Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 09 December 2015

Created: 09 December 2015

Last Updated: 09 December 2015

Hits: 6526

Though a passionate group of Heathcote residents cheered when the Village Trustees announced their decision to file an objection to an application to open a facility for teens with eating disorders on Morris Lane on November 24, not everyone agrees. Several residents came to the December 8 meeting to speak out, and called the Trustees decision shocking, intolerant and lacking in compassion. Here are excerpts from their comments:

Speaking against the decision was Jeff Blatt who said, "I realize you are volunteers but you are elected to use your judgment. ... I am shocked that not one Trustee voted to oppose the resolution you passed.... We have many children with eating disorders in this town and I wonder if one of you had a child with an eating disorder if you would feel differently." He continued, "I trust that the facility will sail through, that it will be in Scarsdale and I'll be proud to have it here."

Josh Frankel of Black Birch Lane was also unhappy with the decision. He said, "I feel the need to distance myself from the disturbing commentary and vote that took place here on November 24. ... No one in my family has suffered from an eating disorder and I don't live in proximity to the proposed facility. Consequently some would say I don't have skin in the game. The conversation was the antithesis of every value, principal, tenet with which I was raised and I am trying to raise my own children.... The question was not about a nuclear reactor ..... We are the exact type of community that produces these young ladies in disproportionate numbers.... We cannot object on grounds of traffic, crime, garbage, property values or lack of safety for those who would reside there. These have been resoundingly defeated in the past 40 years." He then recounted a similar incident in Kings Point in 1979 where the Padavan Law was found to be constitutional and in less than a year neighbors came to accept the group home as part of the community. He said, "Concerns evaporated and they were seen as good neighbors."

He concluded by saying, "There will be no adverse impact on property values.... I learned something about my neighbors that I would have preferred not to know.
In the years to come we will look back on this as Scarsdale's sorriest hour."

Dr. Andrea Grant said she grew up in Scarsdale and was raised on the values of this community. She returned here to raise her own children. Grant holds a doctorate in child and adolescent psychology and recently co-authored a chapter in the handbook of eating disorders. She said she read all the letters, petitions, statements and testimony from attorneys on the about the application for the homes on Morris Lane, looking for a valid reason to oppose the facility. She said, "I looked for something grounded in actual truth," ... and found a "total absence of evidence." She concluded, "The only reason left for continued opposition is prejudice. It causes us psychological discomfort." She concluded by saying, "This is a jarring, contrast to values of inclusion and kindness that I learned growing up in this community."

Dr. Jonathan Bradlow, a 13-year resident of Scarsdale said he moved here to raise his children and found a generally tolerant attitude. He called the decision by the trustees "selfish," and said it did not reflect his values as a constituent. He said Scarsdale is a "community that breeds this condition," and said since the Padavan Law has never been successfully breached, the objection is a "waste of time, taxpayer money and a vote of support for the stigmatization of mental illness." He continued, "Our emergency services can handle anything that 6-8 teenage girls can throw at us. This adds wind to the sails of intolerance. I ask you to withdraw the objection."

Responding to their comments, Trustee Carl Finger said, "You made cogent comments ... When issues arise in the future, we will think about your remarks going forward. We heard what you said, we take it seriously and we take our responsibility very seriously."

Roads:

Also at the meeting, Jeff Blatt spoke about the state of the roads. He distributed a letter he wrote in the Scarsdale Inquirer in 2010 concerning the state of the roads and said, "Nothing has changed in five years. The maintenance budget is entirely insufficient. Global warming, SUV's and Amazon deliveries on Sunday have made formulas on how long roads will last meaningless. The roads are dangerous, embarrassing. I have to teach two high school juniors to drive and to swerve to avoid the potholes. Quoting Trustee Stern. He said, "The problem is now so far gone that we need to float a bond on redo the roads. There is a major problem beyond the ability of any annual budget. ... This is a wealthy town. I will accept higher taxation for better roads. The rodas have reached a shameful condition. Do the right thing, redo the roads and budget an appropriate amount to maintain them each year."

Gifts:

The trustees passed a resolution to transfer $50,000 from the Children's Room endowment to the Library Capital Campaign account by December 31, 2015 and agreed to a future transfer of $45,0000 in January 2016. The terms of the endowment allow up to 10% of the principal to be used annually to enhance resources and services to the children. The funds will be used for the building renovation.

The trustees accepted a gift of $500,000 from the Friends of the Scarsdale Library for the addition to and renovation of the library.

The trustees accepted two gifts of $5,000 each from the Fenway Charitable Fund Committee to the Scarsdale Police Department and the Scarsdale Fire Department for the purchase of equipment. This fund is from Fenway Golf Club.

