OBSERVER Photo by Braden Carmen Board of Education member Aaron Marshall, right, offered criticism at a recent meeting following the district’s capital project vote result. Among those to receive criticism from Marshall was former Board President Brian Aldrich, left.

Board of Education member Aaron Marshall was left in disbelief after the result of the Fredonia capital project proposal vote was revealed.

At a recent meeting of the Board, Marshall offered what he called “post-mortem” comments regarding the project’s second and third propositions being rejected by the Fredonia school community.

Marshall said there are a lot of things he did not understand about the way the vote played out. He first began by sharing what he did sympathize with, including Proposition 3 not passing due to the 6.9% tax increase that would have come with it. Proposition 3 would have included a new multi-sport athletic complex to address safety concerns of the district’s current facilities, including the Orange Bowl, as well as the fields at the main campus.

“I knew it would be a big ask, but I felt strongly, I know other members of the Board felt strongly, so we decided to ask,” Marshall said. “It didn’t pass. I have no bitterness, I understand.”

Marshall also said he appreciated the speakers at meetings who raised concerns for those on a fixed income. Regarding that cost as a reason to reject the proposition, Marshall said, “I can understand that. I wish my understanding continued, but it doesn’t.”

Marshall then spent the next 10 minutes detailing all of the things that he felt did not make sense. He began with the vote totals for Proposition 1, pertaining to the most dire maintenance needs of the district, including $7 million of roof upgrades. Of the $50 million of needs identified by architects from Young and Wright, only $22.1 million of the most pressing needs were proposed. Still, that proposition narrowly passed by a vote of 980-768.

“I can’t understand why Proposition 1 barely passed. Forty-three percent of our voters said no to providing basic, crucial maintenance — things like roof repairs,” Marshall said. “The cost to the average taxpayer was less than $5 a month. We nearly left $17 million on the table, that we would have lost, had that not passed.”

Marshall also could not understand why Proposition 2 did not pass, despite only requiring an increase of 1.1% to cover $10 million worth of improvements to enhance and expand music education spaces. The proposition failed by a vote of 1,044-701.

“That’s a project that would have cost the average taxpayer $3 a month,” Marshall said. “The majority of our taxpayers looked at that and said, ‘Nope, not on my watch.'”

In an even more resounding denial, Proposition 3 was rejected by a vote of 1,235-510.

Marshall added that he cannot understand some of the comments he heard from the community throughout the process, including suggestions of soliciting donations from private businesses and fundraising. He called some of the comments he received “willful ignorance” on the part of community members.

“This is a public school,” Marshall said. “This isn’t the Little League. We’re not selling candy bars to put up an athletic field for students.”

Marshall was also critical of a business owner who spoke during public comments who had recently purchased a property worth $1 million, yet claimed they could not afford the tax increase. Marshall also criticized an editorial by the OBSERVER that was critical of the proposal, which he characterized as “ill-informed” and “disingenuous.”

Regarding past district leadership, Marshall criticized the lack of action for capital improvements and the conscious decision to prioritize lower taxes over preparing for necessary upgrades. Marshall called it “a point of pride” for past leadership to boast lower taxes while neglecting the needs of the district.

“I think it was precisely that lack of forethought that put us in this position right now. That’s why we’re here,” Marshall said.

Even one of Marshall’s peers on the current Board was not sheltered from criticism. Referring to former President Brian Aldrich, who sat next to Marshall as he spoke, Marshall said he “would be remiss” to not mention how Aldrich failed to speak up in opposition of the project until the night the Board approved each proposition to be put out to vote. Aldrich was the only member of the Board to vote against each proposal being put out for the community to decide. Marshall called Aldrich’s actions “the biggest thing I can’t understand” of all the points he made during his comments.

“(Aldrich) came here at the Oct. 17 meeting, and at the absolute last minute, came out in opposition to all three propositions, after nearly two years of working on this project – two years that were mostly under his leadership as Board President,” Marshall said. “But at the 11th hour, and 59 minutes and 59 seconds — literal minutes prior to a vote — said I’m not going to support not only (proposition) 3 … but 1 or 2.”

Marshall took exception to Aldrich’s stance of being more “business friendly” in Fredonia, rather than prioritizing the needs of students.

“We should put businesses before our children,” Marshall scoffed. “That’s a Chamber of Commerce thing. That’s not a Board of Ed. thing. I don’t understand.”

Marshall said he does not know where the district will go from here, but knows that more work needs to be done. Specifically, Marshall stated the district is “seconds away from a lawsuit that could potentially cost this district’s taxpayers millions of dollars” regarding the unsafe conditions for players and spectators at the Orange Bowl.

“Sitting and doing nothing doesn’t address any of the issues that are still facing us, with overcrowding in music or our shoddy athletic facilities,” Marshall said. “We don’t have that luxury.”

Marshall even uttered a statement that traditionalists often treat as blasphemy. Speaking to consolidation and/or shared services, he said, “Do we reach out to Dunkirk and say, ‘What can we share? How can we make our two districts function together?'”

Board of Education member Sheila Hahn thanked Marshall for his comments and followed with thoughts of her own. Hahn agreed with many of Marshall’s points, including the lack of forethought from previous district leaders.

“Perhaps I’m a little more resentful than he is,” Hahn said.

Regarding athletic facilities, Hahn spoke to Fredonia’s reputation as one of the top schools in the region, and criticized the community for not supporting the district more in the latest vote.

“Our community doesn’t seem to prioritize keeping our students with the facilities they deserve. I’m very sorry about that, and I am angry about it,” Hahn said. “We moved here because we love this community. I would like to see others have some Fredonia pride.”

Prior to the comments from the Board, Superintendent Dr. Brad Zilliox thanked the voters who participated in the capital project vote on Dec. 13. He called the turnout “impressive” and noted that while many other districts have small vote totals that leave questions to whether the whole community was truly represented with the vote, that was not the case with Fredonia’s result.

“That’s why we have a vote, to let the community decide,” Zilliox said.

While the music and athletic department upgrades were shot down by voters, the first proposition — titled “Keeping our students warm, safe, and dry” — did pass, meaning $22.1 million of maintenance needs will be addressed. The work carries a 1.9% tax increase to district taxpayers.

The district will soon be in contact with architects from Young and Wright to move forward with the upgrades that were approved. Once plans are finalized, they will be submitted to New York State for approval. Once the district receives approval from the state, the work will be put out to bid.

“That is a process, so if anybody is looking for a new roof anytime soon, we’re not going to be quite there yet,” Zilliox said.

Zilliox acknowledged the issues that led to such a substantial proposal still exist, including overcrowded music spaces and unsafe playing conditions on district athletic fields.

“We are now in the process of regrouping, at this moment, about what might we be able to do moving forward, how will we address these concerns,” Zilliox said. Expanded music spaces and safer playing fields will be evaluated through alternative solutions in the coming months.