GUILDERLAND — The school board here is looking at the way citizens participate in the budget-making process.

The superintendent surveyed recent members of the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee after some of the volunteers had, in recent years, criticized the committee. Seventy-nine percent of those who returned surveys said the process should be revised.

In his report to the board Tuesday, Superintendent Gregory Aidala stressed the old adage that the time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining.

Last spring, the district’s $76 million budget passed with 54 percent voting in favor and 46 percent opposed. This was a decline in support for recent years, but it was also the year that the town of Guilderland reassessed property, with greatly increased values.

The district first set up a citizens’ committee to review budget proposals in 1977. The process was last revamped in 1993, after Guilderland voters soundly rejected a school budget for the first time in nearly two decades, causing the board to adopt a contingency plan.

The committee was changed, at the behest of board members, from a review committee to an advisory committee so that citizens would have more input and could decide on cuts outlined by the administration.

The revamped committee in 1994 — made up of 61 community residents, the nine school board members, and 10 administrators — was, at its first session, presented with a lengthy list of potential reductions to scale back a budget that would have brought a 21-percent tax hike.

The $44 million budget that ultimately resulted was soundly defeated that spring by a record number of Guilderland voters.

The following year, a $46 million budget passed handily on the first try — by a ratio of three to two. The tide had turned.

In recent years, committee sessions have been televised. The committee, made up of 15 to 30 members, has met five or six times in February and March, in two-hour sessions, largely hearing presentations from administrators, with a chance to comment during the last session.

Aidala’s survey, which was completed by 32 out of 85 recent committee members, was made up of seven questions. Fifty-nine percent thought the presentations helped them to understand the budget while some asked for shorter presentations and for focus on facts and figures.
Sixty-nine percent thought their involvement had made a difference in the budget adopted by the school board while others saw the committee as "window dressing" or "a big PR job."

Aidala recommended maintaining the committee but changing the format. His recommendations centered on limiting the televised presentation portion of each meeting to one hour. The next half-hour would be spent on small-group discussion, and, in the final half-hour, each small group would summarize for the larger group what was discussed.

Board views

While the board members agreed with the premise that the committee should be retained, with a changed format, most rejected the small-group discussion recommendation.
"Small groups don’t work for me," said board member Richard Weisz.
He suggested the first session be a presentation and the later sessions by used to "attack" issues such as class size, health and retirement benefits, privatizing some school functions, or special education. Comparisons would be made with other districts and facts and figures would be analyzed.

Later he mentioned other issues such as near-empty afternoon school-bus runs and examining what percentage of the budget is spent on administration.
"Some of this may be scary," said Weisz, as current school-district approaches are questioned.

Committee members feel now that they listen for 15 hours and have five minutes to speak, Weisz said; with his proposal they would sit and listen for the first session and than participate in working though presented problems.
"I’d like to get back up to our 60-percent approval," said Weisz of the budget vote.
Board member John Dornbush called Weisz’s approach "interesting," but said, "I’m afraid of raising expectations on things we won’t be able to act on." That, he said, could make committee members "really frustrated."
"We need to restore credibility and trust," said board member Thomas Nachod, stating that the board owed it to the public to investigate issues such as those raised by Weisz.
Some of the proposals could be acted on, he said, giving the example of privatization. "I’ve been told you can do it in 60 days," said Nachod.
"We ought to open it up to everything," said board member Peter Golden. "Give them a sort of an open session."
"The intractable problem is people have opinions but varying levels of knowledge," said board Vice President Linda Bakst.
Some of the most useful committee suggestions are from people with professional experience, said Bakst. Speaking with a political bent, she said "is of limited use."
Reading the survey results, Bakst said, "I don’t know we need to change all that much."

She suggested making the presentations shorter and more factual and analytic, and making sure everyone has a chance to speak.
"Small groups with fixed questions and leaders...is almost too contrived," said board member Barbara Fraterrigo.

She said that more than 80 percent of the budget costs are fixed and recommended examining union contracts, the biggest part of the budget.
Fraterrigo also said presentations should be shorter and stated of participants, "You have a right to question anything, but you do it politely."
Colleen O'Connell asked if Weisz’s idea would lead more to philosophical discussion. "Do you see it as looking forward to the next budget"" she asked.
Board member Catherine Barber said that a common theme from the budget committee members is that they need to be given more information. "I think that’s a good idea," she said. She described the members as "a cross-section" and said, "People are not shy about expressing themselves...Somehow it all works out."
"I don’t think we need to change a whole lot with this process," said Dornbush.

He also said that voters are not swayed by how the citizens’ budget meetings are conducted.
President Gene Danese concluded, "It will give people satisfaction" in participating in the process.

Aidala said the board’s input will be taken into account as the recommendations are revised. He said he understood from the board that presentations should be limited to an hour.
"We’d like to have something in place before we start the process in February," he said.

Public input

The first opportunity that citizens have to participate in budget-building comes next month.

On Oct. 11 at 7 p.m. in the high school’s large-group instruction room, district residents are invited to share their views on the budget with the school board.

The autumn public session was initiated in 1998, and was strenuously debated by the board at the time. The long-time board members had argued then that the community already had avenues for input — through school cabinets, board meetings, and communicating with board members — and that administrators were best aware of school needs.

The newer board members — including Bakst, Danese, and Fraterrigo — argued in 1997 that early public input was important.
"The piece that’s missing is that priority-setting should be linked to the budget process," said Bakst at the time.
Danese agreed and Fraterrigo said, "It would be useful early on in the process to get some publicity, some hype, on a brainstorming session...Invite groups to come and share their input....We should work towards the community feeling some ownership."

Tuesday, the board discussed the turnout of 30 citizens at last year’s fall session. The participants have typically been seated in a circle with school board members for the session.

Assistant Superintendent for Business Neil Sanders said the large number made such an arrangement awkward for televising and suggested participants register in advance so accommodations can be made.
Although Dornbush said the idea was a good one, he stated, "We don’t want the public to perceive any additional barriers."

In the beginning, it was thought of as an informal discussion, said Bakst, but it really isn’t. She said the room could be set up as it is for school-board meetings, where a gallery faces the board members, who are seated behind tables in front. Those addressing the board, one by one, step up to a microphone to speak.
"We’ll start advertising," said Aidala, "and ask people to let us know if they plan to come, and adjust accordingly."