Letters to the Editor

I attended the meeting of the Spring Cove School District Board of Directors on Monday, June 17. I was there because the board was going to vote on whether to hire my daughter Helena as a 7th-Grade English teacher.

Before the vote on hiring, the board had to deal with the question of where to set the tax rate for the 2024-25 school year and then vote on the resulting annual budget.

I spent about 25 years attending and writing about government and school board meetings as a reporter so the discussion around the tax and budget votes was familiar to me.

During my years covering Altoona City Council, one council member became famous for voting “No,” especially on fiscal issues. Councilmember Thomas Byrne was a gruff and serious man who thought it was his mission to protect the city’s working taxpayers from silly spending ideas. Councilmember Byrne voted No so often that he was given the nickname “Dr. No.” Part of my job was to explain the council’s decisions to Mirror readers, so when Councilmember Byrne voted No on an important or popular measure, I always asked him why and put the explanation in my news story. I thought that it was very important to explain the No votes to readers. Taxpayers deserve to know why an elected council member voted as he or she did. Later, when I became an editor, I made it a rule that my reporters had to explain any No votes on popular or important proposals. It was important to fully inform our readers and it gave the No-voting official a chance to explain. They always seemed ready to do so.

On big or important votes, I usually didn’t have to ask Councilmember Byrne why he voted No. When asked for his vote during the roll call vote, Byrne would explain himself. He always gave a brief but complete explanation of his vote. He would state his case succinctly, vote No and sit back in his chair. No one ever wondered why Tom Byrne had voted against a specific proposal or a city budget.

I was reminded of this Monday when two board members voted against the district tax rate proposal but then voted for the budget. One member then voted against the hiring of my daughter.

Board President Troy Wright expressed some frustration before the tax rate vote. He was concerned that some board members were prepared to vote against the tax increase. President Wright said that while he acknowledged each board member’s right to vote as he or she saw fit, the members who seemed likely to vote No on the tax proposal had not clearly explained the reasons for their opposition. The entire board had previous opportunities to express concerns and to present alternative proposals, but apparently, none had done so in detail. Now the board was up against a state-imposed deadline to pass a budget and some members were apparently ready to reject the proposed budget without offering detailed reasoning or an alternative.

The vote on the tax proposal was 7-2. President Wright on Monday asked the two No votes to explain the reasons they voted against it. One board member said she thought more effort should be put into bringing back to the district students who were lost to cyber schools. She also expressed concern about the effect of the new tax rate on retirees. The other board member who voted No said that he was concerned about expenses. He offered as an example the planned purchase of a truck and utility vehicle.

While those are valid concerns, I couldn’t help comparing the explanations of the two board members to Council member Byrne’s explanations. Elected officials are chosen by the voters to represent the interests of the taxpayers. The conduct and decisions made by the elected officials are important in running the district effectively. Members who don’t follow the board’s procedures for discussion are doing a disservice not only to their fellow board members but also to the public they serve. It is easy to simply object to a tax proposal and make vague claims that “we could have done better” or “we could cut more spending.” It is another, and more responsible action, to add a specific counter-proposal to an objection. What I would expect from a board member with objections would be a detailed list of proposed spending cuts, showing exactly how the cuts could eliminate the need for a tax increase. Inflation is affecting everyone, including school districts. If a tax increase is to be avoided, specific cuts will have to be made in spending. Any responsible board member objecting to the tax should provide a full explanation, including how the district should pay its bills without raising taxes. That is reasonable and responsible for an elected official entrusted by the public with setting a district budget. It’s easy to just vote No and then proclaim yourself the champion of the taxpayers. It is far harder — and far more responsible — to do the hard work of examining the budget and then proposing what will likely be unpopular spending cuts.

Transparency is crucial for elected officials. Failing to adequately explain your thinking, opinions and especially the reasons for your votes runs counter to the entire purpose of serving as an elected official. Voters and taxpayers should insist that elected officials spending public tax money should be open and forthcoming about all district matters. Otherwise, the public can legitimately wonder if there are hidden agendas.

So I think that the Spring Cove community deserves a detailed explanation from the two elected officials who voted No. There’s cause for concern if they fail to do so.

And I’d like to know why one board member voted against hiring a qualified English teacher. (Disclosure: she’s my daughter.) District administrators explained that the district needs English teachers for the upcoming school year. An unexplained No vote on filling an open position leaves this voter and taxpayer wondering — was there a fair and reasonable reason for the No vote? Or was there a hidden agenda?

Allan J. Bassler

Publisher