Dr. David Hopson
I was able to attend most of the public meeting on Worthington’s withdrawal from the district, hosted by the Huntington Selectboard last week. This is certainly an item of discussion in the towns and is getting increasing coverage in the media. We’ve heard a wide range of concerns, justifications, and ideas related to the possibility of Worthington leaving the district. I will say that Worthington has been consistent in sharing the reasons they’re moving towards leaving the district, which appear to be myriad but primarily focused on the education of their students and the unfair financial burden placed upon the town by the state’s determination of their minimum contribution (which is based more on a town’s wealth than on the number of students they have attending a school).
With this much attention on the issue, it will be interesting to see how the legislation moves forward. I think everyone was surprised that, after languishing so long in committee, the House passed the bill quickly and with no additional public input.
At this week’s school committee meeting, members of the public asked why the school committee had not taken an ‘official’ stance on the withdrawal question. I know this has been an ongoing question and if one reviews the minutes and Central Office Updates for the committee, you can see that this is not the first time this issue has been raised. The discussion at the school committee meeting included thoughts on whether the school committee was able to take a stance, whether they already had, or whether they should take a position. There was no resolution, but the community members were told that this question would be an agenda item for the January 22 meeting, under old business (meaning that a vote could be taken at that meeting).
I have also been asked if the fact that the school committee voted to move the regional agreement amendment forward should be considered an ‘endorsement’ of Worthington leaving the district. My response is that the school committee, under the terms of the regional agreement (Section IX), had to move the request from Worthington forward for consideration by the seven district towns, i.e., the Town of Worthington followed the steps in the agreement as written.
As only Worthington voted in favor of the amendment, the amendment is considered null and void as all seven towns must agree to any changes to the regional agreement. Given this fact, Worthington moved forward with special ‘home rule’ legislation (which, given that this was passed during a Worthington Town Meeting, their representative and senator were obligated to file with the Legislature). While I have spoken to senators and representatives (and their aides) I have not, as I shared with the school committee this week and in September, been able to report an official position on the withdrawal for the district because the school committee has, to date, not taken an official vote on their position (which is also why I did not publically testify at the hearing and my written testimony provided only a factual overview of the situation). It remains to be seen whether the school committee will vote to take an official position, or even if there will be time to take a position should the legislation move forward in an expedited fashion. I will share that the only stance I can take on the issue is that it needs to be resolved quickly because the Gateway District, the Town of Worthington, and the Hampshire Regional School District all need as much time as possible to plan and implement changes whether or not Worthington is allowed to withdraw.
