Public Forum: Jan. 25

Public Forum:

As your School Board member, when the state legislators failed to keep its obligation to Greenfield and cut our school aid by $1.8 million, I agonized about the effect on Greenfield taxpayers and our children.

We had somehow survived 15 years of revenue limits that resulted in millions of dollars of devastating cuts to programming and staff, but, by thinking "outside the box," we were still able to improve curriculum, institute innovative staff training opportunities, and upgrade the facilities.

We kept costs down by cutting staff, negotiating teacher salaries that were well below the regional average, increasing the employees' portion of the health insurance liability, hiring a superintendent at a rock-bottom salary (saving taxpayers nearly $35,000 a year), and consolidating administrative positions.

How could we solve this $1.8 million state shortfall without dismantling the Greenfield Public Schools as we know them? Should we have dipped into the fund balance for a short-term fix? Financial experts advised that it would be a fiscal nightmare, causing a negative domino effect on future budgets and double-digit tax increases in future years.

When I voted for the 2009-2010 tax levy, I voted "no" to closing Glenwood School, "no" to cutting all extra-curricular activities, "no" to cutting advanced placement classes, "no" to laying off more teachers and raising class sizes, "no" to ending the Junior ROTC program, "no" to cutting music and arts programs, and "no" to further limiting the educational opportunities for Greenfield children.

In addition to being a board member seeking re-election, I am a taxpaying homeowner, living on a fixed income. I am not immune from paying taxes. I realize that good schools equal high property values. School taxes are an investment in the future of our children. When times are tough, there is no better investment in Greenfield than educating our children.

Cathy Walsh

Greenfield