For further reading:
Kabelev on Denial of Second Fire Co.
Students: Brains Too Big for Bodies
PatchCast: Irked Firefighter; Big Brains
The region's major headlines for Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013.
Comments + Leave a Comment
Loading comments ...
Boards
All Boards »
Jon Satran May 18, 2013 at 12:16 am
Sonny, I like the idea of brainstorming together, thinking outside of the box, but there are some…Read More major obstacles that I think you need to consider:
1) A Bond referendum requires a 45 days’ notice period. It cannot be presented for a vote before this year's budget process is concluded.
2) To release reserves based on the hope that a future bond vote would be successful is reckless. What happens if reserves are released and then the bond referendum fails?
You would not risk your home finances with this type of risk, would you really risk your school’s financial health?
3) Our tax certiorari reserve was just recently reviewed in consultation with our attorneys and we are appropriately reserved for today’s commercial real estate market.
4) Most importantly, this proposal would create a larger and tougher tax increase next year. In other words, adding $1,000,000 of revenue this year through a loan would require replacing that revenue with an additional $1,000,000 again next year and the year after. Borrow and spend economics does not work as we have seen from the national level. Deficit spending, which has been suggested may or may not work in Washington, but it certainly does not in Briarcliff Manor. When the school’s reserves are exhausted, we will face impactful program cuts or much larger tax levy increases.
Respectfully - Jon Satran
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 17, 2013 at 02:23 pm
Thanks for the insight. I would encourage all interested parties to weigh in on these important…Read More issues.
W Obermeyer May 17, 2013 at 01:42 pm
A thoughtful suggestion, and worth considering if the budget does not pass and a revised version is…Read More to be submitted. Remember the budget vote is not a use it or lose it proposition, despite the doomsday predictions of the board. And these 2 villified candidates, who have every right to ask questions, have actually offered valid options for savings, without affecting educational excellence.
McKey Rivers May 10, 2013 at 07:36 pm
Thank you Dr. Sternberg for your thoughtful letter. You hit on an important facet of this election…Read More few if any others have stated: electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder will provide the added benefit of diversity of thought as the Board continues to address difficult, ongoing educational and financial issues. There is a woeful absence of synergy produced by articulation of different views among the current Board members. The absence of a “check and balance” on the current Board is reflected in the inexplicable decision to cancel the May 13 BOE meeting (scheduled since last summer), which is the last meeting prior to the May 21 budget vote and board election. Is there no business for the Board to conduct at this critical juncture or could it be that the Board does not want Briarcliff residents to hear members of the community question the Board about the proposed budget right before the election? Electing either Mr. Linder and/or Mr. Wasserman will immediately benefit the public as the highest vote getter will be seated on May 22 and thus participate in formulating a second budget for public vote that, notwithstanding current BOE scare tactics, can be tax levy compliant and not involve additional program elimination or reduction. There is no doubt that electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder to the Briarcliff School Board will substantially benefit the entire Briarcliff community and provide a much needed check on Board decision making.
Herman Sexton May 10, 2013 at 03:48 pm
Electing Paul Wasserman alone would add a diversity of thought. The guy hears at least a dozen…Read More voices in his head. Have you ever spoken to him? Did you pay attention when he was running for Congress for a few weeks? Ugh.
W Obermeyer May 10, 2013 at 03:41 pm
Not too diffiicult to play with figures. Look at the budget decrease and the increase in state aid,…Read More then claim the budget is actually less.
Mike Valenti May 1, 2013 at 04:50 pm
Second, Mr. Sternberg comments “The previous Board reversed that trend but now a new school…Read More Board reversed that and we are back to square one.” This is without question factually and ideologically incorrect. The previous Board, populated by Janet Marinaccio, Guy Rotundo, Eric Bashford and Rosella Ranno, were sponsored by the folks in our District who are of the fiscal conservative/tea-party-like taxation ideology. Yes, they aggressively cut the school budget over the course of their term. However, this year’s school budget is actually lower than last years. So, to suggest that the current Board has reversed tack on this issue is factually incorrect.
Mike Valenti May 1, 2013 at 04:49 pm
I commend Mr. Sternberg for his thoughtful, well written letter.
However, I must take issue with…Read More several of his points. First, he offers an analysis of various interests in our District and their motives regarding our school budget. If I may, here is another more simplified viewpoint. The predominance of District residents moved here for the school district (whether for its value to their children or its value for their real estate). These folks have a very supportive ideology with respect to taxation in support of the District. On the other side of the ledger stands a group who has a fiscal conservative, tea-party-like taxation ideology. They seek to cut, cut, cut with disregard to the integrity and depth of the educational program and resources.
(continued)...