STAR Exemption:

In the Town of Scarsdale portion of the meeting, Village Treasurer Mary Lou McClure noted a clerical error in the calculation of the STAR exemption for 2015-16. The error caused the under-billing of 2,392 parcels for a total amount of $71,000 or $29.00 each. The error will be corrected on the 2016-17 school tax bill.

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 02 December 2015

Created: 02 December 2015

Last Updated: 03 December 2015

Hits: 6885

A limited amount of information on the proceedings of the Greenacres Building Committee is now available online on the Scarsdale Schools website. The committee of district representatives is charged with evaluating the facts about the current school, weighing the options and making a recommendation on updating the current Greenacres School or building a new on across the street. The issue grew very contentious last spring, when a group of Greenacres residents who are concerned about the loss of open space at the Greenacres field organized, gathered signatures for a petition to save the field and asked residents to post lawn signs on their properties. They also pressed the Greenacres Neighborhood Association to advocate on their behalf by assigning representatives to the building committee who opposed building a new school on the field. The neighborhood association did not take a position and assigned representatives who were charged with listening to the proceedings and forming their own views on what would be best.

After much discussion about the composition of the committee, the group met once in October and twice in November in closed meetings to review options for Greenacres and work toward making a recommendation for the future of the school, which celebrates its centennial this year.

Here is a list of those who are serving on the committee:

Board of Education members: Scott Silberfein, Lee Maude
Administrators: Stuart Mattey, John Trenholm
Consultants: Architects Russ Davidson and Erik Wilson, Village Planner Liz Marrinan
Greenacres Faculty Members: Principal Sharon Hill, Teachers Karen Guardino, , Shoshana Cooper, Joan Farella, Paul Berger, Learning Specialist Joan Iorio and Librarian Carole Phillips.
Greenacres Neighborhood Association Representatives: Bob Steves, Lynne Clark
PTA Representatives: Paul Hong, Xue Su, Jon Singer, Christa Mruz
Member at Large: Amy Nadasdi

Meetings on the subject last year resulted in three options that the group is now considering, along with another described below. According to the posted meeting notes, here is what was discussed:

Option A involves renovating the interior space in the existing school. The current classrooms are small, do not meet state requirement and are not adaptable for flexible learning. Changes would be made to enlarge classrooms to meet state standards. This would result in fewer classrooms and a need to reduce the population of the school through redistricting. Davidson reports that the school has been well maintained which extended the useful life of the building. According to engineers, the high water table underneath the school generates humidity. If the existing building were to be renovated, it would be necessary to drill monitor wells in the foundation. Greenacres has greater moisture issues than any other building in the district. The original cost estimate for this option is $35.9 million. (see the chart below for details)

Option B calls for a 21,000 square foot expansion of the school along Putnam Road. This would add classroom space but also eliminate the parking lot on Huntington Avenue. Variances from the state would be needed to expand the school on its existing footprint. The cost estimate for option B is $51.3 million which includes $400,000 for temporary facilities.

Option C is for a new two-story school across the street from the existing site. According to new information from architect Russ Davidson, the new two-story school would be designed on a slab which would mean that it would be lower than the sightlines of most of the surrounding homes. Responding to concerns about the loss of open space, at the November 5 meeting Davidson said, "that Option C – the new school – will include a full size soccer field behind the new building and a playing field and parking lot in place of the old school. Total open space would be reduced but there would be additional parking.

At the November 5 meeting, Assistant Superintendent Stuart Mattey presented information about the proposed gym in Option C. The architects had proposed a large gym for the new school to meet the needs of the district as a whole where there is not enough gym space. However Mattey said that the size of the gym could be reduced, which should save about $2.5 million off the cost of the original Option C. The estimate for a new school was originally $52.5 million, and with this $2.5 million reduction it brings the cost for a new school slightly below the cost of renovating the existing one.

Also at the November 5 meeting, teachers expressed concerns about crossing the street to take the children outside to play. Since Huntington Avenue now separates the school from the playground and fields, kids need to be escorted across the street - and if they have to go to the bathroom- they have to be supervised to return to the school, resulting in staffing problems. Architects said that this safety issue would be addressed in option C where the fields and playground are directly outside the school.

The minutes from the November 5th meeting say that the architects have provided another option, B1, which is for a 2-story addition to the existing building in front of the present gym along Huntington Avenue. It would add six state of the art classrooms which could be built while classes goes on in the existing rooms. When the new classrooms are complete, students could move into them while the existing classes are reconfigured and brought up to standards. This would not eliminate the parking area – as done in the original Option B extension along Putnam Road. The cost would be $5 million less than the original Option B, or about $46 million, but the district would again need a variance from the state.

