Return to RCTA page

Rensselaer County Taxpayers Association

May 1996                                                                                                                                                     Volume 1, Number 2

Our first edition of the newsletter was well received. We now offer the second edition. Hope you enjoy.

Our SRCTA is sponsoring a public seminar to be held at the East Greenbush Town Hall on June 3^rd at 7 p.m. The featured speaker is Robert Schultz of the All County Taxpayer’s Association of Queensbury. The subject is about a NYS constitutional convention which will be put on the statewide ballot in November 1997. This is so important that a full years notice and alert is essential. One item concerns NYS borrowing without voter approval. A serious problem. All are invited. An informed public is absolutely essential for all our futures.

Once again we wish to thank our boosters, and we sincerely appreciate their support. To the patrons and apologists of the liberal scholastic status quo, we can only say that some day, they may see the light. Ours is a unique democracy in which the will of the people should predominate. It was never intended by the founding fathers that special interests should dictate policy or use underhanded methods to gain selfish ends.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "when the people fear the Government you have tyranny," - "when the government fears the people, you have liberty."

In the East Greenbush District, we are operating on a bloated budget not approved by the electorate but turned down by the voters THREE TIMES. Our current tax bills reflect this truth. This same group of schemers has the unmitigated gall to come up with a 29.7 million dollar bond issue citing vague needs and preferences. The result of this chaotic situation is still unresolved.

Reference is made to a book by William J. Bennett, Ph.D., and a former Secretary of the Department of Education, to wit, - "These are things NOT to get used to. Over the years a teacher’s survey was made. The idea was to identify the top problems in America’s schools. In 1940 teachers identified them as talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, dress code infractions, running in the hallways and littering, When asked the same question in 1990, teachers identified drug use, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery and assault. Consider too, where the United States ranks in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world in murder, rape and violent crime. In elementary and secondary education, we are at or near the bottom in achievement scores. Who’s to blame? Contemporary liberalism has a lot for which to answer; many of it’s doctrines have wrought a lot of damage. Universities, intellectuals, think tanks and Government departments have put a lot of poison into the reservoirs of national discourse. But to simply point the finger of blame at liberals and the elite is wrong. The hard fact of the matter is that this was not something done to us; it is also something we have done to ourselves. Liberals have been peddling from an empty wagon but we have been buying."

Is it not time that we came up with honest solutions to complex problems? It is evident beyond a reasonable doubt, that throwing more money into a bad situation only compounds the problem. Continuous salary increases, perks, sabbaticals, useless social programs solves nothing. It is time for the public to demand that the truth be told.

There is no earthly reason why one School District should cost $1000 or more per pupil than a neighboring district.

In a recent issue of the Capital District Business Review, school rankings were listed as follows:

Voorheesville #1, Averill Park #2, Schenendehowa #5, Schodack #14 and East Greenbush was #17.

In the Regents History exam, the Niskayuna and Averill Park districts both had scores of 100 per cent. The region’s top scorer in the Regents Math I test was Voorheesville with a score of 95. In the Regents Biology exam, the Voorheesville School District ranked highest. The region’s best performance in the Regents English exam in 1994-95 was recorded by Averill Park.

It was a long time coming, but our New York State Board of Regents now require all high school students to pass more stringent exams. The East Greenbush School Administration, there upon decided to seek a variance to this requirement, which will have the effect of watering down the standards necessary for a good basic education.

Time will tell, if this variance is granted, what effect it will have on future students in qualifying for more rigidly demanding colleges, universities and also for more technologically advanced jobs of the future.

On behalf of all parents and taxpayers, it would be common sense to openly disclose the purpose behind this variance request.

In the near future, the annual school board elections will be held for our school district. Over the last decade, the district has been the scene of significant controversy. As in any school district, there are differing opinions about how much should be spent and how it should be spent. A variety of differing educational and social philosophies are competing for the educational tax dollar in our district.

