Opponents of the Stillwater school board’s decision to close three elementary schools are taking their case to the Minnesota Capitol.
Proposals making their way through the Legislature would require that voters approve closing a school or adding new classroom space if the plans conflict with a capital levy backed by voters in the previous five years.
The bills are sponsored by Sen. Karin Housley, R-St. Marys Point, and Rep. Kathy Lohmer, R-Stillwater, as well as other lawmakers from the school district who described the proposals as increased protections for taxpayers.
Another set of bills would create a process for removing sitting school board members who fail to uphold “voter-approved policy.” Those bills have not yet received a committee hearing.
The legislation is in response to the Stillwater school board’s decision to close Marine, Withrow and Oak Park elementary schools as part of the “Building Opportunities to Learn and Discover,” or BOLD plan. School leaders say the BOLD plan will allow them to use limited resources more efficiently and equitably.
A large number of parents oppose the plan, which they say will devastate their small communities. To stop the closures they’ve mounted campaigns that include several legal actions, one of which has been dismissed by a judge and two of which are ongoing.
Opponents of the closures say the school leaders’ decision conflicts with promises they made in 2015 to gain voter support to pass a $100 million capital levy to upgrade facilities across the district and add a new elementary school. The opponents have urged lawmakers to change state law to protect taxpayers from future changes in school infrastructure plans that conflict with campaign promises.
“It was your classic example of bait and switch,” said Krista Thomas, a district resident who testified last week at a Senate education committee hearing in support of the legislation.
“Taxpayers should have reasonable assurances when bond campaigns are sold to the public that the dollars are used for the purposes intended,” Thomas said. “If changes need to be made, then they should come back and get taxpayer permission. Otherwise, why would any bond campaign ever run on truth?”
Stillwater school leaders maintain they did nothing wrong or unethical when they made the decision to close the three schools. They’ve said the changes were necessary to address rapid enrollment growth in the southern part of the district and fewer students in the north.
District leaders have not taken an official position on the bills, but George Hoeppner, board chair, said the changes seemed unnecessary and would make it difficult for school officials to respond to changes in their communities.
“It is aimed specifically at the difficult decisions we’ve made in the last couple years,” said Hoeppner, who described the legislation as “another intrusion on local control.”
State organizations that lobby on behalf of school boards and administrators had a similar reaction. Representatives of several groups spoke in opposition to adding more rules about closing schools or adding new space.
“If a community believes a district is not expending (levy) funds properly, we currently have a check and balance in the court system and that system does work,” saud Gary Amoroso, executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators.
Despite the opposition, several lawmakers spoke in favor of the new rules for school facilities. The proposal is under consideration for inclusion in larger policy and funding bills.