School Board Asks for Input

By Amy Edel

Before the Board of Education opened the floor to public comments on nonagenda items they first completed business at the Dec. 15 meeting. They unanimously approved a resolution to participate in the Rockland County BOCES Cooperative Bidding, which will afford them the opportunity to purchase equipment, but does not necessarily mean that the district is interested in purchasing or will purchase any items. They also approved the collective bargaining agreement with the administrators which makes the director of guidance part of the now 12 members of the administrative group with the district and provides what some residents termed during the meeting, "merit pay" in incentives. A new course was approved for the high school called Website Construction and the Internet and Pascal was deleted from the course listings. The disposal of surplus equipment, the Winter Program for Kids, Adult Ed Spring courses, payment to Rains and Pogrebin for legal services, and the appointments of new teachers, coaches, a network engineer, and aides were also approved.

The main focus of the meeting was on the failed bond issue. Trustee Ryan asked everyone present to please share their perspective on why the bond issue had failed by such a wide margin to help the board understand why there was such a difference from the feedback they recieved at meetings and public hearings and the results of the vote. Residents such as Joseph Calamari suggested that many people would have preferred to see one bond for the primary and elementary schools and a separate bond for the high school and middle school. He said that much of the feedback he received indicated that people felt that the one bond's scope was too large. Others disagreed and one resident stated that this would provide too many targets to "throw darts at" and warned the board not to splinter the bond. Captain suggested that had the board used the line-by-line method (items listed separately that could be voted yes or no line-by-line) that people would have approved repairs, but it was what he termed the "goody locker" items such as facility improvements for program enhancement and expanded space that were what held back the bond.

Russel Miller recommended that the board seize opportunities like Parent/Teacher Night, assemblies, and other big-turn-out events to promote the bond and demonstrate why it is necessary. Mort Yuter suggested a 15-minute video capturing the problems the bond was intended to fix such as the crumbling pavement in front of the high school, the out-dated science laboratories, the DNA lab in the converted bathroom, etc. and also highlight the positive elements of the school system to show people why the district is worthy of the investment. Several residents all commented that the district needed to do more "selling" of the bond. They argued that fliers, articles in the local papers, and meetings weren't enough.

Many residents cited what they felt was a tremendous sense of apathy within the Village as a large part of the problem. Board President Morano noted that tours of the facilties have been offered on numerous occasions, but that only a couple of residents ever turn out to see the buildings for themselves. Hemlock's PTA director stated that she had made a presentation before a large audience of parents urging them to attend the meeting that night to discuss the class size issue at Hemlock, but only a few of these parents actually attended. Trustee Ryan said that he was pleased to see the approximately 60 residents at the meeting, but also expressed disappointment that resident turn-out is not usually that good and that this is part of the problem. He urged people to continue to attend meetings regularly and stay involved.

Several residents agreed that the impact of the contractual issues with the architectural and construction management firms could not be dismissed. They felt that it did serious damage to the board's credibility with the public and left people feeling too insecure in the bond as a whole. Several people present expressed their own fears that if that had been "mismanaged" then perhaps the whole project would be as well. The trustees emphasized that the contracts were renegotiated prior to the vote, but several people expressed the notion that by that time the damage was done. Others also pointed to arguments over the demographic figures. Some felt that the projected enrollment figures provided by the district were inaccurate and voted against the bond as a result.

Eileen Murphy asked the board what happens with the contracts between the architects and the construction management firm now that the bond was defeated. Mrs. Sheehan of the business office said that the staff if "assessing that as we speak" and didn't know at the time of the meeting. The business office will have to determine if the board is still under any obligation to these firms and what the ramifications of any such binding contractual tie may be.

Joseph Calamari also cited the much requested projected tax increase taking into account the bond, the five-year plan, and the annual budget per year. Many residents at POA presentations, hearings, and meetings have asked the board to provide these figures, but the board argued at the time that they were unable to provide such a projection since the budgets are done yearly and vary per year. Without having these numbers provided, some residents had expressed concern about the future of their tax bill and the lack of information they perceived to be a problem with the board.

Several parents from Hemlock school asked the district what they, as parents, could do now without a bond, to help the overcrowding they feel is present in the primary school. The school board said that they were looking at the situation and were examining several solutions. Some parents expressed opposition to the half-day kindergarten and to increased class sizes and urged the district to hire another teacher instead. Pam Adams suggested using portable classrooms to help solve the problem of insufficent classroom space and also to show the community a tangible sign of the district's problem.

Debates about the Citizens Advisory Committee also came up, however, the forum for that issue will be the Jan. 8 Work Session. The board will be determining how to proceed with its creation at that time and all residents with comments on that subject can come and address them to the board at that time. The meeting will begin at 8:15 p.m. in the Board Room at the Administration Building. The board also invites letters and feedback on the bond issue to help them understand where they may have gone wrong and where they need to go from here.