The focus of the debate has been the size of the school budget and the tax revenues needed to fund it. While the focus has been money, the true forces driving the debate are philosophical ideas and group dynamics. Generally the educational establishment (which we define to include the various labor organizations in the district and the State; including teachers, administrators and non-instructional employees and various special interest groups) supports all expenditures related to education and rejects all methods of accountability which would reasonably measure achievement, progress and educational value for the tax dollar spent. Theirs is a politically correct agenda. The other side of the spectrum is composed of persons who expect both fiscal and educational accountability and generally reject the "utopian" (feel good) philosophy which presently permeates the education establishment.

The entity which is supposed to balance these competing interests in the district is the Board of Education. Unfortunately this body in this district has been controlled for years by education establishment operatives. As a result, the Board of Education functions as a rubber stamp for the agenda of the education establishment.

The education establishment controlled the Board of Education by electing their advocates who bring with them the education establishment agenda. The results have been clear: a 35% increase in teachers salaries from 1990 to 1995; a very costly medical and dental plan which provides benefits which far exceed those provided to other tax funded employees, e.g. state workers.

It was not long ago that statements were made by sitting members of the Board of Education to the effect that they are there to represent the children. That is exactly what is wrong. The Board of Education should be representing all the residents of the district: not just the children and the education establishment.

The fact that the present majority does not function as a representative body for the residents of the district is clearly demonstrated by their imposition of austerity budgets on the residents for two consecutive years. The budget presented by the Board of Education was voted down by the people they are supposed to represent and the Board of Education responded by disenfranchising the people they are supposed to represent. To add insult to injury, the last budget imposed by the Board of Education was larger then the one the voters rejected. What a slap in the face for the process of representative democracy which is the cornerstone of our nation. Austerity budgets are taxation without representation: the very same issue which was central to the American Revolution.

It is not surprising to me that the politically correct, self-interested education establishment will protect and reward itself as it has. What is hard to understand are the actions of the voters who with one hand reject the budget presented by the Board of Education and with the same hand elect persons to the Board of Education who will give them yet another austerity budget.

The time has come to put up or shut up. If you are unhappy with the school taxes and educational policies and administration in this district, you had better make it your business to get involved. Make sure people are elected to the Board of Education who will represent the entire community and not just the education establishment.

In support of Assembly Bill 6572 (Mazzarelli) concerning the five year renewable tenure.

To: Members of the Assembly Education Committee

The New York State School Boards Association strongly supports this bill which addresses a resolution passed by our membership at the 1993 Business Meeting by extending probationary periods and amending the tenure system for school district employees.

It contains the following provisions, which would apply to all school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES):

• Extends probationary periods from 3 to 5 years for teachers and administrators;
• Provides for the review of tenure decisions every five years for teachers and administrators;
• Increases the length of probationary periods for teachers and administrators who already had tenure in another district.

Tenure reform has long been one of the Association’s major objectives. New York’s tenure system was created with the intent to protect the state’s public school district employees from arbitrary employment decisions made by political figures. Tenure was meant to protect quality teachers and administrators from the vagaries of politics, and from communities that didn’t agree with an educator’s personal philosophies.

Today, however, employees enjoy numerous protections ranging from strong labor unions to statutory provisions that clearly specify the grounds for discipline to Constitutionally-protected free speech. The conditions which lead to the establishment of the tenure system are no longer prevalent, and the system as it now exists provides teachers and administrators with a virtual guarantee of lifetime employment, regardless of performance. Such a system provides little incentive to excel, and in fact encourages complacency.

A system that requires the periodic maintenance of tenure would promote excellence, encourage self-improvement, and allow for the discipline or dismissal of those whose performance is mediocre, or worse.

As of May 8, 1996, we can celebrate Tax Freedom Day. Up until that time we were all working for the Government. From January 1 all the average earnings from our citizens went into the coffers of various "public servants." That’s over 38% in taxes. Confiscation does not make for a happy citizenry.

