Why Jim Tampellini Is Wrong

Say what you want about Board Trustee Jim Tampellini, at least he has the temerity to post his incorrect legal theories under his own name, and then stand by them, as he did when he was the sole person that voted against the proposed budget last night. Yeah, that budget that includes program restorations and expansions and, in some cases, lower class sizes while keeping the proposed tax levy increase under the tax cap.  But still, the man does not waver.

Last week, Mr. Tampellini wrote a blog post contending that the School District was “fleecing” the citizens of Commack.  In fact, he even said it could be a civil RICO violation (that’s the group of laws that they use to catch mobsters)! And he cited legal authority!  The only problem is, not only does his legal authority fail to support his fearmongering accusations, it actually shows that what the School District does is completely legal.  Oops.  

I meant to write this earlier, but unfortunately a bad case of strep throat laid me up (thankfully my kids -- knock wood -- didn’t get it).  It also caused me to miss Board Trustee’s Deborah Guber’s wonderful statement (go to 4:35 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUedmSdBgIA) at the April 3 Budget Workshop (kudos to Mrs. Guber for standing up for herself).  But in any event, I’ll try to keep this light on the legal jargon.  

First, Mr. Tampellini claims that “NY Real Property Tax Law § 1318 limits the amount of unexpended (i.e., surplus) funds that school districts can legally retain for unexpected contingent expenses (i.e. unplanned costs) to 4% of the next year’s budget appropriations.”  Let’s look at the actual language of that section.  You can read it here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07HX4QrOPpSSnhKZDFabHhWUDhVLVdmTG9NQ0pWNkxka1ZJ/edit?usp=sharing

Basically, what that first numbered paragraph requires is that, at the end of the school year, “the amount of unexpended surplus funds” have to be “applied in determining the amount of the school tax levy.”  So what that means is, at the end of the school year, if the District has surplus funds, it has to apply them against the next year’s tax levy. Which is exactly what the District is doing (this is literally discussed at every School Board meeting).  Yet, Mr. Tampellini says later on in his post: “While the surpluses, for the most part, were applied to reduce the subsequent years tax levy, the end resulting harm is nevertheless the same."  No its not, its exactly what section 1318 requires.  

But let’s move on.  Mr. Tampellini also cites a real opinion from the New York State Commissioner of Education.  Ok, great, but all he gives us is a citation that took a little digging to find the actual case.  I found it though, and you can read Appeal of Clark here:  http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume37/d13885.htm  

In that case, Mr. Clark was complaining that the Eldred Central School District was retaining excess funds from the 1995-96 school year “which he asserts should have been used to reduce the district’s tax levy for the 1996-97 school year.”  Indeed, the Eldred Central School District’s own tax warrant stated that almost all of its surplus “was withheld -- that is, not applied to reduce the 1996-97 tax levy.”  The Commissioner clearly stated that under “RPTL § 1381, at the conclusion of each fiscal year, a board of education must apply any unexpended surplus funds to reduce its tax levy for the upcoming school year.”  Which is, again, what the Commack School District is doing.  

And then Mr. Tampellini points to the Central Islip School District, which built up $25 million in reserves (only $5.3 million of which was actually used to fund district operations) while increasing taxes 9% (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3cbjRc1NY_pS05NWUpjeVFvQW8/edit -- look at page 3).  I think we can all agree that this a clear apples to oranges comparison.

Now Mr. Tampellini is an attorney.  I’m confident that he can read the text of RPTL § 1318 and Appeal of Clark and understand that both support what the Commack School District is doing, applying surplus funds to reduce the next year’s tax levy.  Its really clear, so it leaves me to question what the motivation is behind the misrepresentations.  Think about the fact that he has levelled some pretty serious accusations and the two best items of support for his argument that he could come up with when he finally got around to writing a blog post, both completely undermine his point and support the School District’s position.  

Of course anyone is welcome to disagree.  Our country’s entire democratic process is founded on intelligent and respectful debate.  But it has to be intelligent and respectful.  Fearmongering and hurling unfounded accusations of serious crimes like fraud is simply out of bounds.  I would have more respect for someone who just came out and admitted that his kids were out of the District and he wanted his taxes to be as low as possible because he didn’t care about the education quality for someone else’s kids. I would explain to that person that he was being shortsighted and undercutting the value Commack’s only real asset -- the thing that supports whatever home values we have left -- for smaller, short term savings.  But at least I could respect that person for being honest.

But that’s not what we’re dealing with unfortunately.  This is why on May 20, it will be so important that everyone come out and vote.  Yes, the budget will likely pass, but there are two Board of Education spots that are up for election as well, and we need to make sure that those are filled by people that actually care about the quality of our School District and the education that it provides to our children, not by people that want to misrepresent the way that our District uses our tax dollars in attempt to save a few bucks a year on property taxes while compromising the quality of the District.

I think this issue is pretty much settled at this point, so I’ll be moving on going forward.  As always, I will not be responding the anonymous, and often threatening, comments.