WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. From Michele Schoenfeld, Clerk to the Board of Education. October 20, 2006: The City School District announced Friday morning that the number of yes votes, due to a clerical error has been reduced from 1,060 to 1,050. The Number of “No Votes” remains at 934. This will be officially reratified by the Board of Education October 23, 2006 at 7:30 P.M.
WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. October 19, 2006: This may surprise you, because it surprised me, and surprised every one I talked to about it.
School District elections in White Plains are not supervised, reported or certified by the Westchester County Board of Elections, according to Tajiane Jones, assistant to Reginald Lafayette the Westchester County Board of Elections Commissioner. The conduct of a school district election and the reporting of its results is solely the responsibility of the
This was a revelation to this reporter who had always thought that at every election in
Ms. Jones said that the
Michele Schoenfeld Explains the Process
Upon learning this from the Board of Elections, WPCNR asked Michele Schoenfeld, Clerk to the Board of Education how the
Schoenfeld said she supervises the election with the help of two assistants. She said the district hires Westchester County Board of Elections Inspectors, “most of whom,” she says, “are hired and trained by the Westchester County Board of Elections.”
She said they are given a list of rules and protocols to follow and there are three Inspectors, who read the results when the
Inspectors Trained by County
Schoenfeld said the inspectors are trained in operation and opening and counting the voting machines by the
She explained that each voting machine arrives with a running total on it from previous elections. When the polls close, the inspectors note the number of tallies of candidate votes or, in the case of the Tuesday election this week, proposition YES-NO votes, and subtract them from the new total, as a check of how many persons voted, and match that number with those voters signed in. Schoenfeld said they sign a sheet guaranteeing the results. Of course this would mean when there is more than one machine, inspectors add the totals from all three machines to get the number of voters.
No Machine-Created Paper Record.
Impound for 30 Days.
Schoenfeld reported that there is no paper record created by the voting machines on how many votes were recorded when they are use.
Schoenfeld said the election machines are locked up for 30 days, which, looking forward would mean that the approximately 10 voting machines could not be used by the city in their general election November 7. As readers of WPCNR will recall, one of the rationales given by the
In view of this information told WPCNR today, that the machines the district used Tuesday are locked away for 30 days, those machines will not be available for the November 7 general election. This would indicate that the machines could have been available for use by the school district on Election Day after all.
As far as inspecting records of any School District election, Schoenfeld said the poll lists and sign-in books from Tuesday are available for viewing at the
WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. From J. Burman, Public Affairs, NY State Education Depatment. October 18, 2006: On Wednesday, before the School District had made a statement on why the District Referendum passed with a simple majority, instead of a 60% plurality, WPCNR asked the State Education Department to clarify the 60% rule. A media spokesperson, provided the following background to WPCNR:
The following Q&As come from a book called “School Law,” which is published jointly by the NYS School Boards Association and the NYS Bar Association. It’s not an SED publication, but provides a good overview of the law.
Q: Must a school board adopt a resolution to authorize the issuance of bonds and notes?
A: Yes, according to section 31.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Q: Must the school district’s voters approve the issuance of bonds and capital notes?
A: Yes. With limited exceptions, before a school board can adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds or capital notes, voters must approve a tax to be collected in installments for the bonds that are to be issued (§ 37.00; see also Educ. Law § 416). Different restrictions can be found in sections 37.00 and 104.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Q: Does a school district need the consent of the Board of Regents or the state comptroller to issue bonds?
A: The consent of the Board of Regents to issue bonds is necessary when a district, other than a city school district, having an aggregate assessed valuation of real property of $100,000 or more (excluding the payment of judgments or settled or compromised claims), proposes to issue bonds or bond anticipation notes, which would cause the school district’s indebtedness, as determined pursuant to Local Finance Law section 137.00, to exceed 10 percent of the valuation of the real property subject to taxation by the school district. Moreover, under such circumstances, the tax voted to be collected in installments to satisfy the indebtedness, or the proposition for the approval of the bond resolution, must be approved by at least 60 percent of the qualified voters who vote at the election called for such purposes (§ 104.00(d)).
In school districts located wholly within the Adirondack Park that have within their boundaries state lands subject to taxation, the full valuation of which is more than 30 percent of the full valuation of real property subject to taxation by the school district, the consent of the state comptroller also is required (§ 104.00(d)(3)).
In city school districts, the consent of both the Board of Regents and the state comptroller is necessary before the district can contract indebtedness (including existing indebtedness) that exceeds 5 percent of the average valuation of real property in the school district. Under such circumstances, the tax voted to be collected in installments to satisfy the indebtedness, or the proposition for the approval of the bond resolution, must be approved by at least 60 percent of the qualified voters who vote at the election called for such purposes. The proposition presented to the voters must contain a statement indicating that the obligations to be issued may exceed the constitutional debt limit of the school district (§ 104.00(b)(8), (c); see also 19:76).
WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. October 18, 2006: The Board of Education received the final official referendum Special Election results this evening from Clerk to the Board, Michele Schoenfeld, and ratified the result unanimously. The final tally was 1,060 voting YES, and 934 voting No for the $69.6 Million Capital Project, a plurality of 53% for and 47% against.
A Full Board Ratifies the Special Election and $66.5 Million in new lending this evening. Photo, WPCNR News
The meeting signalled the return of School Board President, Michelle Trataros to her seat on the board. Ms. Trataros, (shown in orange sweater at head of table in above photo), is in the process of defending a charge against her for alleged endangerment of the welfare of a child (her daughter), and second-degree harassment. She has not sat on a public meeting of the Board since September. William Pollak has been Acting President for Ms. Tratoros since the week of September 1, so as not to distract the public from the referendum issue, Pollak said (at the time Ms. Tratoros stopped attending public meetings of the Board of Education).
Michele Schoenfeld, the clerk of the Board presented the following final official results:
#1-Fire Station # 5 62 YES 88 NO
#2-Church St. School 175 YES 163 NO
#3-Rochambeau School 116 YES 59 NO
#4-Middle School 293 YES 230 NO
#5-Mam’k Ave School 53 YES 47 NO
#6-Ridgeway School 361 YES 347 NO
TOTALS 1060 YES 934 NO
Yes: 53%
Schoenfeld said about twenty more absentee ballots were counted with approximately 15 being for the proposition, and 17 Affidavit Ballots from a senior citizens’ home were counted most of which were for the issue. She said officials from the Board of Elections recorded those ballots and oversaw the seniors’ signatures on the ballots.
The Absentee Ballots were delivered to the school district, unopened by the Board of Elections.
Tratoros Never Off.
Michelle Trataros returned to the Board, sitting at the head of the table. WPCNR asked Ms. Trataros if she was back on the Board to stay, and she said she had never left the Board.
In view of the Board of Education statement that Ms. Trataros had left the Board temporarily while she dealt with the court proceedings against her, WPCNR asked Ms. Trataros if her daughter had returned home, (currently reported living with relatives) and Ms. Trataros said that that was a personal question she declined to answer. Asked if the case had been settled, Ms. Trataros referred WPCNR to her attorney but declined to give WPCNR his telephone number.
WPCNR asked if Ms. Trataros felt, in view of her personal experience in her current court case, whether she felt she could maintain an objective view and make valid judgments on discipline issues coming before her on the Board of Education, and she declined to answer the question.