School Board Will Appeal Over Right to Modify Kemper Park

by Judy Silberstein

(June 15, 2005) End of year school board meetings are typically reserved for celebrating accomplishments of and saying goodbye to retirees, and there was plenty of that on Tuesday, June 14 (See: Long-term Teachers, Staff, Board Member Leaving DistrictBut before getting to the “fun stuff” the board unanimously voted to authorize their attorneys to file a notice of appeal and to proceed with the appeal of a ruling from NY Supreme Court Justice Orazio R. Bellantoni prohibiting the district from making changes to the Kemper Memorial Park on the high school’s campus. (See: Judge Rules: Kemper Park Changes Prohibited.)

The ruling, announced in January and received in final form by the district on May 27, found that the board’s proposal to relocate the Kemper monument and reconfigure the park to make room for adding a ball field “does not significantly honor the sacrifice of those soldiers who gave their lives in service of their country, and violates the specific covenants” of the deed that conveyed title of the park’s land from the donor to the schools. The board and the Kemper family had been unable to come to agreement on the future of the park; the board sought legal support for its position last June (See: Schools Ask for Court Clarification on Kemper Plan). The family sued in July (School District Enjoined from Altering Kemper Park), and the judge sided with their position. The board had 30 days from May 27 to file a notice to appeal the latest ruling.

The board’s vote on Tuesday was based on advice from counsel that their plan “is consistent with the terms of the deeds,” explained board president Celia Felsher. She reiterated the board position that their redesign of the park and surrounding area balances the need to honor the soldiers with the need to enhance “traffic and pedestrian safety” and address the “critical needs” of the growing team sports programs.

She recognized that “this matter has elicited strong emotions on both sides” and noted that the board is mindful of the cost of litigation. “However, we believe strongly that the board has a fiduciary responsibility to file this appeal in an effort to determine, for the incoming board and future boards, the extent to which the district has the legal right to use property it owns for the benefit of students and the community-at-large.”

Board member Cecilia Absher was more bluntly critical of the ruling. “The trial court’s opinion relied on sparse reasoning and its decision appears not to be supported by either the law or the facts,” she said.

Even if the district wins on appeal, the board has not made a final determination to move forward on its proposal. At this point, only $500,000 of the needed funds have been approved, as part of the 2004-2005 budget that passed by a narrow margin in the face of opposition to the park plans (See: School Budget Passes: 1520 to 1444). The final $800,000 was removed from this year’s budget following Judge Bellantoni’s ruling in January. A future decision would be based on several factors, including budgetary restraints, the possibility of private financing, and whether additional field space “might be successfully identified between now and then,” said Ms. Felsher.

“Of course, the school district has every right to appeal,” said Jan Northrup, president of the Kemper Memorial Park Preservation Fund, on learning of the board’s decision. “However, I am very disappointed it has chosen to do so. Its determination to break the restrictive covenants of the deeds and callous indifference to the wishes of those who value the Memorial Park is incomprehensible,” she added. She called the decision a “lose-lose situation” that would “waste time, energy and money” and be “very divisive for the community.”

Front Page

Print This Page
Email this page