The 2008-2009 school budget vote exercise is now history. The $98 million budget was approved by the public and one of the three new candidates that vied for a position on the school board was victorious. The incumbent, Adelaide Brinson, who sought re-election also won, albeit by a whisker; a short whisker of 10 votes.

Some people seem to think that the issues at stake were so important that there was the need for substantial change in the composition of the school board. Others believe that the district has made incremental gains and that the momentum should be continued. This dichotomy of factors led to this being one of the most vigorously contested elections in recent years. At the end of the day, a total of 1,070 voted yes for the budget and 839 voted no.

Although the budget was passed, it would be a serious mistake to dismiss the concerns of the 839 people that voted against it. As I traversed the campaign trail I was surprised at how many people who heretofore were supporters of the budget, but had no intention of voting for it this time around. When this concern is juxtaposed with the fact that over the past five years, the school budget has increased by over $33 million - moving from $65,311,483 in 2003 to $91,724,521 in 2008 - people naturally shudder at the thought of how high it is likely to go.

Some of the people who choose to remain here argue that it is becoming increasingly difficult to support the budget; especially those on fixed income, and the concern is that the district is rapidly becoming a place that is not conducive to young people who would like to make Westbury their home - they simply cannot afford the high property taxes, two-thirds of which is directly attributable to school tax. My argument has always been that the school board's hands are tied to some extent, in that it has to demonstrate sensibility to the financial concerns of the community, and at the same time must allocate funds to various programs and initiatives in order to enhance the district's performance.

It seems to me that if all this cost money, and if there are limited commercial dollars to cushion the blow to property owners, conventional wisdom suggests that the state must come up with more money for the mandates that it authorizes! This is not the point of view of the two candidates that lost their bid for a seat on the school board. They maintain that the district is mismanaged, with high administrative costs, lack of accountability and mediocre scholastic performance.

The public did not buy this argument and chose to believe the conclusion by the New York State Education Department and various independent sources that Westbury school district is making commendable incremental gains, and audits conclude that the district administers sound financial management. Interestingly, one week after the budget vote, The Westbury Times published a report that Westbury Schools were recognized by the New York State Education Department as "high performing and rapidly improving" (The Westbury Times, May 29, 2008).

I was heartened by the contents of a full-page ad in The Westbury Times' May 29, 2008 edition signed by both Rocco Lanzilotta and Stan Ercolano (the candidates that lost) stating that, among other things, they will continue to work to improve the district. Hopefully this will include joining us in challenging the politicians in Albany to provide more funding for our schools and help to lessen the burden on the backs of taxpayers.

Chester McGibbon
Secretary, Westbury PTA Council