The East Williston School Board and School Administration are now deep into the process of attempting to foist yet another unnecessarily bloated budget onto the backs of our under-uninformed community, in the process arrogantly disregarding the conclusively documented findings of our independent budget committee, chaired by Sigi Huhn, which demonstrated that there are more than sufficient monies available at current budget levels, representing expenditures in excess of $22,000 per child, to meet all the educational needs of the district and that no budget increases are necessary.

Instead of "making do" with the more than sufficient resources already available, it appears that the board is going to propose an increase from last year's budget of 7-8 percent which will raise expenditures per student to the absurd level of approximately $23,500.

And what are we getting for the all of this money. Not much, it seems.

In fact, when one compares the academic performance of our students at our Northside School on Hillside Avenue in East Williston through the fourth grade with that of the children ten minutes west at the Manor Oaks Elementary School on Hilllside Avenue in New Hyde Park (NHP) through the fourth grade, we find that there is little difference in academic performance. This as documented in the Newsday reports over the past two weeks showing school scores and expenditures per child for schools throughout Long Island.

Specifically, the mean Northside scores for the standardized English/Math tests were 700/690 while the scores for the children at Manor Oaks were 687/693. The Manor Oaks children trailed our kids with respect to English scores while slightly outperforming ours in Math. All in all, the kids in the two districts were comparable academically. (All statistics in this letter are as reported in Newsday per its school scorecard report dated March 13, 2005.)

While there is little to differentiate the schools based on the standardized test scores, there is a tremendous disparity as to costs between the two districts. In this regard, to achieve the similar results it cost the taxpayer in our district $22,766 per student while costing the taxpayers in NHP "just" $12,048.00, or $10,718 (48 percent) less per student. In other words, the administration in NHP is delivering the same educational results at approximately half the cost as that delivered by our school administration.

Clearly part of the reason NHP is delivering comparable results at far less cost is because it dedicates a greater percentage of its far leaner budget to education than does ours, which, unlike theirs, is extraordinarily bloated with non-educational (administrative) costs. In this respect, in New Hyde Park, of the total $12,048 expenditure per student, $7,645 was spent on the kids, with $4,403 in administrative costs per child, a ratio of education to administration of 63 percent/37 percent.

On the other hand, the ratio in our far higher budget of $22,766 per student is 58 percent/42 percent with administrative costs per student of $9,561 compared to $4,403 in New Hyde Park. In other words, we spend more than twice as much ($5,158 more per student) on administration costs per student. This extra $5,158 per student equates to $9,361,770 of last years' $39,700,000 budget, or 23 percent of the total budget. In other words, it can be argued that 23 percent of our budget last year went to pay for bloated administrative costs. In any event, whether the waste is 23 percent of the budget or some lesser amount, it is clear that there are millions of dollars in excessive, non-educational costs in the budget.

And now the Board apparently intends to ask for a budget increase of 7-8 percent. They should be kidding. Unfortunately, they're not.

If they persist with their plan to further gouge the taxpayers, our response should be an overwhelming rejection of the budget. Any other response will be throwing good money after bad. In any event, whatever the Board does and whether this year's budget passes or not, we need new leadership at the top.

The fact is, we don't have a fiscal problem in this district, we have a management problem. There is more than enough money in the current budget to not only meet all of our educational needs but to increase educational services by hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes. The problem is that the already abundant resources are not being allocated appropriately but are being wasted by this administration and those who pull its strings who are more interested in feathering their own nests than in serving this community.

The solution is to bid the administration farewell and to replace it with one which has more respect for our taxpayers and more concern for our kids. The sooner, the better.

Unfortunately, the current Board is satisfied with the status quo and so is unlikely to terminate this administration. Accordingly, in order to accomplish any significant change it's going to be necessary to replace a majority of the five-member board.

We can take a significant step in this direction on May 17, 2005 by electing Sigi Huhn to the one Board seat which is up this year.

Thereafter, in May, 2006 when two further Board seats are up, we can finish the job.

As many are aware, Sigi is the CPA from Albertson with two young children enrolled at Northside who has taken it upon himself to confront the many misrepresentations made by the current administration and board with regard to the contingency budget under which the district is now operating. Sigi, a Fordham University graduate who has been active as a soccer and basketball coach in both Albertson and at St. Aidan's Parish for the past several years and who is self employed with his own practice, is committed to doing what is right for the all the members of the district, kids and the taxpayers alike. He deserves our support. In turn, we need him to "hold the fort" on the Board until we can change the majority and eliminate the waste that currently abounds.

The status quo is to no one's benefit: There are too many kids in some of the classes in the district, primarily at Northside. This makes it difficult for the teachers to devote sufficient time to the kids who need the most help with the result that some kids will undoubtedly get lost in the shuffle. This shouldn't be. There are sufficient resources for more teachers and smaller classes. Unfortunately, the money is being wasted. At the same time, the taxpayers are paying too much for the services that are being delivered. This not only takes money out of our pockets but also has the effect of depressing home values. This doesn't need to be either.

This is an affluent district, which will not hesitate to vote all appropriate funding. However, to vote for increased funding at this point when so much of the current budget is being wasted would be foolish. It would just be throwing good money after bad while doing little if anything to upgrade the educational product. We need to get the management situation straightened out before any significant new spending is undertaken. I hope the board understands this. We'll see.

John O'Kelly