Would They Scapegoat Police or Firefighters, Too?

If 58% was a mandate, what do you call  77%? 

By now, you likely saw this Fisking and take-down of Lisa Thrun's dopey attempt to spin the school elections. She's trying to convince people it was a low turn-out, made up only of union hacks. She's wrong, of course, but people like her are all about the ideology, and never about the facts.

But chances are you totally missed her pathetic get out the vote effort.  (I base this primarily on the fact that no one was talking about it, no one saw it, and her little group has fewer than 30 Facebook likes, and very few updates).

They spent a few thousand dollars on slick ads, and some pancakes.

Let's take a look at the worst closing argument ever.

The choice has never been more clear.

Last year, the Clarence School board tried to kick the can down the road at the taxpayers by proposing a tax-cap-busting budget requiring a tax increase of nearly 10%.

Kick the can down the road at the taxpayers? That's a convoluted mixed metaphor. But yes, as was discussed at great length in 2013, that year the district found itself in a horrible budget jam due to a huge loss of state aid thanks to the gap elimination fiasco, as well as pension costs still being adversely affected by the stock market crash of 2008.

In order to maintain the same level of academic excellence that the district thought the community expected, a one-time hit above the tax cap was needed to bridge the gap. Unfortunately, it failed. Teachers were fired. The quality and quantity of programs, sports, electives, and music were harmed.

Common sense should have told them it was just too much, but they made the voters do it instead. The electorate responded with an overwhelming “NO!” A record number of District residents turned out and the 58%-42% margin sent a clear message to the District that they had to respect the taxpayers.

Well, yes. They made the voters do it instead. Thrun and her crew spent tens of thousands of dollars to whip the voters into a kid-hating frenzy, filled with half-truths, spin, and outright lying.

This year’s Clarence school budget fully restored all sports and extra-curriculars, protected all teaching positions and stayed within the tax cap. Cooler heads have prevailed, and it’s time to move on, right?

Not so fast.

It appears that three of this year’s school board candidates want to re-wind the clock. It one of the most unlikely political moves ever, the three teachers'-union-backed candidates all said that they not only approved of last year’s failed 9.8% budget, but they would do it again too.

Damn right they would. It was a test case to see if the community truly believed that maintenance of academic excellence was of paramount importance. It was a wholly democratic, transparent process. There was nothing objectively wrong with the district making the ask. To suggest otherwise is idiocy.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The event was Tuesday’s lightly-attended Meet the Candidates forum - and one of these three, who as a member of last year’s board actually approved the failed 9.8% budget, blamed its defeat on a “PR manipulation.”

That one must have stung, right, Lisa? It must suck to be the object of so much scorn and derision.

The whole episode seemed so inexplicably anti-taxpayer that it left us scratching our heads. Then, the next day, we saw this ad (see below) appear in the Clarence Bee.

Apparently these three are completely out of ideas, because they certainly didn’t offer any for voters. We really want to ask them what they were thinking, but we don’t think it was so scrupulously devoid of content by accident.

Lisa didn't bother to go into any detail about what the candidates discussed at the forum. She's merely regurgitating her own - ahem - PR manipulation into it. Spin. Propaganda. If you want to know what the various candidates discussed at the forum, why not read this?

Caution. Conspiracy theory ahead. 

We’re not sure if this declaration of blind loyalty was required by the teacher’s union in exchange for their endorsement, but it is certainly a message to the taxpayers – and a warning.

When in doubt, accuse the unions! When you lose an argument, and when you present a candidate who has contempt for taxpayers, public education, and students and the guy loses decisively through a record turn-out, then just shout "union!" and hope that no one notices.

Was there a warning? Yep. The warning is this: there are people in Clarence who hold our public education system in high esteem, and won't see it dismantled by angry, vicious, right-wing ideologues.

Last year’s failed vote awoke District voters, but these candidates are clearly hoping that this year’s “perfectly reasonable” budget will lull them back to sleep – while these hand-picked teachers' union candidates make sure future school boards return to the failed policies of the past.

Utter shit. Of the three "ASK" candidates, Stock and Kloss work in the private sector. Their interest in the school system has to do with them being taxpayers who want to preserve and protect our schools. Andrews is a stay-at-home mom and very active with the Harris Hill PTO.  Thrun and her handful of malcontents don't understand the notion of service for the greater good, so they denigrate Andrews as just another union hack.

