This is an open letter to state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli:

I read with interest the recent article in The Post-Journal in which you are said to believe that if taxpayers want to save money they need to consolidate schools. As a taxpayer, I am always for saving money. As a parent of three children who went through the New York state school system, I am always for educational rigor that will prepare all students for college or career. To help achieve those ends, I was on a local school board for 11 years, and was elected president for eight of those years. I have been deeply involved in two school mergers in Chautauqua County, and watched numerous others in neighboring districts go down in flames. The good citizens of Chautauqua County have wanted to lower their taxes numerous times via school consolidation, but have been stymied by the single, flawed process that is dictated to them by Albany regulations.

My intimate involvement in the process shows the following flaws in the the school merger process that you advocate:

¯ Merger system is rigged for failure. There are many steps that allow the whole merger process to be stopped in its tracks, such as the 8 separate votes that all have to pass. The article cites one county merger that “was shot down before a formal proposal came to the voters.”

This is an example of the incredibly high standard that the NYS regulations have to allow any mergers to come to fruition. Another example of rigging the system for failure is a fast merger clock, but no training for boards or administrators on the merger process, so items are missed in the planning. Items that are missed become reasons not to merge. Local control: The NYS educational system is designed to have local school board control of their own school. The merger plan is not in either of the two districts’ control. Once the process has started, elected board members who have gone in front of their community and taken the position that a merger is good idea find that the merger regulations say that neither boards, administrations, nor business officials are smart enough to put together the merger plan. They are required to hire consultants, at taxpayer’s expense, to write that merger plan. Once the consultant has gathered their information, the board does not have control over what the consultant puts in the merger document, although SED can. As one who has been in private industry, it is expected that the group paying for a consultant should be able to read a draft report and ask to have more detail put into certain parts of the report. It is nearly impossible to make an addendum to the plan if new information comes to light. No politician wants to be told what their opinion is, but the merger process does exactly this. Politicians do not want to be part of this process and taxpayers inherently don’t want to vote for a plan that is jammed down their throats, however much input they might have had.

¯ Schools as bedrock for the community. While it has never been planned this way, small rural schools have become critical to the existence to their small communities. They are some of the biggest employers, pay some of the best wages, are hubs for social and community life, and are a huge source of civic pride. Local business depend on this local spending within the community. As much as taxpayers don’t want to pay for excess taxes, it is many times more important to those same taxpayers to have that school as an anchor for the community. This is especially true if Albany is paying for two thirds of school costs and the majority of all financial inefficiencies that arise out of operating small school districts.

¯ Merger incentive dollars in a tax cap system: The tax cap rules were instituted to ensure that spending on education would go up in a controlled manner. If districts merge, there are huge piles of cash that Albany showers on the new district. That is great, but in a tax cap world, districts can’t save it, so they have to spend it on things prior boards would not have spent taxpayer dollars on: giving everyone raises, building new infrastructure, creating new curricula that can’t be paid for after the merger money runs out. Merger aid needs to be spread out to help schools deliver better educational opportunities for their students, all in the tax cap world. The article supports shared services, which are great, but financial incentives for shared services have to be within this same tax cap rules.

¯ Lack of guarantees for parents: Parents want to have assurances of what their district will look like in the future. The merger document, created by the consultants, lays out one such plan. The new merged district will have a new BOE that hires a new administration, and there is nothing in the merger process that precludes the new leadership from going in an entirely different direction. Parents want assurances where the high school will be. They want to know how long their kindergartener will be on the bus for. The current merger process gives no assurance and without it, gets voted down. Please don’t argue that a merger document has any moral authority because that won’t hold up in court.

¯ Incomplete merger plans: Like above, if a merger plan says that something will be researched later, then that is a reason for taxpayers to vote no. The Westfield Brocton merger plan simply said that transportation would be addressed later. Even though it is only 5% of the budget, it was enough to give people reasons to vote no. Perhaps SED should have a more comprehensive list of what the merger consultants must put in the merger document.

¯ Inequity in tax bases between districts: The district I was on the board for was one of the most fiscally efficient districts around. The board for years worked hard to control costs. Then when the merger finances were done, the bulk of the merger aid went to the other district with the higher tax rate to bring it down to our level. Our residents asked why they were being penalized for their fiscal prudence over all the years, and voted no. Any time there is significant differences in tax rates, the merger is less likely to be successful.

¯ Odd rules: Locally, Ripley has sent its secondary kids to Chautauqua Lake under a tuition agreement. Their taxes have plummeted and the educational opportunities for their students have vastly expanded. The districts can’t merger because they do not physically adjoin. A goofy rule like that precludes merger, but the Ripley taxpayers probably still spend a million dollars a year just to have the entity of the Ripley District.

In my time on a school board, I many times heard very clearly that the Chautauqua County residents want to reduce their taxes. Their representatives have spent time and considerable taxpayer dollars to explore many merger options, but all failed for the reasons listed above. An innovative regional high school concept wasn’t legal and the enacting bill couldn’t pass the legislature despite our local legislators championing the cause. Chautauqua taxpayers would love to reduce their taxes while having excellent educations for their students. As soon as New York state creates a process that allows for a reasonable chance for a successful merger, local taxpayers will vote for better education at lower cost.

Steve Cockram is a Westfield resident and a former Westfield Academy and Central School board member.