GUILDERLAND — The school board elected its leaders Tuesday with split votes and then split again when a new member proposed spending money on programs not included in the budget.

Richard Weisz, a lawyer who has served on the board for six years, was elected president over Barbara Fraterrigo, a nine-year member who works managing the office for her physician husband.
"I have a very collegial view of our board as a whole," said Fraterrigo before the vote. "We have become more active participants," she said of board members, calling that "a good direction for the board."
Weisz told board members he sees the role of president as being a "facilitator." He said he would focus on building consensus as opposed to picking a particular agenda.

He also said he hoped the board would shape policy pro-actively rather than just reacting.
"The board is lucky they have two fine candidates," he concluded.

The nine board members then filled out paper ballots, which were counted by Clerk Linda Livingston, who presided over the meeting until the new president was elected. Weisz won by a vote of 5 to 4.

The board’s former leaders, President Gene Danese and Vice President Linda Bakst, had retired at the close of their terms. Each had served in those posts for one year. Bakst had run against Danese for president; after she lost, she bested Fraterrigo for the vice president’s spot.

This year, Weisz made his first run for a leadership position on the board. After the meeting, when The Enterprise asked Weisz why he wanted to be president, he said, "I thought I could help channel the board into my idea of identifying goals we share with the staff and move the district more cooperatively."

Once the president was elected, nominations were taken for the vice president. Peter Golden nominated Fraterrigo. Colleen O’Connell nominated John Dornbush, a seven-year member who is associate director for student lending in the financial aid office at the University at Albany. Dornbush, making his first run for an office on the board, won by a vote of 5 to 4.
Asked yesterday about his goals as vice president, Dornbush said, "My role is to support Dick. I supported him for the presidency."
He went on, "We’re aligned on trying to build consensus on the board, to keep meetings flowing smoothly, and to see that all sides are heard."
For the upcoming year, Dornbush said, "I’d like us to look at our science, math, and technology offerings, not that we’re lacking but there has been concern expressed in the community."

The Enterprise this spring ran a letter to the editor from the parent of a Guilderland High School student concerned that her son wouldn’t be able to take an Advanced Placement computer programming class next year because none was offered. The superintendent responded that enrollment was too low and it may be offered in alternate years.
Dornbush went on about goals in the upcoming year, "Social studies and language arts review is now going on within the faculty." Budget proposals in recent years, ultimately rejected by the board, included consolidating the supervisor’s posts for those two departments and adding to the English teachers’ course load.

Maverick motion

After the board worked its way through a long list of appointments for the new year during the reorganizational meeting Tuesday, it went on to hold a regular session.

At the end of that session, close to 9:30 p.m., one of the new board members, Hy Dubowsky, made a proposal that took several members aback.

Dubowsky, the economic development director for the state’s Department of Labor, said that most people recognize the Guilderland School District as a good school district but it is important to be a great school district.

Before voters passed a $79 million budget in May, the school district estimated it would bring a 4.1-percent tax hike for Guilderland residents.
Dubowsky proposed keeping the rate hike at 4.1 percent but spending up to $200,000 for "enhanced educational services."
He itemized these as: up to $25,000 for enriching music and art; up to $25,000 for Advanced Placement computer science; up to $30,000 for security cameras in the high school; up to $50,000 for expanding the high-school writing program; up to $30,000 for evaluating language arts; and up to $40,000 for a pilot program, teaching foreign language in the elementary schools.

Dubowsky’s motion was seconded by Denise Eisele, the other new board member. She and Dubowsky campaigned together, winning this May in a five-way race for three seats. The third seat was retained by incumbent Weisz.

Weisz asked Superintendent Gregory Aidala if, legally, the board could increase the amount to be spent after the budget had been passed.
"We have an obligation to stay in the $79 million limit," said Aidala. He also said, "The budget is a spending plan," and $200,000 could legally come from elsewhere in the budget.
Dubowsky said the district is "sitting on" an unallocated $1.4 million surplus, a reference to the district’s fund balance.
Board member Cathy Barber asked Assistant Superintendent for Business Neil Sanders about the legal status of the fund balance. "Is this money we could spend on programs for next year"" she asked.

Sanders replied that the fund balance could be used to lower the tax rate, which the board sets in August.

In June, the board debated at length what to do with a $400,000 surplus in the fund balance. The rainy-day account would have totaled $1.99 million by the end of the year, which would have been over the 2 percent of next year’s budget allowed by the state.

While some school-board members in June said the money should be returned to the taxpayers, the majority prevailed, in split votes, determining the surplus would be put into reserve funds — $100,000 into a tax certiorari reserve fund, and $300,000 into a newly-created retirement contribution reserve fund.
On Tuesday, board member Thomas Nachod called Dubowsky’s motion "out of order." He said, "None of us have any of the background."
"Most of the proposals...whether they’re good ideas or not, they need to be taken apart and looked at separately," said Dornbush.
O’Connell told Dubowsky she hoped this kind of motion or "discussion by ambush" was not going to be his trademark.

She indicated he should have informed board members ahead about his proposal.
She went on to say that the fund balance is not an "excess fund" and that dipping below the state-allowed 2 percent would leave the district without a buffer.
"It’s a place to start," said Golden. He also said, "These are tax moneys we thought we were going to spend...We could return it to the taxpayers...."
Aidala said Dubowsky’s proposal "undermines a long-time process we’ve had in place and sends the wrong message to our constituents."
He described the budget process as involving the community and called Dubowsky’s proposal "after the fact."
"Here it is July," said Aidala. "We’re opening the new school year...These are the kind of discussions that should take place as part of the budget process."

The board has a policy not to vote on motions at the same meeting where they are first introduced unless a two-thirds majority agrees.

Weisz said the board could vote on Dubowsky’s motion at its next meeting, Aug. 15, after it had some guidance as to whether it is legal to increase spending by $200,000.
"You’re assuming there’s consensus to put this on the agenda," objected O’Connell.
"Can we make a motion on what we want on the agenda"" asked Nachod.
"How can we reject the motion without voting on it"" asked Weisz.

Fraterrigo said she believed that, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, once a board member makes a motion and it is seconded, it goes forward to a vote.
"You can’t force a vote on an illegal action," said Barber.

Golden said he wanted to know how much can legally be returned to taxpayers.
"We’ll get a report back Aug. 15 and go from there," said Weisz.
"We really need to clarify what board discussion is," said Aidala. "We work to be well prepared..."