It was never my intention to comment on the current board of education campaign but since Ms. Parrino has opened the door with her continual comments toward the current board (of which I am a member), I will step through it.
It is most unfortunate that Ms. Parrino’s campaign seems to target members of the board who no longer have children in the district.
Of the five of us, only one other board member and myself fit that bill.
Ms. Parrino has stated that it is a mistake to support a candidate who has no children in the district. It seems apparent that she is not aware that the majority of voters in our district are residents with no children in our schools.
I guess Ms. Parrino feels that those taxpayers are there only for one reason – to stay quiet and foot the bill.
To suggest that anyone who no longer has children in our schools should not be on the board is patently insulting. It would be just as ridiculous for me to suggest that Ms. Parrino should not be on the board making decisions for children in grades other than those that her are children are in.
We all bring different experiences to the table and to say that one is better than another is self-serving at best.
More alarmingly, Ms. Parrino also stated at Meet the Candidate Night that education is the top priority at any cost. Hmmmm…. it seems to me that the reconfiguration was able to balance both education and fiscal responsibility.
We preserved and enhanced program for children while acknowledging the ability of taxpayers to pay the tab in these tough economic times. While Ms. Parrino was an active obstructionist to reconfiguration and would have preferred that no consolidation take place, she now claims to support all of the wonderful programs that have been put forth for our children.
How do you suppose that happened Ms. Parrino?
No consolidation would have certainly meant increased class sizes and loss of program. I may not have any small children in the district anymore but I often say that I envy the parents of those who do.
I will continue, however, to be a taxpayer who understands the importance of a quality education for children, the value of home ownership and its relationship to successful schools, and an awareness of the tough financial times that many residents face. Each of those issues is important.
Residents who do not have children currently in our schools are no less worthy and are right to to be concerned with all of the above. It is disappointing that Ms. Parrino doesn’t feel that way.
The views above are my solely my own and do not represent those of any board, group or association.
Christine Napolitano
Williston Park
