Writer criticizes union influence, defends board decisions

Dear Editor,

I read with interest the articles and letter to the editor regarding the Mahopac School District budget and bond proposals.

I attend most work sessions and board meetings and am very aware of the inter-dynamics of the board trustees. I am glad it appears that sound minds may prevail and that a 0% increase for taxpayers on the main budget will be proposed.

I do want to point out that although Trustee Ben DiLullo did not support Propositions 5 and 6, which would have cost $111.23 per year, he did support a 2% tax increase this year to the community, which would be $180.24 per year in perpetuity. To call Propositions 5 and 6 a vanity project, as he did, is a falsehood. You can be assured that the 2.23% increase in costs in the proposed budget have ensured that all our children’s best interests are covered, but this could be done without increasing taxes.

So, let’s review the scenario we had last year that allowed us to pass a 0% budget after the first submission failed. The district had $1.2 million in proceeds from sale of the school admin property plus over $10 million when the tax certiorari filing was settled plus extra state aid. This $11-plus million was squirreled away into total reserves, which now are over $45.4 million. In addition, there most likely will be several million dollars in additional reserves added for the 2025-26 school year, so we are not being fiscally irresponsible to present another 0% tax increase this year. This truth needs to be told to the community. We cannot just listen to the self-serving rhetoric from previous school board members or teachers' unions. I think we must look at the entire financial picture of the school district to know the financial state of our school district. Based on the above mentioned reserves, the state of our Mahopac School district is strong!

Secondly, I want to address the $10 million capital reserve fund in Proposition No. 3. The school district needs to establish this reserve so that excess reserves can be set aside for capital projects in the future. It is not allocating money to it, so there is no current cost to the taxpayer. It just provides the ability to fund it internally from excess fund balances instead of going out to raise money via a bond for capital improvements either planned or unexpected. It is a good thing to have. This is part of the reason that Proposition No. 4 is of no cost to the taxpayer. It is due to usage of an existing $5 million reserve, state aid and retiring debt. So please vote for Propositions No. 3 and 4.

This is also to address Kate Watson’s article ("'Short bus' comment at BOE meeting draws fire," Page 14, March 26) as well as Erin O’Brien letter to the editor ("Decisions without transparency are costing our schools," March 26, Page 24).

I hated to see how individuals in the district were so quick to vilify and slander a trustee who has selflessly given so many years of his life to be a diligent and supportive school board trustee. Perhaps I am naïve and grew up in a bubble since I attended Catholic grammar school and high school and had my children attend Chappaqua schools. But I had no idea that the word “short bus" could mean anything other than a smaller school bus, not something controversial. I find it infuriating that someone would identify his comments as "offensive, derogatory, ableist.” I know this man and he is not flippant nor did he intend to denigrate our special needs student population. It is the prejudice that is in the minds of these people that denigrates this trustee’s innocent comment.

Next, I want to comment on the circus of favorable comments from all the unions and a few community members regarding what should have been a confidential HR decision on a school employee, [Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Jennifer Pontillo]. Who leaked this information to social media? The employee, their spouse, a board member? I was so embarrassed for the employee who was present to have all these discussions about her in the open. There is a reason personnel issues are not to be discussed in public. There may very well be other unfavorable issues related to this person that are not public knowledge. The public is not and should not be privy to private personnel matters. But now the whole district had to listen to all the union kudos and praise for this employee. This was a one-sided public relations campaign and should not happen. If this was a true court of review, then both sides should have been able to express their negative concerns as well as praises. I think this was a disservice to this employee and a strong union push of intimidation toward the school board. Public influencing should not be allowed at future public board meetings.

As for Erin O’Brien’s comments that “no performance-based cause for the former superintendent’s removal was ever stated publicly,” the school board cannot legally air personnel issues in public, which is why they go into executive sessions. Some things are obvious to anyone who follows the school board meetings or is aware of the school district’s operations. Why did we have a failing special-ed program under the previous superintendent [Christine Tona]? Why was the special-ed audit held and not disclosed by the previous superintendent? Why was the previous selected reading program, which has failed our students, finally switched out to a phonics-based program costing $250k? Why were nonworking bathrooms throughout the district ignored by the previous administration but finally addressed by current Proposition #4 at no cost to the taxpayer? Why was there always a fight to get a lower percent or 0% budget tax increase for taxpayers under the previous superintendent’s tenure? Why did the previous board at its June 15, 2023 regular meeting early renew the previous superintendent’s contract past its original expiration of June 30, 2025, costing the district this settlement?

Sometimes it is what stays out of the public arena that is the truth and not the public disinformation.

-Marie Frenkel, Mahopac