it and report back. Nichols-Fleming said a special meeting of the board will be called once that information is in hand.
Chris McVeigh asked about establishing a contact person for families regarding transition planning over the summer and Superintendent Dellinger-Pate responded that schools have been in touch with families and have designated contacts. McVeigh said he thought having one person to field such communication would be ideal.
In online posts, community members called on the board to honor the petition and warn the special meeting as required by law.
Paul Fixx is editor of The Hardwick Gazette and lives in Hardwick.
