By Village Mayor Peter Cavallaro
Last fall, the village board met with Westbury School Superintendent Mary Lagnado and several members of the Westbury School Board, regarding their $173 million bond proposal. The proposal would fund the construction of a new middle school and certain other long overdue repairs to school buildings. Due to the public’s initial concerns regarding the unreasonable and excessive cost of the proposal (particularly to residents living in the villages of Westbury and Old Westbury), the school board decided to postpone the scheduled public vote late last year.
The school district certainly has legitimate issues and needs that it needs to address. No one questions that. Yet, the tremendously negative financial impact on district taxpayers speaks for itself, and would be particularly harmful to our young families and seniors living on fixed income. As I have said publicly, in my view, the proposal would have a devastating impact on the long-term economic future of Westbury, and in particular the village. So, it is important that the residents of the district be appraised of what the district’s intentions are. Since the initial meeting last year, the village board has attempted to arrange a follow up meeting with the Superintendent and school board members to get an update as to the school administration’s future plans for this bond proposal. The district administration repeatedly failed to make itself available on any of the many dates that were proposed, and they never offered any alternative dates. This week, the board advised me that they would not make themselves available, but would instead invite the village board to a public meeting that they are arranging. Members of the school board and Superintendent Lagnado have publically and privately indicated that they intend on re-proposing this bond in some form in the future. Unfortunately, they have failed to explain why the many less costly alternatives that are available have not been pursued.
The school administration seems to be quietly trying to maneuver behind the scenes to lock up support from certain quarters of the community, while stonewalling legitimate questions from the majority of the residents and concerned elected officials. The opaque manner in which the school administration has approached this issue is of great concern. It has also been reported that certain persons in the community affiliated with the district have begun to privately disparage opponents of the bond on spurious grounds, apparently not confident that the community will accept the merits of the proposal. Let me state this plainly: no one in the community wants to deprive any child living in the district with the education to which they are deserving and legally entitled, regardless of nationality, ethnicity or legal status. Any suggestions to the contrary would be knowingly false, slanderous and disingenuous.
The taxpayers of the district deserve fiscal responsibility. Residents are entitled to transparency and honesty in addressing the legitimate questions and concerns that residents have raised. The dialogue must be open, honest, merits-based and ongoing. It is incumbent on the district and its administration to be responsible and accountable to the taxpayers, and to come up with the most efficient and least costly solutions possible. As an elected official representing a large portion of the district’s residents, I will continue to vocalize, on behalf of all residents in the district, the legitimate concerns of our taxpayers. I will also vigorously resist any attempts to cast aspersions about the intentions of the opponents of the proposal. Folks, this is a very simple matter of economic reality: the bond as proposed (even given the state subsidization) is too costly for our overburdened taxpayers, would disproportionally impact residents living in the village portions of the district, and is, as proposed fiscally irresponsible. And, there are less costly means to achieve the desired relief the district seeks. It is possible to protect the taxpayers while still addressing the educational needs of the community’s children. The Superintendent and School Board need to go back to the drawing board and determine how to do that. Asking already exasperated and over-extended taxpayers to support this unreasonable and poorly conceived plan is not the answer. But that appears to be what the school administration is preparing to do.