None of these candidates was "hand-picked" by the union, but the CTU did support them.  You know why? Because, unlike Mr. Worling, they maintain an educational interest and investment in the district, and because the things that came out of their mouths did not scapegoat teachers and staff, and instead focused on the real problems - unfunded state mandates, a loss of state aid, and pressure on the system thanks to years of harmful cutting.

You don't, incidentally, cut your way to excellence. You don't divest your way to #1.

That’s why - even while the budget is not contested - we urge Clarence District voters to come to the polls and vote: YES to the budget, NO to the Bus Proposition and - most importantly - vote ONLY for candidates that Respect the Taxpayers!

The record turnout trounced you on the buses and on Worling.

But now is not the time to be complacent. You can see from the tenor in her comments that Thrun is now launching an anti-school jihad. It's altogether possible that next year will be even more ugly than 2013, because they are now going to target the teachers.  It's going to be easy for them in a conservative town - teachers are public-sector employees who earn reasonably good wages, enjoy good benefits, and have a generous pension program. The latter two are things that used to exist in the private sector, but 30 years' worth of the erosion of the middle class to help further enrich the already wealthy has brought about this result.

We're still waiting for the wealth to trickle down.

And Thrun is so enraptured by her phony faith in supply-side economics, that she thinks taking away teachers' pensions and benefits is going to solve the district's fiscal problems. They continuously argue that the district should hire a "professional contract negotiator" to deal with the CTU and, presumably, bring the teachers to heel and force them to accept the unacceptable.

Two words: Triborough Amendment. You can bring in anyone you want - how about Carl Paladino? And Carl can waltz into the meeting with the unions, show them some equestrian pornography, hurl epithets at them, and otherwise use his magical negotiating powers to make the union succumb to his might.

But you can't bully the teachers into committing financial suicide, because they can simply walk away and the existing contract remains in effect, in perpetuity or until a reasonable deal is agreed-upon.

Furthermore, Worling said at the candidate's forum that education should be funded through non-tax-deductible charity; through a line item where families can choose to pay more if they want, like we chose to in 2013 by funding CSEF.

Worling didn't donate to CSEF. Neither did Thrun. This underscores how much contempt they have for the schools and students.

How about Thrun and Worling pool together all of their money and retain this phantom "professional contract negotiator" on their own dime? I'll bring the popcorn.

But here's the thing about teachers and their benefits. Every single time Thrun and her ilk bleat on about the teachers' unsustainable benefits or pensions, do one simple thing:

Replace "teachers" with "cops". Or "firefighters". Or "soldiers". Or "town board members". Why, exactly, is it that teachers are the only public employee group that the right-wing targets for harm? Teachers are on the front line. They're not just teaching, but they're helping to mold young minds, to help them build character and confidence. Teachers stay late and work early to help prepare their curriculum or help students who need something extra. They're not fast food workers; they're not disposable warm bodies, but professional educators - most of them with graduate degrees. Being a teacher is a profession - and a noble one at that. You denigrate and defame teachers at your own risk.

Consider,

All this raises a larger point: what sort of people do we want teaching in our schools? Educators who demand that they be respected and treated as the career professionals they are? Or employees who meekly accept frozen pay, diminished benefits, and degraded workplace protections? 

Who are the better role models for our students? Who are the people more likely to be able to command a classroom and lead their lessons with poise and confidence? Career educators who believe enough in their own abilities to insist on fair wages and tenure protections are employees who set a tone in their schools and their communities of respect, self-reliance, and integrity.
The notion that teachers, alone among all professions, shouldn’t act in their own interests is simply absurd. Yes, there needs to be accountability; yes, there are limits on what we can pay teachers. 

But standing up for yourself isn’t a character flaw; it is a virtue. So if we want put an excellent teacher in front of every student, let’s start by acknowledging that teachers have every right to act in their own, enlightened self-interest."

You think they don't pay enough for health insurance? That they should pay what people in the private sector pay? People with graduate degrees earn more in the private sector, and that helps offset that cost. You think that they shouldn't have a pension? When a teacher with 30 years' experience and a master's degree retires at a $90,000 salary, that's not at all excessive. What do you think a veteran teacher should earn?

