BOE Election Results

Roland said:
Ego gratification?

Ego gratification through service on the BOE? Well, maybe. It would go hand-in-hand with S&M.

I would not know Latz if I bumped into him, but I do know political operatives, and they are varying measures of altruism and ego. It's not either/or.

Have heard him speak at many BOE meetings. Really wish he would give it a rest. For me, the candidates he has supported are ones I don't agree with on issues including deleveling (as opposed to retaining levels with increased access to them), IB, raising taxes, and Gifted and Talented education - for which our district has received a well-earned "F" from the State on the QSAC report. If you want to bump into him, just go 100 feet outside a voting booth on election day where he can be found handing out flyers for his candidates. It's legal but annoying IMO.

And there was this...from further up in this thread.

cramer said:

mod said:

Elle_Cee said:
What is the "Latz machine"?

Steve Latz has run BOE campaigns since for at least a decade- even longer perhaps

Since he left the BOE, which had a history of proposing special questions to exceed the 3% budget cap, which were mostly approved by the Board of School Estimate. SOMA was one of only a handful of districts in the state which approved special questions, resulting in tax increases of 5-6% a year. The game was to threaten to cut a favorite program, and put it in a special question. This then was added to number on which the following year's 3% cap was based, and the same game was played again.
It got so bad that one year, the SO members of the BOSE told the BOE that they would approve whatever special questions the BOE proposed. The BOE then proceeded to propose three special questions, which were approved by the BOSE. Even Brian O'Leary, who was a BOE member at the time, said that it was ridiculous, and not the way that a school budget should be done. The BOE was proposing special questions without looking at the underlying budget to determine where cuts could be made. He voted against the special questions.

"special questions" should have been "separate questions.'

He was one of the prime movers, although certainly other BOE members had to agree. It was a very bad time for SO taxpayers, since Calabrese, who never saw a tax increase he didn't like, was also on the BOSE. SO taxpayers saw their total taxes increase by 7-8% in some years. Many times I've thought that new budget caps (which by the way, provided that anything that had been approved in a separate question previously could not be the subject of a separate question) were aimed directly at SO and the SOMA BOE.

Local government in our two towns is very accessible. But it is a lot of work to be involved in an effective sort of way. You have to educate yourself on policy matters. You have to attend BOE or town council meetings that can be boring and can go on for ages. But you can be contribute and influence things.

My memory is hazy - I left the BOE more than a decade ago - but I don't remember describing any actions of the Board of School Estimate as 'ridiculous'. I did differ with the BSE on some issues, but as a matter of style, I don't think I used the word 'ridiculous' in public very often. In conversations, I've said that I think the presence of a BSE in the late 1990s and early 2000s gave the BOE a chance to make an argument for greater spending that in the mid-term benefited the community. A public vote on some special questions likely would have failed, in my view to the detriment of the two towns.

I served with Steve Latz for eight years, and we had our differences. In hindsight, I think the things we argued about were matters of style much more than substance, and I wish I'd spent more time working with him. His continued involvement is a source of strength for the district. He follows developments at the state level that are entirely relevant to our district, and he helps candidates understand the issues they are campaigning to take on.

There's a hankering at all levels of government to hear certainty ("The annual increase in tax impact for education won't be more than n% on our watch", and its companions). The structure of health care and pension expenses (largely controlled by the state) and negotiated pay scales that increase with each year of service man one thing: a commitment to limit tax impact to an appealingly low number is a proxy for "cut spending in the classroom."

There are a limited number of structural changes that could generate one-time savings, but the increases in health care, pension and staff costs come back every year. If we really want to better manage tax impact, the community needs to increase ratables, ideally with an emphasis on commercial ratables. People aren't being priced out of the community because our schools spend too much - it's easy to see that communities all around us spend more per student than we do. They are being priced out because we are overly dependent on a residential property tax to pay for government services.

The next time a municipal official tells you the value of tax abatements and payments in lieu of taxes, ask them how much of that money goes to fund public education in our two towns. The answer will be 'none'. If the next thing they say is, "This project isn't sending any kids to our schools", send them my way. My house isn't sending kids to our schools any more, but I still pay school taxes, and happily.

Also, on the matter of tax increases in the late 1990s and early 2000s, if you want one person to blame, pick me, not Steve Latz. I chaired finance from 1997 through 1999, and I chaired the board from 1999 through 2001. As finance chair, I laid out a case for investing in our schools, which at the time spent $1,500 a student less than Millburn and $2,500 a student less than Livingston. That translated into a spending shortfall of $9 million to $15 million across a student body of about 6,000.

I think it's fair to criticize how effective we were in delivering against that investment. There were successes, and there were more than enough shortfalls to make me wonder why I spent nine years of my life doing this work. But, I have no regrets about leading the charge to invest in our schools. I campaigned in 1996 to limit the budget, and the analysis I did while on the board convinced me I was wrong. Almost everyone who gets elected on a simple solution finds the job is more difficult and complex than the campaign.

Brian - You did not use the word "ridiculous" and I apologize for saying that you did. It was not intended to say you said something that you did not say, but as an overall portrayal of how bad the practice of using separate questions had become. I'm pretty sure that I was correct that you did not vote in favor of the three separate questions that year (although maybe you voted on the first) and said that it was not the proper way to do a budget - i.e., to just keep piling on separate questions without first going back to see if anything could be changed in the underlying budget so that the separate questions would not have to be proposed.

nan said:

dg64 said:

mammabear said:
People also remember bad experiences and don't usually appreciate nastiness.

I would agree with you on this. The nastiness I experienced from the Latz campaign machine after a loss is something that I will never forget.

Not sure where this comes from, but it did not come from Steve Latz. I have worked on a few campaigns with Steve Latz and he was adamant about running a civil campaign, based on the issues, without nasty attacks. He's kind of a Bernnie Sandars type, now that I think of it--although I don't know if he would like that comparison.

You will notice that I said Latz campaign and Steve Latz himself. I have met him just once. Ms. Higer, on the other hand, knows exactly what I am talking about.

Do you remember the nastiness that happened around Jeff Bennett's campaign? Are you saying that Steve Latz who ran Bennett's opponent's campaigns had nothing to do with it?

I wish our community would keep this in mind when they start to complain about our elected leaders.

brianoleary said:
Almost everyone who gets elected on a simple solution finds the job is more difficult and complex than the campaign.

ArchBroad said:
I wish our community would keep this in mind when they start to complain about our elected leaders.

brianoleary said:
Almost everyone who gets elected on a simple solution finds the job is more difficult and complex than the campaign.

Amen!

When it comes to $$$, the M/SO BOE is always caught between a rock and a hard place.

DaveSchmidt said:

amyhiger said:
"I would agree with you on this. The nastiness I experienced from the Latz campaign machine after a loss is something that I will never forget."
I don't know who you are dg64, but perhaps the anonymous posts are one reason MOL gets so nasty.

I know who dg64 is because one of us reached out to the other through this forum (I can't recall who went first), and I think we'd do Rick and Louie proud. Thanks, MOL.

Gee thanks, Dave!

onadare said:

mjh said:

cel said:
So they're handpicked by Steve Latz instead, tjohn? What's the diff?

You are free to find a candidate you like and then work your a$$ off to get that candidate elected.

Amen. A cadre of volunteers fall behind the candidate of their choosing and bust butt for what and who they believe in -- win or lose. Kudos to all of the volunteers for all of the campaigns who gave their all. Alleged "king making" or any candidacy would be a hollow venture without the many volunteers who supported all nine candidates in this race.

Pretty much.