The East Greenbush Central School District (EGCSD) will be presenting a budget to the voters on June 11. The basic operating budget will total about $38,710,000. The estimated tax increase associated with this budget is about 3%. The proposal to fund the driver-education program and the technology proposal will each add about 0.3% to the tax increase. Theses figures are subject to some change, due to last-minute changes in the spending picture. Furthermore, the tax rates are dependent on a variety of other factors still to be determined, such as the state budget and the resulting state aid level, equalization rates, and adjusted base proportions (e.g., homestead totals vs. non-homestead (business) totals).

Some credit should be given to the school administration. The increase this year is lower than in past years, and is not entirely out of line with inflation estimates. Moreover, efforts have been made to reign in some expenses, like those for fuel and electricity.

However, a budget increase of over $775,000 is not justifiable. Various items contributing to that increase are objectionable. As an example, staff hiring is again on the increase. Although obtaining an exact employee count is difficult in this school district, it appears that 9 more positions are being added, on a full-time or part-time basis. A small portion of the hiring may be legitimately linked to increased enrollment and some of the educational initiatives, but the remainder appears to be forced upon us by government mandates, or by this school district’s liberal interpretation of those mandates. Once again, Special Education programs take the lead in forcing increased spending for staffing. Another questionable regulation forces the District to hire an instructor for "English as a Second Language."

Other high-expense areas are also demanding even higher spending. Transportation, for example, already a $2.5 million expense to the school district, is responsible for another $67,000 operating increase. Certainly, everyone is aware that fuel costs have been on the rise, but the proposed increase should be put into perspective: It is in addition to a large proposition passed several years ago for many new busses, and a separate, $562,000 proposition this year for more busses and vehicles. There’s no doubt that new busses have to sometimes be added to the fleet, but that expense should have been countered with a decrease in the annual operating cost - not an increase!

Interscholastic athletics - a $277,000 expense - is another area where costs creep up when they should not. The increase is 3% (about $8,000), but some of the reasons for the increase are objectionable. As an example, salaries for sports officials are going up. The District has no control over this increase - it is dictated by an organization of sports officials throughout the region. If East Greenbush does not go along, its kids are, in effect, locked out of sports competition.

By far, the largest problem with this budget is the continued increase in salary and benefit levels. The latest figures available show these costs going up another $600,000. The total expense consumes 75-80% of the budget. While there has been some slight improvement in some of the contractual provisions which cause these increases, the cost is still unacceptable. East Greenbush is not alone in having a budget dominated by such expenses, but that does not make it right.

The contract with the Teachers Union (EGTA) is but one example. After salary increases of 35% over 5 years, minor concessions were made in the current contract. In regard to the hefty medical premiums the District must pay, the contract adjusts the payment from 100% / 95% (individual/family) to 95% / 90%, along with an increase in the deductible limit. By itself, this was much too small a concession by the EGTA, yet the union still demanded (and received) $500.00 per employee to compensate for such a "sacrifice!"

One general problem with this budget is that it appears to be designed to "squeak by" public scrutiny for one year. Many of the assumptions upon which it is based will not be present in future years, and the school district will find itself in the same, sad financial position. For example, the planned cuts and "shifts" by Governor Pataki at the state level (some of which were very sound) have not really materialized, due to legislative stubbornness. Moreover, the potential financial complications due to factors like assessed values, equalization rates, adjusted base proportions, inflation increases, future contract provisions, and tax challenges by businesses, have also not been figured into this budget. Granted, the budget should not have to immediately account for this potential loss of income or assumption of costs. However, the school administration and board majority should have been far more aggressive in reducing current costs and thereby preparing for the day when these other factors will come into play.

First, a friendly word of advice to the Editor of the ADVOCATE, official newsletter of the East Greenbush Teachers Association. Cut back on the amount of exclamation points you use. FREE SUBSCRIPTION!!!!! Got five, WRITE TO US!!! Got three, BOND ISSUE UPDATE! Got one. Where are your priorities?

As to the accuracy of the ADVOCATE’s bond issue articles, the first point is a minor one, but is a matter of ‘fact’ which is irrefutable and not a matter of misinterpretation. The "appeal" is not taking place in the NYS Court of Appeals. The Article 78 ‘proceeding’ is taking place in the NYS Supreme Court. Without getting the most basic of facts correct, especially the first sentence, an intelligent reader can only be skeptical of the demagoguery that follows it.

