School Closing Key Concern of Taxpayers-July 7, 1978

Norwood Taxpayers File Superior Court Lawsuit to Restore $618,795 Cut from School Budget and Block Sudden School Closings

Expressing deep anxiety over the immediate threat of sudden school closures and severe classroom disruptions, 36 local taxpayers—including five teachers and a broad coalition of parents and community residents—have filed a formal lawsuit in Norfolk Superior Court this week seeking to restore $618,795 slashed from the school budget by town meeting last month.

Finance Commission Cuts and Community Backlash

The court challenge targets an $11.3 million school spending plan reduced by town meeting, highlighted by a massive $375,000 slash in teacher salaries accounting for approximately 28 positions. Members of the Finance Commission made it explicitly clear that the salary reduction was calculated to force the closure of an elementary school in September.

While the School Committee remains formally opposed to shuttering any school facility for the current academic year, the board is deeply divided on whether to officially endorse or support the taxpayers’ lawsuit. NTA President Richard King confirmed that the legal action will proceed regardless of whether the school committee chooses to accept the cuts.

Many plaintiffs, including parents with children enrolled at the Aaron Guild Elementary School—frequently cited as a primary candidate for closure—argued that the timeline being forced upon the district is reckless. Albert and Helen Hall, concerned taxpayers without children currently in the school system, explained that their involvement stemmed purely from volunteer civic concern. “We feel strongly about the situation and contacted the NTA,” Hall said. Plaintiff Gerald Sullivan echoed the sentiment, asking, “After all, they could cut other places. Why is it always the schools?”

Lawrence Decareau, a Junior High South teacher and father of four, criticized the administrative delay: “My number one concern is that they are way too late.” Gloria Lind, mother of four schoolchildren, added, “Before they close a school, I want to know [the long-term plan].”

Interwoven Municipal Controversies: Park Fill and Drainage Concerns

The court filing coincides with a series of heated local disputes concerning public works and environmental management across town:

• Riverdale Park Fill Operations: Town officials addressed public inquiries regarding excess fill removal. Selectmen Chairman Edward Larkin and municipal project partner Hanson clarified that excavated fill is being directed exclusively to Riverdale Park for ongoing athletic field renovations—including Little League and soccer fields—rather than being sold for private commercial use. Hanson attributed discrepancies in fill volume to a municipal misunderstanding rather than “avarice, income or peculiarity of intent.”
• MDC Drainage and Park Place Objections: Environmental hurdles continue to plague local development proposals. The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) and the state Water Pollution Control Division warned that the proposed Park Place development connection would restrict upstream flows, risk potential sewage backups and overflows in low-lying areas of the Neponset River watershed, and overwhelm local pumping stations. While the town appropriated $10,000 to study and eliminate extraneous groundwater flows from the sewerage system, state regulators cautioned the funding falls far short of remedying permitted capacity issues. Local residents have similarly voiced strong opposition to premature commercial sprawl, demanding safeguards to protect established natural landscapes from turning into an “asphalt jungle.”

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger