Lew-Port Board disagreements with Lilly, Part II

by Terry Duffy
Lewiston Porter Sentinel, March 31, 2007

Hasn’t been easy lately for Ed Lilly.

It’s been a week and a half, but the fallout continues over issues among the Lewiston-Porter School Board – particularly Lilly, President Dave Schaubert and Vice President Lou Palmeri – from its March 20 session.

Last week’s Sentinel report focused primarily on the poll books controversy, public information issues, the Freedom of Information Law and the compromising of privacy, where following a fair amount of obvious dissension heard in remarks among the three, the board opted to throw out the Lilly proposal altogether.

But the acrimony amongst Lilly and board members didn’t end there. Quite far from it. Seems that just about any proposal presented by Lilly for discussion that evening ended up turning into an entanglement of divergent views, with very little if any forward action the result. Take Lilly’s Drug and Alcohol-free campus initiative as an example.

Spurred by the recent arrest of a Lew-Port Intermediate Education Center teacher by Lewiston Police for cocaine possession, following the disturbing revelation by two fourth grade girls of in-classroom ingesting of the drug by the 59-year-old substitute teacher, who had earlier served as a full-time instructor for the district, Lilly revisited the issue with his Drug and Alcohol Free campus initiative. “This starts at the top,” said Lilly as he recalled an earlier controversy of alleged drug use of a former school board member, and the current drug testing policy by Lewiston-Porter United Teachers, which came under new criticism and scrutiny by the incident in the fourth grade classroom.

“Drug and alcohol use is illegal on campus,” Lilly argued as he offered his motion. Particulars of the measure included: calls for random drug and alcohol testing by all board members once a year; a similar one for all district administrators; another for periodic random drug and alcohol testing for teachers; a requirement mandating drug and alcohol testing of all new teachers; and a new directive calling for immediate action by district administrators following a revelation of on-campus drug activity.

The last item came off of concerns echoed by Lilly and others in the community over the length of time it took from the report by the two fourth grade girls of the in-classroom drug ingesting to district response, to the time of an actual arrest by the Lewiston Police of the woman – which took place many hours later after the incident occurred.

Not Practical

Schaubert called Lilly’s plan “an interesting list of proposals,” but raised issue with its practicality as well as the board’s authority in imposing the directive. Specifically, pointing to a legal analysis offered by district counsel Karl Kristoff that stated the board has “no explicit power” for such actions, Schaubert argued the board has no authority to impose random testing or to expend funds for it, and said further that such a plan falls in conflict with state education directives. Schaubert suggested that Lilly should work with state legislators to effect such changes in the future.

Both Robert Laub and James Mezhir both argued the district has sufficient safeguards already in place “to detect problems in a timely fashion,” and said the district’s recent actions were handled in a timely, proactive manner.

Palmeri said he supports the random testing idea, as did all other attending board members (Lenny Palumbo was absent), but added that Lilly was going about it the wrong way. “Contracts (with the teachers union) need to be negotiated to carry this out,” said Palmeri. “That’s the proper way to do it, not in this form of a resolution.”

Lilly, sensing resentment, and raising issue with the Kristoff opinion, called the board’s reactions “an uphill battle” as he proposed an amended version to include “all employees” rather just teachers and administrators. It failed 2-4, with no votes by Schaubert, Palmeri, Laub and Mezhir, to yes votes by Lilly and Scott Stepien. Following that, a board vote on the whole proposal was presented and failed, by the same 2-4 vote.

Responding this past week, Lilly reflected, “It’s a sad day when two little girls show more common sense than the school board president, vice president and board majority.”

Spending Initiative Fails

Similar resentment toward Lilly was seen in another resolution – this one concerning the district’s capitol improvement spending initiative. Citing his concerns over the district’s use of New York Power Authority settlement monies, which are expected to begin flowing to the district this fall, as well as Greenway monies, to fund approved campus improvements, Lilly proposed the board not award capitol improvement contracts prior to Sept. 1, to correspond with the stipulations of the Greenway funding approved earlier in the session. Lilly said the stipulations do not fund projects approved prior to Aug. 31, pointing to Sect. 7.3 of the Greenway “Host Community Agreement” approved earlier. That specifies, “In no event, however, shall the Host Community Greenway Fund be utilized to meet the obligations, existing as of Aug. 31 … of any municipality, school district or state agency.”

Schaubert, was has participated in district negotiations on both the Power Authority funding as well as Greenway, said that Lilly’s concerns over funding were not valid as the Power Authority agreement, which includes low-cost power and host community funds for Lew-Port, contain no such stipulations. “This motion is a moot point, it serves no purpose,” said Schaubert. “It’s a waste of time.”

A vote was taken soon after on the Lilly measure. It failed by the same 2-4 vote, with Lilly and Stepien voting yes and all others voting no. Afterward he commented, “…For Schaubert and Palmeri to continue to ignore this important (Greenway) stipulation they will needlessly cost the taxpayer several million extra tax dollars.”

Yes, the acrimony lives on at Lew-Port.

In other news from the session:

•The Board variated from its earlier dissensions with Lilly and OK’d a modified cost control referendum, the only measure of his four offered that evening that met with their approval. Particulars call for a “special district meeting and an advisory referendum vote whenever a contract between the district and employee union results in an increase in funding in excess of $100,000 …”

“It’s very popular with the voters,” said Lilly, who has offered similar measures in the past.

“It helps voters feel secure, support the district … I’m all for it,” said Schaubert. He proposed slight changes to its wording, to reflect “an increase in $100,000 in district tax assessment” (based on the amount collected by district taxpayers). The Schaubert amended version passed 6-0.

•The Board, minus any additional comment over poll books, went on to approve elements of the annual school budget vote and board election. The annual budget hearing will take place on May 1 at 6:30 p.m. in the district’s Community Resource Center. The 2007-08 budget itself, details of which still need to be finalized by the board, will need to be adopted by the board by April 20, for presentation to voters.

The budget/board election itself will take place Tuesday, April 15, from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. at the Community Resource Center.

More on the Lew-Port board, and budget details, in future Sentinels.