Editor, The Spotlight:
We’d like to take the time to clear up some inaccuracies in the letter to The Spotlight written by Fred DiMaggio.
In his letter, the author states that “the Bethlehem administration and unions have opted for a 4.6 percent pay raise, while laying off teachers and cutting needed programs.” This is not the case.
An increase of $92,030 in the Administrative line in the proposed budget comes in part from a loss of state aid, namely Education Jobs Funding. The district has had to give back $12 million dollars in aid over the past three years through the Gap Elimination Adjustment so that the state legislature could balance its books on the back of public education.
We should also point out that the district budgeted for only the salary increases mandated by the Triborough Amendment, passed by those same Republicans and Democrats in the New York state legislature. Contract negotiations are underway, with all parties extremely sensitive to the financial challenges the district and community face. We should also note that all of the district’s bargaining units have either made concessions, deferments or taken freezes over the past three years.
The characterization of the district not abiding by a “2% tax cap” is misleading and we’d hate for the author or anyone else to think we are somehow out of compliance with a mythical tax cap. The much -touted two percent “tax cap” does not restrict any proposed tax levy increase to 2 percent. The law determines what level of support is needed for a budget to pass. Under the law, if the district had proposed a tax levy of $58.6 million, or a 2.94 percent increase, the budget would only need a simple majority to pass. After cutting $3.8 million, the Board decided on a tax levy of $59.2 million, or a 3.99 percent increase, in order to preserve some programming. At 3.99 percent, the budget proposes an increase of $81 per $100,000 of assessed value, versus an increase of $60 per $100,000 of assessed value that would have been levied at 2.94 percent. But that $20 difference now requires a supermajority to pass under the new tax levy legislation.
The only true “cap” would be implemented if the budget is voted down twice: the new contingency rules would mandate the district to stay at the 2011-2012 tax levy amount of $56.9 million. That zero percent increase would require more than $6 million in cuts or reductions.
We agree with the author, however, when he says that the district’s approach to budgeting “couldn’t be more out of step with the public sector.”
That much is true. We actually develop the budget in public and invite the community to participate. Our budget is not developed by three men in a room, nor voted on in the dead of night. The legislative body that has the ultimate power over the proposed school budget is comprised of the people of Bethlehem and New Scotland who will be affected by it. This budget is the result of months of open and transparent dialogue with the community. It represents the feedback given to us by those who were part of the budget process and reflects their desire to balance fiscal responsibility with what they deem an excellent Bethlehem education.
It was state politics that got us into this morass of “2 percent tax caps” that are not caps – and more politicking is not the solution we need to get out of it.
When you vote on May 15, and we sincerely hope that you do, please bear in mind that participation in next year’s budgeting process begins the following day. We feel this proposed budget is part of a sound, long-term fiscal plan for the future of Bethlehem schools, and we hope you’ll be part of the process.
Dr. Thomas Douglas
BC Superintendent of Schools
Diane Giacone Stever
President, Bethlehem Board of Education
