Trend of accepting school budgets
with sizeable tax increases is disturbing
It's a disturbing trend when school
officials and property owners settle for tax increases that are double
and triple the rate of inflation.
Board of Education members and administrators always claim to be handcuffed
by mandates and reluctant to cut programs.
Parents, so often brainwashed by the rhetoric spewed by doomsday school
leaders, worry that voting against a school budget will hurt their
child's education.
That's why the majority of school budgets usually pass, and why most
spending plans next Tuesday will be approved.
Yet, when taxpayers get their bills in the mail and see that 60 percent
of their property taxes will have risen 5.5 percent in Ossining or
7.5 percent in Lakeland or nearly 12 percent in Hendrick Hudson, then
it will really hit home.
Only when taxpayers start holding the feet of school officials to
the fire by defeating budgets and forcing them to look at every expense
in the district will the message be sent.
But when residents allow a district such as Hendrick Hudson to basically
say don't bother voting down the budget because an austerity budget
will essentially be identical, then why bother voting in the first
place?
As long as school officials can get away with it, they will continue
to play mind games on the public.
And then after three or four years of collecting $200,000 and $300,000
paychecks, those same officials will pack their bags and move on to
another district to make more money, and wreak more financial havoc.
It's only human nature to spend other people's money with reckless
abandonment, but what's going to happen when the well runs dry? It
already has for many in the area.
Finding alternative ways to fund education is something politicians
enjoy talking about during election time, yet no real solutions have
emerged.
So in the immediate future, every spring taxpayers will have a chance
to have a say at the polls.
Yes, every vote does count. Putnam Valley can attest to that.
The real question is: What does it really mean?
That's something every voter will have to answer for themselves, and
for their wallets.
Support for Yorktown bond is a matter of trust
Since voters rejected a $51.6 million bond to finance various
infrastructure improvements in all six district school buildings two
months ago, Yorktown school officials went back to the drawing board
with a sharp knife in hand.
Apparently identifying only the most vital projects, 25 percent was
cut, leaving voters to ponder a $37.6 million proposition next Tuesday.
It now comes down to a matter of trust.
If residents feel the Board of Education and district administrators
have scaled down the original wish lists to only the bare bones, such
as aging boilers and leaking roofs, then they should support the bond.
However, if questions remain and voters don't feel confident school
officials will spend the money wisely, perhaps a strike two is warranted.
Keep in mind, some of the work will have to be done regardless of
the success of next week's vote, so taxpayers will eventually pay
one way or the other.
On the surface, it appears the bond is tight and without a lot of
fluff. The district is also eligible for half the bond to be reimbursed
by the state, although that's not guaranteed.
It's a tough call. That's why trust is something that has to be earned.
Despite progress, Yorktown Board of Ed needs
some new voices
Candidate Endorsements:
Not long ago, the Yorktown Board of Education was about as
dysfunctional as a group of public servants can get.
With the departure of a few trustees, a change in board leadership
and the addition of some level headed trustees, the board has certainly
demonstrated more civility.
However, it's a long way from a perfect mix, and the board still struggles
with making decisions.
That was evident with the bloated infrastructure and full-day kindergarten
bonds that failed in March, and with the board's inability to choose
a new superintendent of schools after an extensive search, leaving
the district with no alternative but to go forward with an interim
administrator.
As a result, it's not surprising that seven individuals are vying
for four open seats on the Board of Education. In fact, it's a great
opportunity for voters to add some faces to the board, but not all.
Vice President Jay Miller has been a lightning rod
for controversy during his tenure, but a lot of the hoopla is created
by his passion to bring the district to greater heights, and his refusal
to accept everything the administration professes. Not having him
continue on the Board of Education would be a major loss.
Mark Drexel needed little time to make an immediate
impact on the board and he has proven to have a calming effect as
a voice of reason. With a full three-year term, he has the potential
to be a major contributor to the district.
For the other two seats, which would be one-year terms, it is recommended
that Jackie Carbone and Karen Corrado
be given the chance to make a difference.
