Clearing Up Some Misinformation

By Maggie Tiballi

OSWEGO, NY – Although I have chosen not to run for a third term on the Board of Education, I remain concerned about the welfare of this district. Thus, I have been reading the articles about the various candidates with great interest. Like everyone else, I will need to decide which levers to pull on May 20.

While I feel that some of the candidates who have been interviewed so far look promising, I do worry about the misinformation that has been put forth.

For example, some of the candidates have expressed concern that programs are being cut. While it is true that there have been some cuts to programs, no program has been eliminated. If we have fewer students accessing these programs, doesn’t it make sense to reduce the staffing accordingly?

Another misconception is that journalism and yearbook have been moved to after-school. While these were indeed after-school programs as recently as three years ago, they will remain in the schedule during the school day next year.

Some candidates have questioned the declining enrollment. This year the district has 387 fewer students than it did just three years ago. Next year, we expect to lose another 96 students.

The decline in enrollment is indisputable.

Several candidates have mentioned that they support the use of local labor.

Virtually every member of the current board of education would agree with that. However, New York State law prohibits school districts from awarding contracts based on whether a company is local or not. I believe this law is designed to prevent the misuse of public funds.

It requires that the board grant contracts to the lowest responsible bidders, regardless of where they are located.

So while we all hope that our local contractors will emerge from the pool as the lowest responsible bidders, we must follow the law when awarding these contracts so that we do not place an undue burden on the taxpayers by awarding expensive contracts to friends of board members.

The Education Center has been mentioned by a number of candidates. Sam Tripp referred to this building as the “Taj Mahal” and indicated that it should be sold.

Ironically, Mr. Tripp was on the board that purchased the building in 1992, just before he resigned to take a high-ranking position with the district. His name is on the bronze plaque in the foyer of the Ed Center that commemorates that purchase.

Perhaps he can explain why he supported buying the Taj Mahal in the first place.

Last winter, I suggested to the current board that since we will not be closing a school, we should consider redistricting (which simply means changing the boundaries that place our elementary school students in particular schools) to free enough contiguous space in the elementary schools to enable us to begin moving our district offices out of the Ed Center.

At that time Mr. White refused to allow the board to even discuss this possibility.

Although I believe some board members were interested in the idea, we have all learned from experience that trying to have a discussion over Mr. White’s objections is futile, so the subject was dropped.

Ironically, Mr. White indicated in Tuesday’s paper that he is now ready to discuss reconfiguration and possibly closing a school.

Last spring, when he was Board President, he wanted to close Minetto School but deliberately withheld this information from the public specifically so that the capital project would pass.

Last fall he was vehemently against even discussing closing any of our schools.

Now he is back to wanting to discuss closing a school. Who knows where he will be next year?

One of the most disturbing statements made by a candidate was on the subject of hiring.

I believe that if there are two equally qualified candidates for a position, with one of them a native Oswegonian and the other an “outsider,” then certainly we should hire the home grown candidate.

On the other hand, since our mission should be to hire only the best-qualified candidate for the position, to suggest that we only hire locally, regardless of the candidates’ qualifications, is to invite mediocrity into our schools.

Our children deserve the best teachers available.

It should not matter where they grew up or who they know on the board of education.

The idea that all of our administrators should be locals is even more alarming.

At the college level, this is known as “academic incest.”

One of the candidates talked about the need for change.

If the only people we hire are those who rise through the ranks of our own system, then how can there be change?

People from the outside bring with them knowledge and experiences that could lead to new (possibly better) ways of doing things. To consciously prevent any influx of new blood into our education system is contrary to what education is all about.

Lastly, I would like to comment on board relations.

The candidates are correct in identifying this as an issue of concern.

To make the best decisions possible, the board must be able to discuss the issues without name-calling, ridicule, and threatening behavior.

None of us knows how most of the candidates will respond to board members who disagree with their position on issues.

We do have evidence on three of them, however.

Even with all of the strife on the board in the last three years, Sally Nettles has never become embroiled in a public free for all.

During his tenure on the board, Doug Buske verbally attacked administrators as well as fellow board members.

He even invited one board member to go out into the parking lot to settle a disagreement during open session of a board meeting.

Dave White’s behavior speaks for itself.

Ask any Participation in Government student who has attended our board meetings and you will get a clear understanding of what it is like to attempt to have a discussion with Mr. White on the board.

Mr. White has called for “cooperation, not confrontation.”

Based on his actions over the past three years, I am not sure that Mr. White fully understands the meaning of “cooperation.” I can assure you, though, that he has mastered the art of “confrontation.”

It is not always possible or even desirable for all seven members of the board to agree on every issue.

Differences of opinion that lead to thorough, rational discussion promote critical thinking by all board members as they weigh the pros and cons of a decision.

This is healthy and fosters good decision-making.

On the other hand, when board members refuse to listen to opposing points of view, when they attack and ridicule each other during discussions or, worse yet, when they refuse to even allow discussion, then they are doing the board and the community a disservice.

The most important questions that I will be considering as I cast my votes are these: Is the candidate willing to listen to opposing points of view? Is the candidate honest? Is the candidate motivated by concern for the academic programs of the district and its students? Is the candidate capable of conducting himself in a professional manner?

If the answers to these questions are “absolutely,” then the candidate will have my vote. missing or outdated ad config

Print this entry