To the Editor:

Potsdam Central taxpayers deserve an explanation for the questionable behavior surrounding what will be our newest facility--the 20-year-old building now occupied by a private daycare. The written facts are as follows:

1. Jan. 11, 2011--The BOE formally votes to declare the building “needed” for “District purposes when said property is transferred to the district in May 2013.”

2. Nov. 21, 2011--(Closed door meeting) Building Blocks Daycare meets with superintendent and requests use of the building beyond the May 2013 deadline.

3. Dec. 13, 2011--BOE approves a capital project scope that includes the renovation of said building but excludes specific district use.

4. Dec. 19, 2011--building and grounds minutes indicate that not only does the district plan to ignore the “needed” resolution of Jan. 11, 2011, but use taxpayer monies to renovate said building to lease.

Exactly when, if ever, does this BOE plan to inform the taxpayers that the referendum in Dec. 2012 on this capital project includes the renovation of a district building for a private company already in debt to the taxpayers for approximately $392,000? Although Building Blocks received the go ahead for a new building from the village, it appears the new facility is nothing more than a red herring meant to distract taxpayers from back door dealings with the school superintendent.

This private company has yet to come before the BOE in public session, preferring to use the superintendent as their spokesperson. What explanation would six BOE members (Turbett, Bunstone, Fuller, Cowen, Frascture and Hobbs) give to justify this change from “needed” to “unneeded” for district use? Is this BOE aware that the use of capital project funds (all taxpayer monies) to renovate a district building to lease is illegal? This attempt to induce the voters to approve a capital project with the belief that said building will be used for district needs and then change it all will is nothing more than deception and fraud.

What could possibly occur that would persuade a committee to consider leasing a district building just six days after the BOE approved (in public) renovations for district use?

Why would six members of this board (who less than a year earlier voted “needed” for district use) arbitrarily change their mind with no explanation to taxpayers? It is not the cost; these BOE members were all on the board when many uses were discussed in public with very little construction/renovations needed and minimal costs to the taxpayers.

In conclusion, it is very clear that the changes put forth by the buildings and grounds minutes of Dec. 19, 2011 are a direct result of the back door meeting Nov. 21. The taxpayers deserve an explanation as to why the needs of a private corporation come before the needs of the district. Explain to the public why they believe monies earmarked for education (capital project) can be siphoned off to renovate a building and turn it over to a private company. How does the BOE expect taxpayers to support an upcoming budget vote in May and seven months later in Dec. support a project that calls for a $500,000 district capital asset to be handed over to a private corporation? So much for fiscal responsibility and transparency.

Richard and Jane Hollister

Potsdam