POTSDAM – A Potsdam couple is once again questioning the transparency and financial legality of the relationship between the school district, the village and Building Blocks Daycare.

Richard and Jane Hollister have waged a nearly 20-year campaign, they say, in an attempt to keep taxpayer money from supporting the private, not-for-profit daycare, and to make the school and village accountable for alleged secretive deal-making with the daycare over the years.

The two filed a complaint against the three entities with the state comptroller Jan. 31 specific to the three entities' financial dealings over the years.

"It really gets down to taxpayer funds that haven't been repaid," Jane Hollister said. "The taxpayers have a right to know what's going on."

In the introduction to the extensive complaint package, the Hollisters say their request for an investigation "involves financial misconduct, false statements of fact and an ongoing attempt to deny the school taxpayers of district property and a building.

"The taxpayers have already been duped out of approximately $392,000 in nonpayment of a private daycare mortgage on the building now occupied by the daycare," the Hollisters wrote.

In 1992-93, the village and the daycare approached the school board to inquire about leasing an acre of district land to construct a daycare building. In addition, the school district agreed to cosign with the daycare on a $330,000 Potsdam Village community development loan, which the Hollisters said the district was not legally permitted to do.

They also allege that, over the years, the village has cut the daycare big breaks on mortgage payments and interest to help keep the financially insolvent facility afloat, even though the village knows the daycare will never be in a position to pay back the loan.

In a letter to the editor submitted to North Country This Week, the couple claims the school district is once again trying to maneuver around the taxpayers to allow the lease to continue until a new daycare is built, and then to use capital improvement funds to renovate the building and lease it again.

The letter in its entirety follows:

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