Nobody has been more of a board watchdog than Carbone, and Corrado
has offered some good ideas to get the district back on track.
The same issue that plagued the candidacy of Trustee Patricia Faigle
three years ago, her husband being president of the Yorktown Congress
of Teachers, continues to be a concern, and was reinforced when the
union endorsed her this year. Conflict of interest. No way around
it.
Meanwhile, Thomas Perrino has had two separate stints already on the
board and newcomer Peter Bisaccia appears a step below his running
mates (Carbone and Corrado).
Other Races
Lakeland: Carol Ann Dobson, James Carroll, Brian Hugick
Dobson has done a masterful job steering a ship that was headed for
disaster after it was discovered the district had a deficit of several
million dollars. She has worked her way up from class mother to board
president over the years and has definitely earned a third three-year
term.
Carroll chooses his words carefully as a board member and always does
his homework. He also has more than earned a third term. As a science
teacher in Somers, Hugick would bring a much needed teacher's perspective
to the board.
As for Michael Marx, who served three years on the Board of Education
in the late 1990s, it's unclear what his motivation is in attempting
a comeback.
Putnam Valley: Tina Mackay, Ame Chiera
Mackay has worked hard as board president and takes her duties seriously.
When was the last time a Board of Education president appeared at
a Town Board meeting to push for the passage of the budget? However,
she also realizes managing costs can't be the only focus of the board.
Speaking of working hard, Chiera has done just that getting up to
speed on district issues. She offers a fresh attitude that should
serve the community well.
Guy Cohen is equally hard-working but he has 17 years as a board member
under his belt. It's time to give somebody else a chance.
Charlene Schoenfelder also shows promise but isn't as prepared as
Chiera to step right in without experiencing some growing pains.
Somers: Maureen Miller, Sarena Meyer
No district seems to have it more together than Somers, and the Board
of Education deserves some credit for that. One of those members is
Miller, who should be given a second term.
Meyer has served as president of the Somers Education Foundation for
the last five years, so it should be a natural transition to join
the Board of Education.
Linda Graffitti has not been involved as much as Miller or Meyer,
and thus falls a notch below.
Hendrick Hudson: William Walsh, Mary-Pat Briggi
Every Board of Education should have a trustee like Walsh, who is
always prepared and isn't hesitant to speak his mind, like he did
at a candidate's forum Monday night when he called the English curriculum
at Blue Mountain Middle School "an embarrassment."
Admittedly, Mary-Pat Briggi is not as seasoned as Vice President Ellen
Grabowitz and former board President Stacie Cignarale, but her heart
is in the right place and she offers a refreshing alternative that
voters should embrace.
Grabowitz hasn't distinguished herself as a board member during her
six years on the board. Cignarale has nine years of past experience
on the board, but Hendrick Hudson is in a position where it needs
to look ahead, not rely on the past.
Peekskill: Leesther Brown, Fran Feuerman
Without a doubt, newcomer Brown should be given a chance on the Board
of Education. She recognized Peekskill has many problems and doesn't
appear afraid to speak about them.
On the other hand, it's puzzling for 12-year veteran John Hallinan
to maintain the district has come a long way when it recently was
cited for many shortcomings in the state's report card.
Feuerman at least acknowledges the district has a long way to go.
Ossining: Irwin Kavy, Dana Levenberg
Voters in Ossining should ignore the tag teams that have been set
up in the Board of Education race and choose the two individuals best
suited to serve a district with many unique issues.
Board President Kavy has effectively implemented his "Dollars
and Sense" philosophy over the last three years and should wholeheartedly
be given a second term. His idea of letting students vote on the high
school mascot is something that should be pursued.
He is also on the money in being disturbed by the fact 28 administrators
in Ossining earn at least $104,000.
For the second seat, Levenberg is the clear choice. She has an open
mind about high school students choosing a mascot and would like to
tackle narrowing the achievement gap in the district.
Glenda Lopez ran unsuccessfully three years ago, losing to Kavy and
Arthur Levene. Diana Quast, a deputy clerk in Yorktown, can't match
the knowledge of district issues of the other three candidates.
