I wish to respond to and clarify certain information disseminated by individual members of the board, and the board in general in statements made at the May 4 Work Session/Budget Meeting, statements made at Meet the Candidates Night, and in a board letter to the community which was published in the local newspapers and posted on the district website. This is in regard to a petition I submitted to the district clerk in order to have a proposition placed on the ballot which would decide whether to have school board candidates elected on an "at large" basis.

All of these comments imply that the board had a small window and insufficient time to adequately disseminate information to the community regarding voting on this important change in procedure. I would like to detail the chronology that led up to my submitting this petition to the district clerk on April 18.

Early in March 2005, approximately 2 -1/2 months prior to the May 17 election, I spoke with the district clerk, Pat Gaglio, of my intention to submit a petition for the purpose of putting a proposition on the ballot. During the conversation she was told that the content of that proposition had to do with changing how members are elected to the board of education. I asked her to clarify the deadline for submitting the petition, as well as the number of signatures required. She indicated that she would have to consult with the district's attorneys. At the same time, I informed Dr. Harris of my intentions as well as the information I requested. On March 10, I also e-mailed a copy of the proposed language for review by the school's attorney.

Clearly, the board and administration were aware of the contents of the proposed proposition more than two months prior to the vote, and not two weeks as Mr. Wasserman implied at the May meeting. The board had more than enough time to be proactive and hold an informational community meeting. In fact, the board held five budget hearings after the time I made my intentions known. In addition, as late as April 5, the board mailed a postcard advising the scheduling of three additional budget meetings, one at each school, on April 12, 13 and 14. Any of these meetings could easily have been used to discuss, debate and provide information on the content of this petition.

Regarding the petition's rejection because it did not have the required number of signatures, this point also requires clarification. Board policy states that unless otherwise provided in Education Law, that a petition be subscribed by not less than 250 qualified voters of the district. Section 2008 of Education Law requires that a petition be signed by 25 qualified voters or 5 percent of the number of voters who voted at the previous annual election. In an appeal to the New York State Commissioner of Education regarding the Hicksville School District, which was represented by our attorney, Mr. Gary Steffaneta, the commissioner ruled that in compliance with Education Law 2008, it is required that a petition be signed by 25 qualified voters, or 5 percent of the number of voters who voted at the previous annual election. This decision was in regard to a regular annual election and not a special district meeting.

I had questioned this inconsistency numerous times through a series of e-mails with administration. Receiving incomplete answers I e-mailed my question directly to Mr. Steffaneta citing this decision. However, the board refused to allow Mr. Steffaneta to clarify the contradiction.

Knowing full well the specific details of this proposition more than two months before the annual vote, and knowing that it may appear on the May 17 ballot, the board neglected to place this important issue in front of the public for a discussion, which could have easily been accomplished at any one or more of the eight meetings that they held. In addition, the board could have placed this on the ballot as their own proposition if they so chose. This would have avoided the cost of holding a special meeting should the voters present a new petition on this subject. This could be done with a petition containing far fewer signatures than the petition the board rejected. I question their motivations now in trying to portray me as trying to place a proposition on to the ballot at the last minute with insufficient signatures.

My motivation, as I stated at the May 4 meeting, was to try to eliminate the divisiveness in the school community by eliminating the need for individuals to challenge one another directly. This is unfortunate since we should all be working together to bring harmony and accord to our community.

Finally, I question the Board's lack of communication to me with respect to the rejection of this petition on May 4. After I submitted the petition on April 18, the board requested that I meet with them to discuss the issue. I sent a timely reply to the board after that meeting and received their response dated April 28 wherein I was informed that the board would be taking formal action on this petition. I responded on April 29 and requested, "Please provide me with information regarding the timing and the plan of action." I was somewhat surprised when at the conclusion of the Budget Hearing, the board handed out an agenda with a resolution to reject the petition. This agenda was not made available with the rest of the material handouts for the evening, it was not on the website and there was no mention of a special meeting in the school district e-mail meeting reminder that I received earlier in the day. In short, although I formally requested this information, I was totally unaware that the board was going to take action that evening. This is disturbing given the board's pledge to provide better communication.

Eleanor Zatlin