They love, however, to point out the pensions. Yet just this month, Comptroller DiNapoli revealed that the state pension fund has never been stronger.

It was a stellar year for us. The Fund grew in value to a historic high of $176.2 billion,” DiNapoli said. “The strength of the domestic equity market, coupled with strong private equity and real estate returns, drove much of our growth. The Fund’s diversified asset allocation continued to help generate strong positive returns. The financial markets have given investors a wild ride the last few years but our investment strategy has allowed us to capitalize on opportunities and minimize risks.

But if these people want to change how teachers are remunerated and the benefits they receive, this is (like most things) not something you can demand from the local union, but a legislative change that has to take place in Albany. All of their ire is directed at things that are imposed from afar, yet they expect the teachers on the ground to just surrender.

Teachers contribute to the retirement system their entire careers. This isn't some random hand-out. The effort to slash teacher benefits under the guise of "reform" is part of a well-funded lobbying effort, made up mostly of - you guess it - ideological nonsense and manufactured, non-existent crisis.

Next year, when they're going to war against the teachers and defaming those who support teachers as "anti-tax", remember to ask them if they're prepared to do the same to police, firefighters, or the armed forces.

May 20th: VOTE

It is critically important that everyone go out and vote today - May 20th - at the Clarence High School gymnasium.

Vote in favor of the school budget - maintain our excellence, keep the programs.

Vote in favor of the bus referendum - our kids need to be safe.

Vote for three people only for school board:

• Tricia Andrews
• Matt Stock
• Maryellen Kloss

If you don't vote, you're part of the problem.

The Dismantling of Public Education: Prologue

The Worling Plan

A recap of Tuesday's Clarence School Board Forum appears at the Keep Clarence Schools Great website, and you can read it here. 

The people who support strong schools are backing Andrews, Stock, and Kloss.  For many, last night was their first opportunity to see and hear Mr. Worling. 

In his opening statement, Worling said that Clarence needs excellent schools and teachers, but we need to be careful about budget issues. He added that the community's seniors must be respected by solving budget issues through what he repeatedly called “creative solutions”.

The candidates were asked what their first priority would be. Maryellen Kloss said we have many priorities, most of which involve making up for lost Albany funding, and Tricia Andrews agreed. Matt Stock's first priority would be to maintain the district's reputation through a focus on not only finances, but academics. If you divest from the schools, everything else falls, as well. A downward spiral would find families avoiding the town, and budget problems would only worsen. 

Worling said he had a list of "creative ideas" that would create "clean revenue", rather than rely on the taxpayers.  No one knows what "clean revenue" means. It appears to be some sort of obscure management speak, 

"The five pillars that drive clean revenue are pricing flexibility, utilization, predictability, recurrence, and sustainability. Valuable companies regularly cleanse their revenue by focusing on the highest margin and repeatable revenue sources."

I'd like to hear some details about what's "unclean" about the schools' revenue, which comes from the community through taxes, and the state. 

The candidates were asked if they had supported the 9.8% budget from last year. Andrews said yes, because even with that increase, the tax rate would still be lower than '08 - 09. Stock agreed, and pointed out the value proposition; that it costs money to attain excellence, and even with the increase we'd have been the most cost-effective district. Kloss strongly defended that budget and attributed its defeat to "PR manipulation" where certain people launched a campaign of disinformation to demonize the schools, and we've suffered terrible repercussions as a result.  

Only Mr. Worling opposed the 9.8% budget as being "too far-reaching".  He lamented that no one came up with his patented "creative solutions", ignoring the fact that he was absent from the entire process and also never suggested any "creative solutions" at the time, when it counted. He then proceeded gently to lay the blame on the faculty for having the audacity to have reasonable health care and a pension plan. 

This is the coward's way - blame the very people who have devoted their lives not just to a job but to a profession requiring a graduate degree, rigorous training, and testing. These teachers could have gone into the private sector and, e.g., been glorified volunteers like the teachers at private schools, or made tons of money working for private industry in some capacity.  Instead they answered the call to educate future generations. There are few professions nobler than this, and they earn - and deserve - good pay and good benefits. 

