School Board Election 'Guide' is Flawed [Letter]

To the editor:

I could not disagree more with the foundation of Arthur Joel Katz's opinion piece  It was not a guide to the upcoming school board elections, but merely a flawed endorsement of a slate of candidates. The article should be more clearly labeled as an editorial.

Joel starts his opinion piece on the belief that the large candidate pool is solely an indication that many do not know what they are getting themselves into. He believes that only "magic" can provide the patience and knowledge to make the tough decisions of balancing budgets against the quality of education. I do not have the same glass half empty mentality. After reading 10 of the candidates' questionnaires on the Patch, I can’t help but feel relieved that we have at least 10 individuals that truly care about the future direction of the school district. The differences in opinion of the candidates offer parents (and taxpayers) a choice. This is much better than a sham election of the only four candidates that chose to file papers to run. 

I agree with Joel’s general assessment that a good board member must be passionate about the quality of education. They should understand the politics and management issues of handling a large unionized workforce and multimillion dollar budget. And last but not least, a board member must be thick-skinned, and able to take criticisms for making the tough decisions. 

While I may disagree with some of the endorsements made, Joel is entitled to his own opinion. What I find appalling is the tarring of Ralph Puerta’s, and to a lesser extent Edward Inghrim’s name. I am not going to try to trivialize a DUI charge that happened over six years ago. Driving under the influence is a serious offense that kills and maims thousands of lives a year. It was very fortunate that no one was injured as a result of the accident. With that being said, is there no possible road to redemption for Edward Inghrim? He accepted guilt and was entered into a first time offenders program, as many other individuals who make the same mistake do. His name was tarnished as a result. The easiest thing for him to do would have been to step down and live a private life. But he has instead remained an active member of the board and has stayed out of trouble since. While you may disagree with his policies, it is wrong to dwell on a troubling time of his life that I am sure we would like to take back. Make no mistake, I am not a strong supporter. He may or may not get my vote. I just find it troubling to try to use his DUI as a divisive wedge issue. 

The argument against Ralph Puerta is even more disconcerting and demonstrates a lack of journalistic integrity. Joel's sole criticism of Ralph is his friendship and pairing to Edward Inghrim. It was not bad enough that Ingrhrim drove under the influence six years ago, but he also has a friend that also serves on the school board and is running for reelection. Joel tries to subliminally tie Ralph to the same DUI by making a drinking reference of an experienced man “falling off the wagon.” If I knew Ralph or his family personally, I would be insulted by your comments. This upcoming election offers voters many choices. It’s important not to lose sight of what is at stake. The upcoming years offer many financial and educational decisions. The looming PSERS crisis and teacher contract dispute will give the future board plenty of challenges. I am one that believes that it is possible to limit tax increases while still offering a quality education. Throwing money at a situation does not fix all problems. I am relieved that the current board had realized that the dramatic tax hikes of the early and mid 2000s were unsustainable. We are about to go five years without an increase, and $2 million dollars has been set aside as a small token to relieve the pension woes. 

Despite the years without tax hikes, SVSD’s millage rate remains one of the highest in the valley. It would be foolish to say that taxes should never increase to meet rising education costs and eventually the board will be left with no other choice. However, the current board should be commended for making prudent financial decisions no matter how unpopular some may have been. I see no harm with the board investigating the costs of privatizing the busing service. While I believe the cons will likely outweigh potential savings, it will at least keep the unionized drivers honest in future contract negotiations. I’ve organized transportation with a private bus fleet in the valley and found the management and drivers to be just and friendly as our local drivers. Selling off the fleet without any option to return is one cliff I’d like to avoid. 

The other large looming labor negotiation is with the teachers union. While many residents were being served layoff notices at the height of the great recession, our teachers walked out of the classroom. They struck three times over a four-year period, even with guaranteed annual raises of 3.5 to 3.8 percent. While all other school officials agreed to a pay freeze to help get the district through a budget crunch, the teachers refused. (And are stuck with one anyway without a contract.) I would like to hear if anyone out there in the private sector has had the luxury of a guaranteed 3.5 percent raise over the past couple of tough years. 

Yes, it is important to be able to pay our teachers a fair wage. They are responsible for providing a valuable education to all of our children. But SVSD remains one of the best-paying districts in the valley. If a teacher will walk out over a single annual pay freeze during tough economic times, let them go to another district. They likely did not have the passion for our community and students anyways. They can try things out at another local district with students that suffer from large socioeconomic disadvantages, absentee parents, language barriers and high truancy rates. 

As that last of my arguments, I would urge caution against electing a spouse of a current teacher to the board. With potentially tough contract negotiations in front of us, it would be best to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Recusing oneself would only remove the individual from one of the largest responsibilities of the new board. You can’t be an effective board member if you’re sitting on the sidelines for half of the game. Jeanne Reilly’s husband Jason Stern made $77,047 in 2011-2012, an $8,000 or 11 percent raise from two years prior (Source: http://www.openpagov.org/k12_payroll.asp).

No matter who you choose to vote for, enjoy the fact that you have a choice on the future of the board. Despite what Joel may believe, it is a good thing to have a field of 11 unique candidates. Take the time to review the questionnaires and responses. It doesn't hurt to get to know the candidates.

Bert Macklin

Hellertown