Additionally, one should notice the amount of questions used in the second article. It is a common ploy to put implications and suggestions in the form of a question when the basis of the author’s statement is questionable. "He is crazy" is libelous, while "Is he crazy?" might not be. Gullible readers such as adolescents, or readers who want to believe the author’s implications will believe them as well as the subsequent answers he provides. One Columbia High School student who read the ADVOCATE acknowledged that, while he was aware that some of the article was bromide, some was accepted at face value because the writer was a teacher, someone he respected.

If the student were your son, and you had the freedom to choose his school without financial penalty, you could remove him from that environment. It’s only because the public schools enjoy a funding monopoly that they can get away with such misfeasance. This is why the "School Choice" movement is gaining momentum across America.

As to the analogy in the ADVOCATE, it’s a sign of their arrogance that these elitists consider themselves to be corporate management while the taxpayers are mere stockholders.

A more appropriate analogy would be one that considers the whole community as the corporation, and the school district as a department within. In this analogy, the EGCSD department would be responsible for research and development, while the taxpayers would be the production department, and the corporation’s sole source of revenue.

As anyone with the intelligence of a fence post would know, when R & D spends more than the corporation earns, bankruptcy follows. Just because R & D has the worlds best public relations campaign doesn’t negate this inevitability.

The taxpayers have a better plan. Board of Education members Betty Krug and Frank Coppa recently submitted a $12 million expansion plan to the school board. The response from the EGTA union President Bob Balcom was that the proposal should be rolled up and shoved someplace unintelligible.

Why would spending $12 million be regarded as an insult to the EGCSD administration when a comparably sized, yet wealthier Niskayuna has bonded only $6.5 million for a similar project to meet their projected enrollment increase of 511 students by the year 2000?

For the record, Niskayuna will get twelve new classrooms, a half gym, new roof on 6 buildings, new boilers at 2 schools and upgrades to 3 others, new windows, library reconstruction, electrical, fire alarm and lighting upgrades, 25 computer workstations at each elementary school, and much more.

How can our $29.7 million bond cost the average taxpayer only $22 / year when Niskayuna’s $6.5 million bond costs their average taxpayer $29.70 / year? Is the EGCSD administration hiding something?

These are the legitimate questions the SRCTA has been asking.

The new proposed 96-97 budget is $38,709,963. Please bear in mind that the previous budget (95-96) was $37,000,000 and totally rejected by the voters, THREE TIMES. The new proposal is much higher and has little regard for those who must bear its cost.

The propositions listed on top of the voting machine are just as far out of line - 11 new busses, two pick up trucks, computers and last but not least $65,000 for "Driver Education." If we gave you the exact figures for all of the above you may faint, have a seizure or worse.

Mr. and Mrs. Reader, think carefully before you vote. Don’t mortgage your children’s or grandchildren’s future for a mess of pottage.

It is essential for the public to participate in the voting process and make their voices heard. Our liberty is a precious commodity and should not be bartered away by the promises of more government, more social experiments and educators who have a prior interest in their own welfare above and beyond that of our children.

The SRCTA recommends two outstanding candidates for the East Greenbush School Board:

 #1 Betty Krug

Popular, experienced, courageous, dedicated to protecting our children’s best interest, yet mindful of our citizen’s pocketbook. Someone you can trust. A life long resident and mother. Betty knows a lot about hard work and looking out for her family. She understands the effects of high taxes and the burdens imposed on small businesses and how necessary it is to be ever vigilant. We must rely on integrity, the only sensible course.

#6 Philip E. Reed

Earned a B.S. in education and a M.A. in math. Phil has spent his life in education. We need to bring order and unbiased studies of the highest caliber to our students. A fiscal conservative with a totally honest approach. Philip has taught in public schools as well as headed up a private school. A U.S. Navy veteran and a proven track record of public service to match.