In preparation for the November 17 meeting, Mattey and Davidson asked the group to evaluate these options in light of the following list of criteria:

• Construction cost
• Building condition evaluation
• Educational adequacy
• Operational issues (i.e. lifecycle costs)
• Future expansion capabilities
• Aesthetic considerations
• Historical and community significance
• Safety and security
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Disruption
• Fields
• Parking
• Viability for successful vote

The group met again on November 17 and those meeting notes will be posted after they are approved by the committee at their next meeting. What's your view on the proceedings and the new option? Comment below.

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 30 November 2015

Created: 30 November 2015

Last Updated: 30 November 2015

Hits: 6304

This letter was sent to Scarsdale10583 by Julie Zhu of Harcourt Road:
In the newly published November 2015 World Language Report, the Administration cited the following increasingly high dropout rate of Mandarin students in the High School:
The historical enrollment of first­ year Mandarin students is as follows:

• 2011-­2012: 50 students (open to all students in grades 9-­12) [2%*, 14%**]
• 2012-­2013: 18 students [6%*, 11%**]
• 2013­-2014: 16 students [6%*, 18%**]
• 2014-­2015: 27 students [0%*, 37%**]
• 2015-­2016: [pending]

* Drop rate during the course.
** Discontinue rate at the end of the year (does not include graduates)

In the absence of context, this information suggests a lack of student interest and/or commitment at the High School and, by extension, yet another reason not to start Mandarin at the Middle School. On the contrary, this is strong evidence that Mandarin instruction needs to start earlier than High School.

What the dropout data alone fails to tell us is that since the Mandarin program began over four years ago in September 2011, High School students have only been encouraged to take Mandarin as an extra course on top of their already full course load. Middle School counselors and High School deans routinely emphasize to parents and students that colleges prefer students to take as many years of language instruction as possible, which means continuing the same language that the student began in Middle School. In addition, students who have taken either French or Spanish in 7th and 8th grade already have earned 1 year of High School course credit that few would want to give up. As a result, High school students are essentially being encouraged to add Mandarin only as a second or even third World Language. It is therefore no surprise to see Mandarin being dropped as students become overwhelmed by their extra course load and concerned about their GPA.

The appropriate question we should be asking is not how committed our students are but how committed our District is to Mandarin. To answer this question, one could begin by going back to the District's "2008 World Language Committee Report." According to the 2008 Report, the Committee did initially recommend starting Mandarin instruction in 6th grade. Even though Mandarin eventually started only at the High School in 2011, it was, however, done with a clear intent that roll out to the Middle School would be the second of a two-phrase implementation.

We are now standing at a critical juncture. The Board and the Administration have a choice to make: Cut what some might perceive as 'losses' by eliminating the 4-year-old High School Mandarin program, or properly nurture the growth of the now stunted program by offering Mandarin starting from the Middle School. Keeping the status quo of Middle School "World" -- that is, European -- language offerings (Spanish or French) is neither being fiscally responsible to the tax payers nor serving and preparing our students well for the converging and interdependent world we live in.

It is time to honor part two of our District's 2008 commitment to a full Mandarin program, including instruction in the Middle School.

Julie Zhu
Harcourt Road

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 24 November 2015

Created: 24 November 2015

Last Updated: 24 November 2015

Hits: 5437

This article was submitted for publication by Mary Beth Evans, Joan Taback Frankle, Joan Mazur and Deb Morel of the League of Women Voters of Scarsdale:

Why have New York campaign finance laws been called "some of the most porous" in the nation (New York Times, Nov. 4, 2014)?

In large part due to New York's infamous "LLC loophole," said Brent Ferguson, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, a not-for-profit, non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on issues of democracy and justice.

Ferguson was the guest speaker at the League of Women Voters of the Rivertowns "Money in Politics" breakfast event held November 12th at Tarrytown's El Dorado Diner; and, while the audience ate scrambled eggs and toast that morning, he deftly unscrambled one of the more confounding quirks of New York campaign finance law.

State campaign finance law was already on the books when limited liability companies (LLCs) were first allowed to exist in New York in 1994, explained Ferguson. An LLC is hybrid business entity with the liability protection of a corporation and the "pass-through" income taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship, which allows individual owners to avoid paying double income taxes. In 1996, the state Board of Elections (BOE) ruled that LLCs are the same as individuals for purposes of campaign finance laws.

Ever since, LLCs have become major players in New York state elections. As individuals they are allowed to contribute to statewide candidates in an amount greater than ten times that of corporations, which are limited by law to $5,000 per candidate per calendar year. In the current campaign cycle of primary and general elections, each LLC is now able to contribute to up to $65,000 per statewide candidate. Moreover, noted Ferguson, there is nothing to stop someone "controlling, say, ten LLCs from writing ten checks totaling $650,000 to the same candidate."

