The following letter to the editor was submitted by Andover select board member Kevin Coffey (photo, above). The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Andover News. You can learn more about our policy on opinion and commentary on our Mission and Policies page.
A recent opinion letter from Windy Catino contained some errors deserving correction. She stated, “The key issue that drove me was watching a majority of our Select Board and the entire Finance Committee jettison years of work and plans to build a new Andover High School with no viable alternative plan. I’ve kept a close eye on the ‘so called Interim Plan’ (remember Article 7B that the two new candidates for SC championed and that’s gone no where [sic] for 15+ months?).”
In reality, the majority of the Select Board at that time voted 3-2 to recommend approval of Article 7A, and a majority of, but not the entire Finance Committee voted 6-2-1 to recommend disapproval:
Whatever the board and committee votes, 71% of Town voters at the meeting overwhelmingly voted against Article 7A and continuing down the proposed road toward a new high school:
Listening to Select Board discussion before the meeting, I believe that the Board accurately sensed community sentiment that Article 7A (before it was given that label) might not pass at Special Town Meeting. The Board then provided an option, which became Article 7B, to give the School Committee a tool for proposing some life-extending improvements to the high school in the event Article 7A failed. Article 7B passed overwhelmingly at the meeting.
Following that November 2023 voter decision, the School Committee at the time did not add to its agenda or activity anything related to the Article 7B path and was silent on it. The Town, even though the Permanent Town Building Advisory Committee was active and started work, could make only limited progress without real engagement of the SC, since SC approval is obviously and sensibly required for any school design or building. Later, the SC did assign members to the PTBAC-led effort, after which serious consideration of “Article 7B” possibilities has accelerated. Ultimately, the SC must still decide whether or not to proceed with improvements.
I am not aware that “the two new candidates for SC championed” Article 7B, as that was proposed by the Select Board.
Kevin Coffey
Andover
Andover News accepts and encourages reader submissions, including letters to the editor and opinion columns. Submissions should be 750 words long or fewer and Andover-focused. Please include your name, title if applicable to your topic and connection or interest in Andover. We also need a phone number so we can confirm authorship. Send us your prose!