At the demand of BCS Board President Gina Goodermote the following letter is published untouched without any editing for grammar, diction, clarity or content.
June 13, 2012
TO: Editor, Eastwick Press
On Friday, June 8, 2012, the Eastwick Press afforded three members of the Berlin Central School District Board of Education an opportunity to “explain their no votes” to authorize the issuance of bonds needed to finance critically needed repairs at the District’s schools — a project that was approved by a 64% majority of the voters in December, 2011. The Eastwick Press did not afford the other four members of the District’s Board of Education any opportunity to comment or “explain their yes votes” for the project and the necessary bond resolution. While we respect the freedom of the press to publish opinion and commentary, we are dismayed that the Eastwick Press would publish a wholly one-sided account of the facts pertaining to the capital project and bond resolution as a news article.
We write in response to the June 8, 2012 Eastwick Press article, in an effort to dispel some of the confusion that may have been created by the comments of Ms. Beverly Stewart, Mr. John Nash, and Mr. Alan Webster. The views expressed herein are our own, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the entire Board of Education. We trust that the Eastwick Press will print this letter in full, given that the news reporter did not seek our comment before publishing the June 8, 2012 article.
Public Discussion of the Project
Ms. Stewart, Mr. Nash, and Mr. Webster contend that the pending capital project was hatched in secret by a small group of uninformed novices, including but not limited to Board member Jim Willis, who is alleged to lack any “fiscal training.” They further contend that there was “no discussion in public or with the Board members” regarding the project. These allegations are completely without merit.
As everyone concerned is well aware, since at least 2007, a number of different and larger capital projects for the District’s schools have been proposed but not approved. Many different proposals were rejected by the Board for financial or other reasons. In December, 2009, the voters defeated a $19.7 million capital project referendum. Meanwhile, the District’s schools, and in particular Berlin Elementary School, (BES) have further deteriorated.
Against this backdrop, the District’s architects at CS Arch were tasked with developing a plan to address the most critical needs in the District’s school buildings, without any anticipated additional local tax impact. CS Arch did so, and the proposed project, in the amount of $6.85 million, was presented in detail at a public meeting of the Board on September 20, 2011, more than one full month before the Board was asked to vote on that project. The project was again discussed at length during the Board’s public meeting on October 28, 2011, at which time the Board voted 4-3 to seek voter approval for the project. Notably, although Ms. Stewart, Mr. Nash, and Mr. Webster now criticize the current project for being only a “partial fix,” they have been vocal opponents of past unsuccessful proposals that would have achieved more comprehensive remodeling, repair, and remediation of the District’s schools.
Prior to the voter referendum on December 13, 2011, the District’s Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Stephen Young, held three informational “town meetings” regarding the project. Those meetings were conducted between November 9 — 22, 2011, in Petersburgh, Stephentown, and Grafton. A fourth informational session or “public hearing” regarding the project was conducted on December 5, 2011, at the Berlin Middle/High School. The project was, in short, fully explained and reviewed in multiple open forums before it was approved.
In addition to being without merit, the current attack on the genesis of the project is now untimely. Any challenge to the way the project was developed and presented should have been made in an appeal to the Commissioner of the New York State Education Department (SED) within 30 days after the December 13, 2011 vote. No such appeal was taken, and any alleged concerns with respect to the development or public discussion of the project are not valid grounds for refusing to authorize the bond issuance for a voter-approved project.
There is, moreover, no justification for the June 8, 2012 attack on the competency and integrity of Mr. Willis, or anyone else who has supported this project. Following Mr. Willis’ election to the Board effective July 1, 2011, Mr. Willis had one full year to complete all SED required training programs for new Board members, including fiscal training. Mr. Willis timely completed this training on or around October 19, 2011.
More Excuses for Their No Votes
Among a litany of other excuses, Mr. Nash purports to “explain [his] no vote” by contending that the project “lacks imagination and any consideration of sustainability” or renewable energy sources. Mr. Nash apparently fails to recognize that the project “lacks imagination” because the project includes no exterior design changes for the school buildings, and no interior design changes, except for certain alterations to meet accessibility requirements. The project does not change the “footprint” of either school building, and does not include any interior design changes that affect programming or instructional delivery. The project is instead limited to critically needed repair and remediation work, such as window and door replacement, masonry and roofing repairs, meeting accessibility requirements, improvements in heating and ventilation, asbestos and lead abatement, and other health and safety improvements. The plans for such work are intended to be functional and affordable, not imaginative.
CS Arch has presented sustainable and renewable energy options for the District’s schools in connection with the prior discussions of other larger capital projects, all of which were rejected. At BES alone, changing the HVAC system to a renewable energy source could have added at least $1 million to the project, and would not necessarily have resulted in any energy cost savings for the District. While we all share a desire to increase reliance on sustainable and renewable energy sources, this laudable objective could not be accomplished without a significant local tax impact. Our focus, therefore, and that of CS Arch, was on remediating and repairing the most critical deficiencies in the District’s schools.
Among other red herrings, Mr. Webster points to “financial sustainability” concerns to “explain [his] no vote.” Mr. Webster cites entirely unrelated and non-discretionary costs such as contractual salaries and benefits, and legally mandated retirement system contributions. These costs, however, will always be present in any school district’s budget, and have no bearing on the pending capital project, which was separately approved by 64% of the District’s voters in December, 2011. Pointing fingers at staff compensation does not advance a rational debate regarding the bond resolution or the critical need for work on the District’s school buildings.
Among numerous other misleading statements, Ms. Stewart “explains [her] no vote” on the alleged grounds that state aid for the project was not “locked in,” and “we still don’t know what the bond rate will be.” As the District’s architects, legal counsel, and financial advisors have repeatedly explained to the Board of Education, the exact amount of state aid can never be “locked in” or guaranteed, until a capital project is complete. The District’s architects have, however, worked closely with SED, and provided their best and most accurate estimates of the amount of state aid for the project — which is all that can ever be done in advance of any project. Similarly, the exact rate on the bonds can never be known with certainty until the bonds are actually issued, and that can never happen until after the bonds are approved. Some degree of uncertainty with respect to final costs is inherent in any capital project. Perhaps Ms. Stewart should have joined Mr. Willis at the required fiscal training for new Board members, as she is evidently in need of a refresher course.
Project Timeline
Lastly, the time for action is now. Ms. Stewart is incorrect when she claims that “the bond approval is not even holding up the project,” and that “the Board needs to vote on this by July of 2013.” While construction on the project is not expected to begin until the summer of 2013, a significant further delay in approving the bond resolution will likely impact the timely completion of the project. CS Arch has been asked to hold on further work, thus delaying the process for seeking SED approval of the project. Even if that process resumes, when it is time to solicit bids for the project, prospective bidders may be discouraged from bidding for work for which the financing has not been authorized. Fewer bidders may increase the construction costs.
In closing, we urge Ms. Stewart, Mr. Nash, and Mr. Webster to reconsider and vote “yes” instead of further explaining their “no” votes. The taxpayers from all towns within the District voted to approve the project and associated bonding. Any Board member’s vote against the bonding goes against the wishes of their constituent members who elected them to office. A super majority of five “yes” votes is needed now to authorize the bond issuance, effectuate the will of the voters, and permit this critically necessary capital project to proceed.
_____
Gina Goodermote
Frank Zwack
James Willis
Rachel Finney