The candidates were asked if the board should more closely protect the interests of taxpayers or students. Everyone agreed that you can't separate the two. Andrews and Kloss pointed out that everyone is a taxpayer, but also that the schools are an integral part of our community of taxpayers. Stock returned to the idea that the schools offer a return on public investment - what we put into the schools has a long-reaching, positive affect on society. 

Worling said we should expand programs in the schools that teach kids real-life lessons, and we should "give them what they need". He did not explain how that jibes with his opposition to last year's 9.8% budget and the way in which its defeat did not give students "what they need", and cut the types of programs he described from the curriculum. 

A question about vouchers came up, and most candidates begged off, indicating that it would have to be a specific proposal to evaluate before they could comment, but Kloss, Andrews, and Stock all expressed their support for a strong public education system.  Andrews correctly noted that Clarence offers a better education than most private schools.  Kloss noted that the community would be weakened if the public funded private education. Worling wouldn't say he was for or against schools, but noted that "choice is good" and that "competition is good". 

There is competition. If you want a private education, send your kids to private school.  If you don't like Clarence schools, move someplace else. Lots of choices exist that don't deliberately allow parents to take their money out of the public school system and pay it to a private entity. The only loser in that scenario is the public system. Vouchers are a great last resort to help kids in a failing system. Clarence's system is far from failing, but instituting a needless voucher program could likely bring about that result. 

Did you know that Clarence has no social workers on staff in any school this year? They were cut in the wake of the defeat of the 9.8% budget.  Here's a tip: privileged kids from well-to-do homes experience problems, just like poor kids do. Andrews noted that we need to restore the social workers to enable kids in crisis to have a trusted adult to speak with in a confidential setting.  Stock said that people think mental health services are a luxury because they don't need it, but a kid going through a bad time can affect others, and guidance is especially needed if the kid can't go to family about it, or when family is the cause of the problem. Kloss said the loss of social workers "keeps [her] up at night". Worling gave some story about attending small claims court where parents were arguing and they had kids and maybe the kids might need help. Well, yes. But you supported the defeat of the budget that funded social workers, and now you tell us what, exactly? That we can have it all both ways? 

Some dopey question about whether people are undertaxed or overtaxed was asked.  No one thinks they're undertaxed - how dumb. The question is value, said Stock, Kloss, and Andrews. We get an excellent bang for our tax buck in Clarence, when it comes to the schools. Worling said we should look at costs and whether they're "sustainable".  He said we should look to other revenue sources. 

Likewise, when asked about what caused last year's budget crisis, Kloss, Andrews, and Stock pointed to loss of Albany aid, the global financial crisis, and an aggressive spending of fund balance that left us with little flexibility during the global financial meltdown. 

Worling blamed the teachers. Health care and retirement costs demand "creative solutions", basically laying all the blame on the people who work hardest and educate the next generation of kids. 

Finally, in his closing argument, Worling laid out his prejudices. 

He said the schools are "run like they were 50 years ago", and that they should modernize.  Query: when was the last time this guy sat in a Clarence classroom? 

What he means is that we pay teachers a living wage and provide them with benefits that people generally don't enjoy in the public sector.  This is true, to a degree.  The reason why this is has to do with attracting and retaining good teachers. Do you attract someone with a mountain of graduate school debt with a minimum wage job with poor benefits? Or do you offer them a solid pension, a good wage, and decent benefits? 

The candidates were asked whether they thought people were under or overtaxed.  The real question is: do you think that teachers are under or overpaid? Not only for their time actually teaching, but for the afterschool curriculum prep, the disciplinary issues, dealing with parents, preparing kids for standardized tests, revamping everything to comply with new standards, helping kids who need it and praising those who show advancement. This is not like being a cashier at a grocery story - being a teacher means being able to hold a class' attention on a given topic, having a mastery of a subject, being a surrogate parent, a social worker, a policeman, and confidant. To these people we deny a good living?! 

Worling said we need "creativity" but didn't expound on that. He said we need "clean sources of revenue" without saying what that means. He tried to explain by blaming the town for being unfriendly to business.  Really? A town whose supervisor heads up the IDA? He says the schools should create a trust fund of some sort, so that people who want to give more are able to do so. 

What a cop-out. 

