Budget Update Flap Misses The Point

To the Editor:

It is unfortunate that Cindy Simon, Will Rodgers, Herb Rosenthal, John Kortze, and John Voket chose to condemn the superintendent’s budget update, rather than view the fact sheet as a tool to inform parents and support passage of the townwide budget.

Ms Simon was concerned that it was “political action propaganda.” This is speculative considering that propaganda implies that there was a deliberate attempt to harm a group or person.

Mr Rodgers claims it is “a technically improper use of public funds” and that “the manipulation of certain facts about the process, and decisions made especially by the Board of Finance, reflected a standard Board of Education trick.” Where is the trickery in presenting Board of Finance proposals to the Board of Education budget?

Mr Rosenthal, still awaiting the town attorney’s decision, was compelled to comment, “If it is not technically illegal today, it still violates the spirit of the law.” An interesting perspective from a defendant in a lawsuit asserting that he is skirting the law by proceeding with plans at Fairfield Hills without an approved master plan.

Mr Kortze asks, “Can the highest paid town employee lobby on the upcoming budget vote one way or the other?” How is Dr Pitkoff’s salary relevant? Furthermore, Mr Kortze characterized the fact sheet as “divisive and politically motivated,” but the reactions of these town officials is blatantly “divisive and politically motivated.”

And finally, John Voket writes that the state’s Elections Enforcement Division confirmed, “had the same document been circulated after the annual budget was legally advertised, it would have clearly been illegal.” This inflammatory statement is irrelevant, considering that the date of the budget update is March 16, and was sent out more than two weeks prior to the Legislative Council’s upcoming budget vote on April 4. While the charter dictates the date of the referendum, the exact wording of the referendum is incomplete until the Legislative Council approves the dollar amount. It is John Voket’s article which could be classified as propaganda — with intent to harm based on opinion rather than fact. Perhaps this kind of unbalanced reporting has prompted the superintendent to take a more direct approach to informing parents.

The point that has been missed is that the budget needs to pass on the first vote. It will benefit everyone, including those criticizing the budget sheet and the volunteers who continually donate their time to an apathetic voting population. All of these boards and officials could move on to other pressing issues. In addition, the town will save thousands of dollars if the referendum is passed on the first attempt. In fact, printing a few thousand copies of the budget update is nothing compared to the cost of holding multiple referenda.

I commend the superintendent and the Board of Education for their attempt to inform parents. For the past eight years I have received information related to education in my children’s backpack. I expect no less.

Gianine Crowell

26 Canterbury Lane, Sandy Hook                               March 29, 2007