Contrary to federal and New York City regulators, who have either banned LLC contributions or now factor them in with individual donation limits, the bipartisan, 4-member (2 Democrat, 2 Republican) New York State BOE has not rescinded its 1996 decision. According to Ferguson, this past April the BOE had a chance to close the "LLC Loophole" by treating LLCs as corporations or partnerships but remained deadlocked 2-2, with the 2 Republicans opposing the change.

LLC Litigation

In July the Brennan Center for Justice and the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP filed suit against the BOE on behalf of several former and current State legislators from both political parties. According to the suit, "An LLC is a classic 'legal fiction'" with "virtually none of the characteristics of individual people acting in the political arena."

The suit argues that the "LLC Loophole" violates "the purpose and spirit" of New York's Election Law, which is "to prevent the reality and appearance of quid pro quo corruption." Among the list of evidence that the "LLC Loophole" is "consistently abused" and helps "to facilitate the larger pay-to-play culture" in Albany, the petition cites the following:

• LLCs contributed more than $54.2 million to candidates, parties, and traditional political action committees between 2011 and 2014;

• In 2014 alone, LLCs gave over $19 million, a greater than 300% increase over the amount given by LLCs in 2002;"

• One real estate developer reportedly used 27 LLCs to contribute over $4.3million in 2013 and 2014; and

• A single telecommunications provider reportedly used eight LLCs to give $1.5 million between 2005 and 2013, including $190,000 to one candidate in a single day.

The true source of many contributions via LLCs can be difficult to ascertain. As the Brennan Center notes in its petition, many LLCs have "vague names with little connection to their actual operators" and "a significant number of LLC contributions appear to originate from a small number of wealthy individuals who contribute through multiple LLCs," whose members are "not subject to meaningful disclosure in many instances."

Effect on Democracy

Ferguson stated that "LLC Loophole" provides perspective on what's happening throughout the country at the national level. He compared the use of money in New York elections to the 2016 presidential race, citing a recent report that only 158 of the nation's roughly 120 million families have contributed nearly half the funds raised so far by the 2016 presidential candidates (New York Times, October 11, 2015). Just as the "LLC Loophole" in New York is being used to evade disclosure and exceed campaign funding limits, recent Supreme Court rulings, including Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), have allowed outside groups to make unlimited contributions to national candidates via "SuperPacs" – much of it so-called "dark" money because the true source is not disclosed.

"Why is this a problem for our democracy?" Ferguson asked rhetorically.

Besides "turning the tide of elections by giving some candidates an unfair advantage," he stated that one of the biggest problems is "what happens after the election, with the wealthy few seeing their policy preferences enacted." According to Ferguson this problem also has to do with "the type of people getting elected." When the system "discourages people without connections to the wealthy, only a certain subset of people get elected, which means only a certain subset of policies get enacted."

Cause for Optimism

Ferguson said the press "does not pay enough attention" and faulted journalists for treating the flow of money in politics as "business as usual." He noted that cynicism is pervasive, citing national polling results indicating 80-90% of Americans want the system to change but "almost the same number think nothing can be done."

Nonetheless, Ferguson remains optimistic. He said there is cause for hope at the national level in "the groundswell of bipartisan support" for a Constitutional Amendment to address what the Brennan Center refers to as "the tidal wave of money threatening to swamp our political process."

The Brennan Center supports an amendment; however, Ferguson noted, even if an amendment were to pass, both state and federal lawmakers "still must pass laws to fill the void," and both the current Congress and the New York State Legislature "lack the political will" to make such changes. As Blair Horner, the legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group put it in a 2010 WNYC radio interview, "There's a lot of rhetoric for reform in Albany, but the reality is, political parties and many candidates are addicted to the mother lode of money that comes through the LLC."

Still, Ferguson asserted, "much can be done and historically has been done" to stop the unregulated flow of money in politics.

Promising Public Finance Programs

Ferguson pointed to New York City's successful public financing program, stating that the city's voluntary small-donor matching fund system has limited the size of campaign contributions and expenditures and improved disclosure. Moreover, it has allowed a "more diverse" array of candidates with a greater incentive to reach out to "a more diverse set of ordinary voters". Ferguson added that Brennan Center helped to write a bill last year that "almost passed" and would have enacted a public finance system statewide, which neighboring Connecticut already has in place.

Ferguson also touted Seattle's newly enacted alternative method of public financing in which city residents do not have to spend their own money. Instead, the city government will issue four $25 vouchers to each registered voter, who can then donate the funds to the candidates of their choice.

Finally, Ferguson expressed hope that the Brennan Center's LLC litigation will result in the closure of New York's "LLC Loophole," with "a new rule in place by the 2016 election."

Submitted by:
Mary Beth Evans: Money in Politics Chair
Joan Taback Frankle: Secretary
Joan Mazur: Money in Politics Committee member
Deb Morel: President of the League of Women Voters of Scarsdale.