Just say no

To the editor: I oppose the merger of the Greenwood Lake and Warwick schools not only for the overcrowding that will result, but also for financial and legal reasons. Proponents say that a profit of some $1.5 million will be reached in its fourth year. No rational business person would propose making this type of investment if his own money were at risk — waiting four years to perhaps making a slim profit is bad business. And if the contract were terminated in the third year, as it is presently structured, Warwick would incur a certain loss. If I were writing the contract, from day one it would at least contain language requiring Greenwood Lake to pay 10 percent over and above the net per-student cost paid by Warwick taxpayers after accounting for all the Greenwood Lake-related expenses, thereby guaranteeing a reasonable profit for the proposition. The contract would also contain language whereby Greenwood Lake paid for all the upfront and extra costs needed to accommodate their students, such as the entire cost of added hall monitors, new teachers, bureaucrats, janitors, books and equipment, required pension reserves and so forth. Otherwise, these hidden, added costs to Warwick could easily consume all of the profits which Dr. Greenhall is counting on. There would also be a clause requiring Greenwood Lake to indemnify, defend and hold Warwick harmless from the host of lawsuits that could develop from this merger and its aftermath, from teachers’ unions to student interest groups having axes to grind. I would also require the Warwick Board to place an absolute cap on class sizes of no more than 25 students. The lack of transparency is also troubling, since there appears to be a conflict of interest with the Warwick School Board seeming to advocate in favor of the merger. A truly independent and expert consultant on such mergers should be retained to help weigh the costs and benefits, with the fees reimbursed by Greenwood Lake. I believe our current board has not been so adept at managing the funds and resources already at its disposal, that I have no qualms about increasing their budget in this manner. The situation is not particularly stellar in Warwick at present, giving me doubts that adding more money and children to the mix will improve things. A lot of us in Warwick actually would prefer to see smaller schools and look forward to a reduction in student count which the demographers predict. If we had fewer students versus more, we could eventually have lower costs associated with running the schools, and maybe even close a school or two, giving us hope for lower taxes or the chance to allocate funds to Warwick seniors whose needs are often ignored. In short, Warwick’s School District has enough on its plate to deal with already. Some dieting wouldn’t hurt. Warwick voters should heed the words they frequently tell their children when they are tempted to do something they shouldn’t: Just say “no.” David Freilich Warwick