Letter to the Editor:
The state has approved a public charter school in Ossipee, North Star Academy. Interestingly, there are two ways for public charter schools in NH to be approved. One is a local process, the other a state process. The application in this case was not directed locally but instead went to the state. As a result most local citizens were unaware of, amongst many things: the school's application; the educational need it proposes to address; the people involved; the services the public system will provide to the charter school; and what if any impact it will have on the other public schools in the region.
More importantly, most citizens were unaware of their request to buy the old county courthouse for $1. Consequently, concerns have been raised about the County Commissioner process, the sale of a county resource for so little, and the commitments the commissioners made on our behalf. For example, if the Charter School closes in two years (more than half close in less than five years in the US) are we obligated to buy the building back for substantially more than they paid? If true, the school will have received significant federal/state dollars to start up -- all taxpayer money -- and then we will pay them significantly more than they gave us - when they close? Really?
Obviously, potential obligations in the agreement with North Star Academy could far exceed the $40,000 per year we are presently paying to maintain the building. Elements of this transaction have short and long term financial and other impacts on us, the tax payers. We deserve therefore to know more and be involved more.
Suggesting I should have sought out the information belies the implications of what this would require. There's a county commission, school board, an array of town committees plus the selectmen, and numerous organizations which do work for our local government. They are all making decisions and managing business on my/the public's behalf. We obviously can't go to all those meetings, or watch them all on TV -- which the 'sought out the information' statement implies.
If the 'sought out' means we only need to seek it out when we have questions or concerns this belies the issue of knowing what business is being executed on my behalf. In the case of the courthouse -- that's a theoretically one time event - am I supposed to be clairvoyant? How are we supposed to know if the commissioners don't tell us?
We would have had to know the conversation was taking place -- many of us did not. We would have had to go to x number of meetings/or watched x number online and likely had to request documents associated with those meetings in order to track what was going on and so on. That is much more than any of us have the time or wherewithal to do.
There should have been more citizen directed information/transparency/public discussion and possibly protections put into a decision having significant financial and long term consequences. We depend on our representatives to provide us with sufficient information, particularly on critical matters and one-time transactions. They should put a hold on this transaction and any other one-time transactions they are in the midst of; fill us all in, answer our questions, and address our concerns before proceeding.
Karen Burnett-Kurie
Comments