Another "analysis" of the state of our school budget appeared in the Aug. 8 Port Washington News courtesy of Frank Russo. He states that the 2003 school budget passed only because "400 to 600 ... school district employees and their families" provided the needed margin. He goes on to blame otherwise poor voter turnout for the passage of the budget. Why is turnout so poor? The vote is at the wrong time of year (Russo believes that the late fall is better for turnout than late spring). Voters feel divested of power because the law provides for automatic budget increases when budgets are repeatedly rejected (these increases are from 5 to 7 percent). Lastly, those nasty teachers unions have a hold on Albany which prevent change. Otherwise, says Mr. Russo, reasonable folks would reject more school budgets.

Let's look at some facts, shall we?

Over the last eight school budget votes from 1997 - 2003 (there were two in 2000), the budget was defeated twice. In 1999, 17 percent of eligible voters turned down a 3.65 percent increase in spending (the second smallest) and in 2000, 40 percent of our community were frightened into defeating the bond proposal and the budget which contained a 4.4 percent increase in spending. Later that year, 22 percent of our voters showed up to accept a more modest 2.6 percent increase in the budget. In 2001, 2002 and 2003 turnout has been an average of 17.6 percent of eligible voters and the budget increase has averaged 7.19 percent (63 percent higher than the disastrous 2000-part one vote and higher than the "automatic" increases that Russo laments) and the budget passed every time.

It is true that this year, only 8 percent of the votes separated the winners from the losers. But in 2002 when the turnout was 15 percent of the voters and the increase was only 5 percent, winners beat losers more than 3:2. In fact, there is no statistical correlation between passage of the school budget and either voter turnout or the size of the budget increase (Statview, regression analysis and Fisher's exact, p = NS).

Now these facts come from an actual analyst of published results. Where are Mr. Russo's facts from? How does he know how many of the "yes" votes were cast by school district employees? Or how many more "no" votes would have been cast by the extra 10 percent of the voters he was hoping for? He believes that a November budget vote would bring out "4 to 5 times" the number of voters. That meant this year, that 95 percent of our community would show up at the Flower Hill cafeteria to sign in and vote (up to 19,000 people). Judging by how many people voted for George W. Bush when he "defeated" Al Gore, do you think we would get a 75-95 percent voter turnout if the budget were voted on in November?

What's the matter with school district personnel voting anyway? Who better to understand the needs of the schools than the people who are there every day working to see that our kids get an excellent education?

Here's what I think. This community learned a valuable lesson in 1999 and 2000. That lesson was that the price of a great school system is eternal vigilance. The only thing that defeats school budgets are scare tactics and aggressive negative campaigning. We must never be frightened to maintain our school system. We must never remain silent when vocal members of our community threaten our schools.

Ethan D. Fried