It’s back to the drawing board for a citizens group, the Vermont Coalition for Community Schools (VTCCS), after the U.S. District Court in Burlington denied the VTCCS’ motion to a preliminary injunction at a hearing against the Harwood Unified Union School District (HUUSD) on January 31. President of the VTCCS Mariah McGill spoke with The Valley Reporter about next steps for the coalition.
“What seems to be clear is that the electorate actually does have the power to amend the articles to provide for a town vote prior to the closure of any school. The objection was regarding our definition of closure,” said McGill regarding the Friday morning hearing. “I think we’re pretty committed to exploring what it would look like to bring another petition forward with a slightly revised article. We’re looking at the definition of closure and figuring out how to rework it so we can start the process over again. We’re gonna keep fighting for our schools as long as we can.”
A VOICE AND A VOTE
To put McGill’s comments in context, on January 24, after the school board voted against adding two petitioned articles to the warning and ballot for the HUUSD’s annual meeting, the VTCCS filed a lawsuit against the school district. The proposed articles, if approved at the meeting, would allow the public more of a voice and a vote on school closures and school reconfigurations. Currently, only the school board has the authority to make decisions regarding school closures and reconfigurations.
A week later, on January 31, the U.S. District Court in Burlington denied the VTCCS’ motion to a preliminary injunction. That day, Judge William K. Sessions listened to deliberations from each party at the nearly three-hour hearing. However, he ultimately denied the VTCCS’ motion for preliminary injunction because, as stated in a court order published on January 31, “the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy either the likelihood of success standard” and “have failed to show irreparable harm.”
NOT ALL OR NOTHING
The court acknowledged that the school board’s decision to deny warning the petitioned articles at Town Meeting was not an all-or-nothing event. According to the court order, the VTCCS has other opportunities to bring petitioned articles to voters before the end of the 2020-2021 school year.
For instance, the coalition could ask the board to call a special meeting for the public to vote on the petitioned articles or petition to have those articles voted on this summer when the board brings a bond before voters. While the VTCCS argued that attendance would likely be higher at Town Meeting than at a special meeting, the court order determined that the VTCCS “offers no support for the contention that the difference between the two meetings, either in time or voter attendance, would constitute constitutional and irreparable harm.”
Additionally, the court order acknowledged the HUUSD’s argument that if the people are dissatisfied with the board’s actions, they can vote on March 3, 2020, to reject the district’s annual budget. In other words, since the VTCCS has other opportunities to address the board and organize another vote on these petitioned articles, they cannot claim that the board has caused them “irreparable harm.”
BROAD AUTHORITY
Additionally, the court deemed the VTCCS unlikely in succeeding in this case because of the law. Vermont law provides “broad authority” to school boards in terms of school closures and configurations. Therefore, the VTCCS does not pass the “likelihood of success standard” needed to move to preliminary injunction.
The “broad authority” argument echoes the opinion of Nicole Mace, HUUSD attorney, who argued that the school board was not legally required to accept the petitioned articles because Vermont law states that school boards have authority over “possession, care, control and management of the property of the school district.” This definition includes school closures and school reconfigurations. Here the court agrees that accepting these petitioned articles would take away the board’s legally granted authority: “The Court does find that the board properly viewed the proposed amendment as usurping the powers granted to school boards by the Vermont Legislature.”
REPURPOSING
Although the school board is not legally required to accept the petitioned articles, the board could consider presenting Article 6(E), which petitions that the electorate have the opportunity to engage in a two-thirds majority vote regarding school closures, only if the definition of school closures wasn’t so broad. In the court order, the court recognized that under the current amendment, “the electorate would govern not only the closure of entire schools” but also “wholly or partially repurposing a school building from classroom instruction to another use.” This means a decision to repurpose even a portion of a school building could require a districtwide vote. With such a broad definition of school closure, the school board was reluctant to warn the article for a future meeting.