This character has so much contempt for the schools, parents, and teachers that he would cut spending to the bone, despite saying in an election that he wants to give kids "what they need". He would then expect parents to pay, in effect, a surtax to maintain programs that prior generations enjoyed. It is an avenue that leads to the slow and systematic dismantling of public education by people who think it valueless. It is a way to destroy the public school system by rendering it a charity case, always with its hand out, looking for some spare change. 

To paraphrase, Worling is telling Clarence parents, "voluntarily pay more if you want to keep music, arts, electives, and clubs". Never mind that the entire community benefits from an excellent and comprehensive public school curriculum. 

Never mind that Worling is a real estate agent and should know better than most how school quality goes hand-in-hand with property values. 

Render the schools a charity case, and make parents pay a "voluntary surcharge" to keep critical programs, and you've signed a death warrant for not just the schools, but also for the town. There will be a sea of "for Sale" signs as supply overwhelms a shrinking demand, and by the time the damage is done and middle-class families abandon the town for better schools elsewhere, the town will be left with farmers, seniors, and the ultra-wealthy who can afford private education. 

Last year, when the 9.8% budget that Worling opposed was defeated, the schools lost a great deal of what made them unique and excellent. We didn't just lose social workers, but great teachers, electives, clubs, music, sports. Kids who had plans drawn up as a path to get into the college of their dreams - paths that included certain courses, electives, and extracurriculars - suddenly found themselves in study halls. 

Parents and businesses had to take up the slack, and raised over $200,000 to restore many of these programs out of their own pocket, in addition to paying their allotment of school taxes. 

That was the exception. Worling and the so-called "Clarence Taxpayers" vultures want that to be the norm, and he said as much on Tuesday. 

Worling? He did not contribute to CSEF. His concern for the education of our kids wasn't so great that he sought to help restore lost programs. When push came to shove, he abandoned our kids. 

What makes you think he won't do it again, if given the chance?  

If you care about the town, and you care about the schools, you won't let us undergo a repeat of last year. You won't let these horrible people destroy public education in Clarence as we know it. 

When your kids are done with school, will you work actively to dismantle the system that once served your family so well, and deny the same opportunity to current and future generations? Or are you not an awful person? 

That, to me, is the fundamental question. 

On Citizenship

In 2012, the Clarence Chamber of Commerce named Paul Stephen its "Citizen of the Year".  Such an honor did not go unnoticed by County Legislator Ed Rath, who took time out of the legislature's busy schedule to honor Stephen for his honor, nor by State Senator Mike Ranzenhofer, who sponsored that legislature's honoring of an honoree for an honor given by another entity.

No word yet on whether anyone proposed any sort of resolution honoring the honoree for being honored by the County Legislature or State Senate. I mean, it could be honor without end.

But to some people, citizenship and honor have a meaning beyond the silly presentment of proclamations and resolutions. What do citizenship and honor mean?

Most of what's written about Paul Stephen points to his success as a property developer in the town of Clarence, and to his stewardship of the Rock the Barn series benefiting Clarence/Newstead/Akron Meals on Wheels. Both are laudable, but they don't happen in a vacuum.

For all of it - for any of it - Stephen needs the support of the community, usually through its elected representatives. Take a look at the times Stephen has gone before town government for approval of his projects - while they are given due scrutiny, like any other project, he is routinely given bipartisan support and praise for his development projects. When he wants to expand Rock Oak, it passes unanimously, with minimum to no pushback.

Paul Stephen may have earned his money through hard work and capital investment, but it wouldn't have happened if government didn't support it.

Being a citizen is a two-way proposition. You have rights, and you have responsibilities. What makes Stephen "citizen of the year"?

It's a common refrain that part of the reason why Clarence's school budget is under stress has to do with our lack of commercial development - businesses paying taxes help alleviate some of the burden on homeowners when it comes to the school system. After all, businesses don't use the schools' services.  But Stephen's company deals almost exclusively in residential rental properties - none of these people pay school taxes directly, and to the extent anyone uses the schools' services, this creates pressure on the budget and taxation. Just take a look at the debate that took place at the Town Board in February 2012 with respect to a Stephen rental project.

Ralph Showalter asked who lives in an 800 sq. ft. house. Do we really want 800 sq. ft. housing people across the street from the high school in Clarence? We need to stop this now. These people will use services and not pay taxes. The school already has budgeting problems. This is against the Clarence standard of living. Nobody wants 800 sq. ft. housing across from the high school and next to Spaulding Lake. 

