Talk About the Budget

With the current "mistake" in the budget count, I would like to have the Board supply some statistics and answer some questions regarding the vote at their next meeting on June 23, 2009.
How many voting machines were use?
How many people voted?
What was the count from each machine?
What was the count from each location and does it match the number of voters from that location?
How many absentee ballotts were there?

Was there a second count from the first budget vote?

You see your numbers don't add up.
949 in favor votes minus 106 (the incorrect count) = 843.
843 plus 160 (the correct number) = 1003 in favor of the budget.

And the original against the budget votes seems to have lost a vote - originally it was 955 it is now 954.

The final vote count In favor = 1001 (which includes the absentee ballots) ??????? against = 954 ????

I would appreciate it if the Board could clarify this. It seems like there may have been quite a few errors in the vote counting.

Let's put this as blunt as possible because you guys still don't seem to get it.

The majority of constituents want resignations almost across the board.
The reasons are too many to list here but the lastest vote recount is another example of people not trusting the administration. Mr. Janiszewski is in denial if he thinks he has ANY support. A cardboard cut out could run against him next year and win.

Talking to someone at the State Board level, even he agreed with Carl Strock's articles about the contingent numbers being wrong and misinformation was put to the public. And assured me if the contingent budget passed that the commissioner probably would not allow the 15.%. Too bad you had to coerce people to get your way.

How come your increased enrollment in a contingent budget isn't in the proposed budget?
Certainly if thought there was going to be that increase then it would have been included in the original budget!

You must be proud on how Assemblemen Amedore and Tedisco are proposing legislation that will prevent future garbage. I think the State website is also being changed to make it clearer so there is no personal interpretations of contigent rules. Thanks for another black eye for Schenectady.

I sincerely hope there is an investigation into this whole department and we can get on with educating the kids.

Lawsuits, cronyism, and coercion are all part of this administration and shame on all the board members who turn their heads for fear of reprisal and can't even disagree that what the Super proposed was hogwash.

Newspapers are there to sell papers and I believe that you can't believe everything you read. However, I believe most of everything they write about this administration I use my ears and eyes to fill in the rest.
If you had any problems with any articles in the press then you should have commented on them and I have to believe them as truth until you can come up with a legitimate argument for your actions.

Thanks again for the administration and board for producing another editorial.

This time it comes from the Albany Times Union and not just the sinister gazette.

I can hardly wait for the headlines that state Schenectady Superintendent and Board President resign.

Pass the high fives and pats on the back.

Bad budgeting



First published in print: Sunday, June 21, 2009

Schenectady taxpayers had a heck of a choice last week: Pass a school budget with a 5.8 percent tax levy increase, or be socked with a contingency budget bearing a nearly 16 percent hike.

Some choice. The only surprise, perhaps, is that in the final count -- 1,001 to 954 -- so many people weren't intimidated by this fiscal arm-twisting and dared to vote no.

The last we heard, a contingency budget meant austerity. A contingency budget that calls for an increase in taxes that's nearly three times higher than what the approved budget would bring doesn't sound particularly austere. Nor does it sound like an accurate assessment of the district's minimal needs.

Such are the kinds of games, unfortunately, that some school boards play. While there are many board members across New York who serve faithfully and try to strike the admittedly difficult balance between helping to provide a quality education for children and at an affordable price for taxpayers, it seems that some lose sight of their duty. They become extensions of school administrators. If that was the purpose of a school board, we would skip the middleman and just let superintendents run the show.

Clearly, Schenectady's citizens need a school board that will deal with them honestly. We leave it to civic-minded citizens who care about both education and the affordability of their community to step forward next year and strive to bring some true representation to their board of education.

But what happened in Schenectady this year highlights a broader issue -- the need to fix the legal loopholes that allow something this absurd to happen. Assemblymen George Amedore, R-Rotterdam, and James Tedisco, R-Schenectady, are taking a stab at that with a bill they're calling the School Budget Vote Fairness Act. Its basic goal is to ensure that contingency budgets can't be higher than the spending proposals that districts put before voters. The bill would, among other things, ban districts from boosting projected costs in the contingency budget, as Schenectady did, with inflated enrollment projections.

It would also limit the increase in contingency budgets to four percent, which may be too strict a rule. The law now generally caps contingency budgets at four percent or 120 percent of inflation, a more flexible standard.

The Legislature can certainly tinker with that idea and come up with a bill that won't leave either school districts or taxpayers struggling, while at the same time requiring districts like Schenectady to play fair, not fast and loose with the figures.


The issue:

Schenectady voters pass a budget that spares them from even bigger tax hikes.

The Stakes:

School districts can't be permitted to manipulate numbers and citizens this way.

To comment: tuletters@timesunion.com

NOTE TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS.

YOU SHOULD ALL HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME IF YOU DECIDE TO RENEW SUPERINTENDENT'S ELY'S CONTRACT!
NEVER BEFORE HAS THE SCHENECTADY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BEEN SEEN AS SUCH A LAUGHING STOCK AND THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE FORWARD AND ONCE AGAIN REGAIN TRUST IN THE COMMUNITY IS TOO IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE RINGLEADER.

THERE SHOULD NOT BE EVEN MORE THAN ONE VOTE!! (FIGURING THAT JANISZEWSKI IS THE ONLY AYE)