Denise Price

Miss Price has  supported every tax increase that has been put in front of the board. In 2003 she has already voted for two tax increases before the end of May.

THE TAX INCREASE TO PAY FOR OUT-OF DISTRICT STUDENTS.

It costs about $10,000 per year to educate an out-of district student in our school district. Our district gets about $7,000 per student in state aid. The difference of $3,000 is what you and the other local taxpayers have to cough up. Board member Rainer Langstedt made a proposal to charge $1600 tuition for every out of district student. That was an extremely modest proposal, because Ithaca charges over $7,000 per student. The proposal died, because Miss Price and the other board members failed to support it. That failure of support added about 1.5% local school taxes on your tax bill.

THE 20% SCHOOL TAX INCREASE

    School districts, where board members had the best interest of the district in mind, had very reasonable tax increases in the school year 2002-03. Our neighbor Horseheads voted on an increase of 3%.  In our district we were burdened with a tax increase of  $20%.  The inflation was 1.6% and outside the school district many people had to get by without an increase in pay. Not so here. The board approved pay increases up to five times the inflation rate.

     The voters recognized the waste and mismanagement and voted the budget down in flames. Did the Miss Price recognize that the majority of the voters had caught her in the act?  No, she gave the voters a figurative slap in the face and voted to jerk up the taxes with 20% anyway without paying any attention to the results of the vote. Then she took a trip on taxpayers' expense to a resort hotel.

The 2003-2004 tax increase  would have been less, had Miss Price not insisted on higher spending. Her tax increase  had the support of the whole rubber stamp wing of the board.

Miss Price represented the school district in labor negotiations with the teacher's union in the spring of 2003.  She had been supported by the teachers for election.  She   then voted  on Nov.  26, 2002 against a motion to end the possibilities of payback and personal gain for negotiaitiors.  The motion read:

"Persons who represent the school district in labor negotiations may not: Personally receive any financial gain, nor have a close family member who would gain from the negotiations. Have ever received any financial support during their campaign for election to the School Board, from the negotiating union. Have ever received from the negotiating, any campaign assistance in the way of campaign signs, letters or articles in newspapers, or handouts to the children, parents, or voters. "

The motion failed as Mrs. Mistler, Miss Price, Mrs. Riker, Mr. Loomis, Mr. Stangle and Mr. Vanderburgh voted against it. Apparently these people see nothing wrong in taking campaign contributions from the union and then represent the district in labor negotiations.

Above reform was also rejected by Miss Price on May 12,  2003 As a member of the policy committee Miss Price togethether with  Mrs. Riker  were   opposed to installing a school policy to prevent paybacks.