Stephen Development was set up in 1997 and its home office is in Lockport; in Niagara County. Rock Oak Holdings, LLC was created in 1998 and is also located in Lockport. Rock Oak Home Sales LLC? Created 2000, based in Lockport. Rock Oak Phase III, LLC? Created 2012 in Lockport, Niagara County. Rock Oak Plaza, LLC is also based in Lockport. Ditto Rock Oak Private Funding, LLC, Rock Oak West I, LLC, Rock Oak West, LLC, Rock Oak, LLC, Rock Oak Central, LLC, and Rock Garden Properties, LLC. Chautauqua County has a Lockport-based manufactured home landlord on its school tax rolls. Lakeside Park, LLC is based at the same address on South Transit. 

Why is the Clarence Chamber of Commerce honoring someone who can't be bothered to locate his business in the town of Clarence? What kind of citizenship is that? Because the profits that Stephen makes from his various businesses and concerns - whether they be the satellite dishes or the mobile home parks - get plowed into Niagara County coffers. 

Stephens' tenants - the residents of Rock Oak - pay ground rent, which includes taxes. Taxes are not itemized, and vary from home to home. Apparently, school tax STAR refunds are credited to Rock Oak, LLC, which then rebates them to individual homeowners (less a 2% handling fee). Therefore, higher school taxes would actually result in higher rebates to homeowners. Stephens increases the ground rents annually whether taxes go up or not. These increases are across-the-board so, unless the increase is astronomical, they're only peripherally connected to the tax increase. Assessments have remained stable since Stephen Development interests in Rock Oak commenced about 15 years ago. I'm trying to find out more about this dynamic.

Why would the "citizen of the year" do deliberate harm to the community and its schools by frightening his tenant seniors?

Last year, Stephen bankrolled the efforts to vote down the original school budget, and helped back Roger Showalter's and Jason Lahti's successful election to the school board. They were endorsed by the Clarence Taxpayers as being the candidates who would "respect the taxpayers" going forward. 

So shout it from the rooftops that Lahti and Showalter helped unanimously to approve the 2014-2015 school budget. There's some fringe whining, but there does not seem to be any sort of call to vote "no". 

Instead, Stephen is helping to back the anti-school candidacy of Mr. Worling to the town board. Worling's signs are mostly located on certain commercial properties, and in front of many Stephen-controlled properties. In a scene reminiscent of 2013, the internal closed-circuit information system at Rock Oak is advertising a pancake breakfast and shuttle buses to the polls on school board election day. 

Look closely at the language. It doesn't reference a budget vote; it references a "school board vote". This is consistent with the taxpayer group's invitation to meet Worling at Rock Oak one recent Saturday morning.  They are focusing on taking over the board. 

And that's ok, I guess, but what are they so dissatisfied about? The current board? With its budget that no one's complaining about? 

Certainly Paul Stephen and all his Niagara County-based landholding companies that do business in Clarence pay a lot in school taxes. As well they should, as quality schools are part of the Clarence equation. The other side of that equation is Clarence's comparatively low taxes, and the incredible efficiency with which the town and its schools comport themselves. These are part of the Clarence equation that allow Paul Stephen to develop run-of-the-mill modular homes on Kraus Road that will sell for upwards of $300,000.

But being a "good" citizen - much less "citizen of the year" doesn't just mean you go out and make money and play by the applicable rules. Shouldn't the standard be higher? Rock the Barn benefits Meals on Wheels, which, in turn, serves many of Stephen's tenants.

What part of good citizenship mandates helping to dismantle the school district?  A school district that is efficient, produces excellent results, is the pride of the community, and helps to maintain the town's popularity and property values? 

The Good, The Bad, and the Future of Our Schools

When it comes to the fight over the future of Clarence Schools, it is undeniable that there are good actors, and there are bad actors. Today, we examine both sides of that coin.

Good Actor: Dennis Priore

Dennis Priore: GOOD

1. Dennis Priore is a class act who deserves our gratitude and support. He has sacrificed himself for the greater good, and I urge everyone to thank him profusely for it.  By bowing out of the race for school board, he has eliminated the chance that the pro-school vote will be split. This leaves us with three open slots, three pro-school candidates, and one anti-school candidate. Not only that, but Priore is urging his supporters to back the ASK slate of Andrews, Stock, and Kloss.

