Analysis and Commentary - Budget Vote and BOE Election

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/20]

Now that I have had a chance to locate my records for previous Votes and Elections, it is possible to place this past Tuesday into greater perspective.

I was only able to find data as far back as 2003; in 2002, the first year I kept records, the budget did pass, and, in an election which followed the resignation of one trustee, two seats were contested and one was uncontested. That was also the only time that I ran for the BOE, unsuccessfully, so I do remember the broad results.

Budget Votes:

Year Yes No Total Votes

2011 1,779 (61.2%) 1,129 (38.8%) 2,908

2010 (#2) 1,970 (66.7%) 985 (33.3%) 2,955

2010 (#1) 1,088 (46.9%) 1,204 (53.1%) 2,322

2009 1,068 (69.9%) 460 (30.1%) 1,528

2008 1,160 (63.8%) 659 (36.2%) 1,819

2007 878 (61.8%) 543 (38.2%) 1,421

2006 1,561 (63.1%) 911 (36.9%) 2,472

2005 1,186 (52.4%) 1,079 (47.6%) 2,265

2004 1,217 (51.5%) 1,146 (48,5%) 2,363

2003 1,209 (56.7%) 924 (43.3%) 2,133





BOE Elections:

Year Candidates Votes

2011 A-Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)

A-James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)

Total Votes 2,609


B-Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)

B-Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)

Total Votes 2,488


2010 Uncontested Election


2009 Uncontested Election


2008 A-Mike Kaszubski 967 (80.9%)

A-Jennifer (?) Ilovsky 195 [write-in] (16.3%)

A-James Tomeo 33 [write-in] (2.8%)

Total Votes 1,195


B-Patty Matos 1,024 (59.4%)

B-Alex Resnick 612 (35.5%)

B-James Tomeo 84 [write-in] (4.9%)

B-Jennifer Ilovsky 3 [write-in] (0.2%)

Total Votes 1,723


2007 Uncontested Election


2006 A-Joe Fusaro 1,398 (56.4%)

A-Michael Williams 1,079 (43.6%)

Total Votes 2,477


B-Dan Cicone 1,405 (56.9%)

B-Cheryl Gabrielli 1,064 (43.1%)

Total Votes 2,469


2005 Uncontested Election


2004 A-Julie Badlato 1,249 (53.0%)

A-Bill Cameron 1,106 (47.0%)

Total Votes 2,355


2003 A-Joe Fusaro 1,169 (57.4%)

A-Brian Madden 868 (42.6%)

Total Votes 2,037


B-Dan Ciccone 1,042 (53.5%)

B-John Santomauro 904 (46.5%)

Total Votes 1,946


Derivative Commentary:

School Budget

The first thing you should note is that the 2011 total of 2,908 in the School Budget Vote was the second-highest over the past nine years, with only the second 2010 vote (the June re-vote after the original Proposed Budget was rejected in May) higher at 2,955.

But that also means that this was the highest original May vote total on record, which is absolutely amazing, particularly on such a dreary wet day.

I’m not sure what we can make of vote margins over these nine years, as the Budget Increase and the Tax Levy Increase fluctuated considerably over this time, since our District and BOE have historically not tried to pull the wool over the eyes of its residents, as have many districts on Long Island.

Elwood has not secretly over-taxed its residents in one year in order to “magically” pull money out of a hat in another year; therefore, the budget and tax numbers have reflected more candid economics, and they have demonstrated more respect for the integrity of taxpayers.

Of course, in some years, it has been a blessing, and in other years it has been a real burden, particularly when the State gives us the shaft while costs soar into the stratosphere.

But the Total Votes count is certainly real, and the heavy involvement of the past few years has been a testimony to the people of this community.


BOE Election

This is where the size and shape of the budget have generally mattered much less, although it was one of the factors in 2004, and might have been a factor in 2003.

Looking back over the years, and saving 2011 for last, I would note that 2008 was a contested election, but the effective contest was really just with one seat, as Mike Kaszubski did not have an opponent who bothered to submit Nominating Petitions, and his only opposition were write-in candidates.

Patty Matos did have an active opponent on the ballot, but the support for that opponent was primarily in a relatively small, though quite vocal, single focus group of core supporters. Naturally the “usual” antagonists of the District and the current Board (in the sense of Casablanca, where Claude Rains, standing with Humphrey Bogart, instructs his next in command to round up the “usual” group) did tag along, and tried some last minute machinations, but the results made it clear how ineffective that was. The “usual” antagonists learned from that in 2011.

The previous contested campaign was in 2006, and that was the dirtiest and nastiest election that I can remember in my eleven years since taking early retirement gave me time to get involved. A smear campaign really began at a few BOE meetings (I’ve kept my notes from those meetings, and even obtained under FOIL an official transcript of the BOE dialogue on the worst night), and some campaigners, or campaign workers, tried to impugn the integrity of one of the successful candidates with the same male bovine manure.

Captain Louis Renault would not have been surprised by the suspects.

In 2004, we had a contested election in which a trustee with superior intellectual skills, but abysmal inter-personal skills (he would even tick off his friends), lost an election partially for reasons of sometimes being insensitively arrogant, and partially for being on the BOE at a challenging time, but also -- and given the margin, and the timing, I believe primarily -- because a former trustee, who had been rejected by the voters after only a one year term on the BOE, issued a letter that arrived on the Saturday before the Tuesday election, making a number of distorted and mathematically inaccurate statements that seemed designed to confuse and frighten voters, and then asked people to support the incumbent’s opponent.

And finally, in 2003 we had what now seems like the cleanest election in memory, yet it was a hotly contested election that was at least based upon honest intellectual disagreements between candidates. I don’t recall any dirty tricks, or maligning of the personal integrity of the candidates, and it would be nice if we could return to a time when distortions were not the primary tool of opponents, and when appeals were to intellect rather than to emotion or popularity contests, and when all candidates focused upon what was good for the students and the taxpayers of the community.

In 2011 we had way too much in the way of personal popularity appeals, including the soliciting of some voters who seemed to know nothing about the issues, or of the problems of school districts on Long Island or in New York State in general, and who were not even told the whole truth, by some candidates, about the nature and economic reality of theoretical concessions by a union.

Greed will no longer do.

Selflessness is desperately needed, and selfishness must be rejected.

Personal resentment by some former employees, and a focus upon union interests by other former employees, do not belong in BOE elections, and some electioneering activities were, quite simply, unseemly.

Our problems, and the problems of other school districts, are by no means over, and it would be helpful for the good of the students and for the good of the community and for the good of the taxpayers, and, yes, for the good of the younger generation of teachers and other staff, if everyone would convert their energy and efforts into a positive approach that recognizes that we are indeed, all of us, in this together.

Shared sacrifice, by all parties, is desperately needed.

Finally, we need a cathartic effect in Albany, so that the unfunded mandates, and the absurd pension system, and the strangling and constricting restrictions on personnel management, are finally corrected.

But, it must start here with us, now, and we can no longer afford the effects of the negativity of the usual antagonists and their allies.

Let’s make 2011/12 a much better year for Elwood.