- By Dan Veaner
- News
Print 
The 3.4% budget is less than the statutory 3.84% budget the State will impose on the district if taxpayers vote down the proposed budget on May 15. This is a mixed blessing. While it shows a school board that is finally facing its spending issues in the face of a local tax revolt, it also means that taxpayers will pay more if they vote against a budget that is about twice the rise of the cost of living. And the 7.38% tax rise is considerably better than the nearly 10% the board was faced with only a few weeks ago.
"It's very important to mention that program drives budget," said Superintendent Mark Lewis. "Program in school districts should drive budget. Last year at this time a collaborative group of teachers, administrators, board, and parents got together to develop a long range plan for student achievement. Out of that came three priorities regarding program: tech integration throughout every grade, focusing on the academic success of disadvantaged and disabled students, and also to align the curriculum vertically and horizontally."
"It's the goal of the budget to support those priorities," Lewis continued. "So this year extra effort has been made to increase public awareness of the budget process. That came about in large part with the arrival of Mr. Lawrence, who hit the ground running with the budget committee and distributing to the community various documentation regarding the budget itself. That is a continual process of improvement of community awareness of the budget, and making it as inclusive as possible."
After months of deliberation the board resolved to send the 7.38% to the voters, but Christine Iacobucci introduced an amendment to lower it to 4%, and Anne Drake seconded the amendment. "Do you have some thoughts on what you want to cut to reach that budget," asked Glenn Swanson. "I think we ought to think about the effect on the taxpayers," Iacobucci replied, and I think this is the most we can ask our taxpayers to handle."
(Left to right) Superintendent Mark Lewis, Business Administrator
Larry Lawrence, board members Tom Keane, Anne Drake, Bonita
Lindberg, Christine Iacobucci, Sandi Dhimitri, Dan Brown, Glenn Swanson
Earlier in the meeting Iacobucci had chastised Lewis for his March 23 article in the Lansing Star that argued against the Statewide School Finance Consortium Proposal. "Before all Upstate taxpayers blindly jump onto the SSFC bandwagon, however, they should examine the impact of the organization’s proposal on their own wallets. Not all Upstate districts would benefit from the proposal," Lewis wrote. "Our own district, Lansing, serves as a good example. Under the Senate’s plan, school aid to Lansing would increase by over three-quarters of a million dollars ($788,875 to be exact). Under the Statewide School Finance Consortium’s plan, however, Lansing will only receive $485,393, over $300,000 less than what the district would receive if the New York State Senate’s proposal is adopted. The end result of the adoption of the Statewide School Funding Consortium proposal would be a 2.3% increase in taxes for Lansing taxpayers."
Iacobucci said that she was challenged about the article at a recent TST School Board Executive Committee meeting by school officials from other districts. "It was awkward, because all of the members of TST BOCES have been members of the Midstate Consortium Campaign for Fiscal Equity," she said. "I have to go on record as disagreeing with you on this point. I think it's a red herring."
"I think it is something that every district such as Lansing has to look at very closely," Lewis said. "A) it's not state-wide. And B) it takes from some districts to give to other districts. As Superintendent of the Lansing Schools I will go on record every time as objecting to anything that takes money away from the Lansing schools."
Iacobucci went on to say, "Being a representative of Lansing at a BOCES for many years -- all the districts in our area -- we've always thought regionally, and it was very awkward."
But Lewis replied, "Apparently some districts aren't thinking regionally when they want to take State aid away from Lansing."
Several board members were uncomfortable with the 4% amendment, because it didn't come with specific suggestions for further cuts. "Can you explain the rationale of where you came up with 4%," asked Sandi Dhimitri. "We spent so many weeks going line by line over what we can cut and what we wouldn't. To set a dollar amount without understanding how it impacts the program and the children of this district -- I'm uncomfortable with where that would leave that process."
Iacobucci said that even with a freak snowstorm that canceled a Monday budget workshop the board could have met on Tuesday or Wednesday before the scheduled board meeting. Iacobucci has missed a large percentage of regularly scheduled school board meetings.
"I can't possibly vote for the amendment unless you have very specific things that you say you want to cut," Dan Brown said. "Then I can decide if those specific things are things I could support. If you don't then I'm going to have to vote against the amendment."
"I don't really think it's my responsibility to come up with the answer to these budget problems," Iacobucci replied. "I think the administrators are the experts, and they are supposed to operate the district efficiently."
"The administrators did what we asked them to do last February," Brown noted. "We asked them to come up with a budget increase that was a certain percentage. And they went ahead and did that. And now you say that you want to move the yard stick. It seems a little late in the game for that."
Brown called the vote on the amendment, which failed 2-5. The board then passed the original motion 5-2.
Taxpayers will vote on the budget on May 15, at which time they will also elect two board members and vote on a community library charter and board. Dan brown is stepping down at the end of this term. Voters will vote to fill his and Iacobucci 's seats. Iacobucci is running for a third term against Gina Lord Shattuck and David Dittman.
----
v3i16