After so much heartache, it's nice to catch a break once in a while.

Make no mistake - next time Priore runs for an open seat, he deserves everyone's endorsement and support, because he proves through this selfless act that he does place the interests of the kids and the district above his own. Here is his statement:

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for your support over these past few months, as I campaigned for the first time as a candidate for the Clarence Board of Education. It was a wonderful experience meeting so many great Clarence residents. Today I have decided to withdraw from the race, because I believe that by staying in the race I would be splitting the vote among the three other like minded candidates. I am throwing my full support behind Maryellen Kloss, Trish Andrews and Matt Stock. I urge everyone who is eligible to vote in this election to support these three as well as the proposed budget and bus proposition. I intend to remain active in the Clarence School District and would hope for your support in the future. Thank you again.

Bad Actor: Richard Worling

2. Go over and scan the list of people who met the CSEF 1000 Families Challenge in 2013. It was a program set up for parents to pay the difference between their actual tax levy, and what they would have paid had the original above-cap budget gone through.  The money that CSEF raised went to fund our lost programs and clubs for the 2013 - 2014 school year. For me personally, a donation to CSEF is the litmus test for anyone's support of the school district and students. For me personally, if you purport to be a supporter of the schools, but couldn't be bothered to pony up a couple hundred bucks when it really counted, you're a liar.

When you look through the list of CSEF donors, the surname "Worling" does not appear. Richard Worling (as well as the others on the Clarence Taxpayers hit parade) did not donate any money to help restore clubs, teams, or music programs. He talks the talk, but when it really mattered, he failed to walk the walk.

Richard Worling's refusal to help fund CSEF's 2013 restoration initiative is an automatic disqualification for election to the school board.

Andrews, Stock, and Kloss

Keep Clarence Schools Great has endorsed Tricia Andrews, Matt Stock, and incumbent Maryellen Kloss for the Clarence School Board. There are two additional candidates - Richard Worling, the darling of the tea party set - and Dennis Priore, who seems like a nice guy with his heart in the right place.

The problem is this - the anti-school people are urging their supporters to vote only for Worling. If they vote for any other candidate, they add to their vote totals. Worling has reportedly been selling himself in different ways, depending on the audience. To the Bee - and this is likely to be repeated at the candidate forum on May 13th - Worling is presenting himself as a school-loving, reasonable guy whose kids just happen to go to a private fundamentalist religious school completely by accident. But to his fellow parishioners at the Chapel at Crosspoint, he's apparently selling himself as the candidate of "Christian values".

This doesn't just bode poorly for the school district going forward - after all, Worling is only financially invested in the Clarence schools, and his investment in the education piece is non-existent. This poses a direct threat to the ELA curriculum the next time somebody comes up with a book with a bad word in it,  (and believe you me - the Lahti book fiasco was them putting that toe in the water).

"Clarence Taxpayers" dream scenario

This is before you get to the fundamental truth that the anti-school people want your kids to go begging in the street for spare change to help fund school programs.  This is all about their vision of a third-world public school system run by questionably educated volunteers, in mud huts with no supplies.

And when the kids do have to resort to panhandling - as they did last year through the good work of CSEF - these taxpayer heroes walk right on by, cursing the urchin scum.

Last year, Matt Stock dropped out of a crowded school board race to try and ensure that pro-school candidates are elected. This self-sacrifice for the greater good has bought him oodles of goodwill this year among friends of the schools.

This year, it's even more important that Dennis Priore follow Stock's example and do the same. It is dramatically important that the pro-school vote not be diluted, and that the three candidates who are both financially and educationally invested in the system are elected.

If you know Priore, please intervene with him to do the right thing here. Tell your friends when they "ASK" to vote for

Andrews
Stock and
Kloss

Clarence Taxpayers: Tell a Lie Often Enough, It Becomes Truth

Rock Oak: The Mos Eisley of #Clarence.

Today (Saturday) from 8:30 to 12:00 at a free pancake breakfast at the Rock Oak Resident Center at 9918 Whitwick Terrace, the community is invited to meet anti-school candidate for the #Clarence school board, Rich Worling.

