Divisions Deepen as Bond Referendum Approaches

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
April 26th 2024

RICHMOND – In the days leading up to the Chariho bond referendum, it’s impossible to escape the chatter.

In the trenches of social media, between the posts about runaway dogs, potholes and garden soil, supporters and opponents of the Chariho school bond are doing battle.

On Thursday, there was a new offensive; a Facebook post announcing that Richmond and Hopkinton had formed an alliance and were working together to defeat the bond.

Adorned with a photo of Richmond Town Council President Mark Trimmer on the right and another of Hopkinton council President Mike Geary on the left, the post states that the towns are united against “the school MEGA-bond.”

The Bond

Early voting is already underway, with the referendum on the proposed bond on May 7

The proposed school construction plan calls for the consolidation of the district’s four elementary schools into three new elementary schools. The fourth school, Hope Valley Elementary, would close.

Proponents of the plan point to declining enrollment and aging school buildings and ask why Hopkinton should have two elementary schools when the other towns have one each.

Opponents warn that the bond, up to $150 million, would increase the tax burden on the towns and would probably end up with cost overruns. They are also fighting the closure of Hope Valley School, which they say is unnecessary and would be unfair to Hope Valley families. Whether or not voters approve the bond, Hope Valley school will close in the coming years, and 2024-25 kindergarten registration at the school has already been canceled.

A vocal opposition group has been working to sway public opinion, offering “Save Hope Valley School” lawn signs. The “Richmond Forgotten Taxpayers” also opposes the bond. On the group’s website, founder Clay Johnson describes bond supporters as extremists.

“It is another sign of the arrogance of the extreme left that they feel they are owed positions of power, he states. “It is disappointing that they force the continued expenditure of public resources on vanity projects.”

Trimmer said wanted to remind residents of Hopkinton and Richmond that their respective Town Councils had voted against supporting the bond.

“The reasons are numerous, but one that affects both towns is that bond will consume ‘tax bandwidth’ reducing the ability for the taxpayers to support any municipal tax increases to maintain infrastructure,” he said. “It will also reduce tax bandwidth for Chariho to absorb the expected loss of state aid. The inflation rate is currently high, as are the borrowing rates. Taxpayers are already absorbing huge cost increases on everything that have skyrocketed over the last two years. Now is just not the right time to take on more debt.”

What About Charlestown?

The third Chariho town, Charlestown, was not invited to join the alliance. The Charlestown Town Council has traditionally been supportive of residents’ rights to vote on Chariho initiatives, including budgets and bonds.

Contacted Friday, council President Deborah Carney said she was not aware of the Richmond-Hopkinton alliance.

Bond Supporters Soldier On 

Proponents of the consolidation plan argue that it is an opportunity for the school district to benefit from state funding that would pay for up to 81% of the cost of the three new schools.

As for keeping all four schools open, supporters say that with most of the buildings approaching 100 years old, pouring funds into maintaining them is not a good investment. In addition, they say, as enrollment declines, it is not sound fiscal policy to keep two elementary schools open in the small town of Hope Valley.

School Committee Chair Catherine Giusti, a Hopkinton resident, said the new alliance would not help taxpayers.

“I am disappointed that the two Town Council Presidents have decided to not look out for the best interest of taxpayers, and I hope they are taking an opportunity to do what they can on their own Town Councils to try to offset the taxes in our area,” she said.

Hopkinton Town Council member Stephen Moffitt, a Democrat who will run in November against Republican Sen. Elaine Morgan in District 34 (Hopkinton, Richmond, Charlestown, Exeter, West Greenwich) said he was surprised by the intensity of the opposition to the bond.

“The amount of organized effort opposing the bond is incredible,” he stated in a written comment. “For the Forgotten Taxpayers, this is not about the money. If it was, they would realize approving this bond is an opportunity to pay for substantial long-term infrastructure for a 76-81% discount.”

Moffitt described the opposition effort as misleading and dishonest.

“This is about ideology and is being pushed by the Forgotten Taxpayer leadership, Clay Johnson and Louise Dinsmore to the detriment of those they have influence over,” he said. “The amount of misinformation and suggested pitfalls is disheartening.” 

One of the bond’s strongest proponents is Jessica Purcell, who represents Richmond on the School Committee. Purcell’s approach has been, to a large extent, meeting voters and answering their questions.

Purcell lamented the political divisions in the school district and said she was reluctant to comment on the alliance because she didn’t want to make the situation worse.

“It’s not up to us,” she said. “That’s the thing. It’s not up to Mark Trimmer. It’s not up to Louise Dinsmore. It’s up to letting the voters know and letting them decide.”

Trimmer said voters could expect to hear more from the alliance, although he didn’t specify what the towns might be planning.

“We have to do our part in defeating the bond and instead make the necessary improvements to our existing schools to keep them viable in the 21st Century,” he said.

But Moffitt said the bond debate is more about politics than education.

“This is about ideology and is being pushed by Forgotten Taxpayer leadership Clay Johnson and Louise Dinsmore to the detriment of those they have influence over,” he said. “The most important thing the Forgotten Taxpayers group are forgetting is the taxpayer. Ideology and misinformation is their motivation.”