The "Clarence Taxpayers" refer to Worling as "your candidate", but he's not at all _my_ candidate.

When the Clarence Bee tried to get some information about him, this is all they received:

Worling is a real estate agent with Hunt Realty in Clarence, and his wife, Kimberly, cited his experience in the realty industry and his commitment to his children’s education — at Christian Central Academy in Amherst— as qualifications for serving on the board.

“He understands that school rankings need to be high and taxes need to be low in order to keep property values for all residents at their peak,” Kimberly Worling said. “He’s very committed to education of all children, and the fact that we pay both Clarence school taxes and private education costs show how important education is to him.”

Remember: NOBODY WHO LIVES IN ROCK OAK PAYS SCHOOL TAX.  Is developer Paul Stephen behind this? After all, he bankrolled last year's deliberate destruction of the entire school district's extracurriculars, and he's the sole school tax payer at Rock Oak. I think the fact that he pays for parochial education means he has a problem with public education.

Furthermore, the "Clarence Taxpayers" are dishonorably lying on their website about taxes over the years. They've selectively cherry-picked some numbers to make their case.

They allege that, even with the higher 2002 - 2003 school tax rate on a 200,000 home (paying $3314), they note that the same home is now worth $265,500 and pays $3878 per year.

THEY OMIT THE FACT THAT, BECAUSE THE BUDGET IS AT THE CAP, EVERYONE WILL GET A REBATE CHECK RESULTING IN A NET ZERO TAX INCREASE.

Marlese Wacek is the most outspoken member of the "Clarence Taxpayers" tag-team. (She's the woman who screams wildly at people with whom she disagrees). A nice 3,186 SF 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom colonial near Meadowlakes.

In 2001, Wacek paid $3875 on a house assessed at $244,000.
In 2002, Wacek paid $3546 on a house assessed at $244,000
In 2003, Wacek paid $3605 on a house assessed at $244,000
In 2004, Wacek paid $4163 on a house assessed at $280,800.
In 2005, Wacek paid $3923 on a house assessed at $280,800
In 2006, Wacek paid $4249 on a house assessed at $299,000
In 2007, Wacek paid $4252 on a house assessed at $299,000
In 2008, Wacek paid $4330 on a house assessed at $324,000. 
In 2009, Wacek paid $4185 on a house assessed at $324,000
In 2010, Wacek paid $4162 on a house assessed at $324,000
In 2011, Wacek paid $4153 on a house assessed at $324,000
In 2012, Wacek paid $4121 on a house assessed at $324,000
In 2013, Wacek paid $4297 on a house assessed at $324,000. 

That's odd. Her assessment only went up 3 times in the last 12 years? She's been assessed at $324k since 2008?!  In any event, they pay less in 2013 than in 2008 on the same assessed value. How is that "unfair" to the "taxpayer"? Where is the unsustainability?

(The cheapest 5 bed/3 bath house currently on the market in Clarence is on Winding Creek Lane and is listed at $524,900.)

So, let's just randomly take Wacek's next-door neighbor. They have a 2,631 SF 4 bed, 2.5 bath home. Their assessment went up 4 times in 12 years, and they paid more in actual dollars in 2006 and 2007 with a lower assessment than they did in the last few years.

2001 $2576 on a house assessed at $192,200
2002 $3069 on a house assessed at $215,200
2003 $3119 on a house assessed at $215,200
2004 $3469 on a house assessed at $239,000
2005 $3263 on a house assessed at $239,000
2006 $3632 on a house assessed at $260,000
2007 $3636 on a house assessed at $260,000
2008 $3608 on a house assessed at $275,000
2009 $3488 on a house assessed at $275,000
2010 $3468 on a house assessed at $275,000
2011 $3461 on a house assessed at $275,000
2012 $3493 on a house assessed at $275,000
2013 $3581 on a house assessed at $275,000

Me?

In 2002, I paid $4100 in school taxes on property assessed at $248,000. In 2007, I paid $4340 on a $305k assessment. In 2013, I paid $4310 on a $325k assessment.

Look up your own numbers at this link, and use the "previous years" tab.

Do not let them get away with their lies. It's enough. RESPECT THE TAXPAYER, INDEED.