After speaking to Mrs. Varley and Mr. Shatraw, I have since found out that our school has thankfully not had to make any cuts in funding for the Byram Hills music department. I would first like to thank the Board of Education for continuously supporting our program and also apologize for insinuating otherwise. In such a tumultuous economic environment it can be an easy solution for schools to simply drop funding for the arts in order to boost their other programs. However, Byram Hills has made a point to have not cut any spending on its valued arts programs.
Also, the school does provide many vital materials and resources to the theatre program, including the salaries of three adult staff members, the legal rights for the shows, the maintenance for all existing equipment in the theatre such as the stage lights and the pianos, and, of course, the theatre itself. The school actually plays a key role in the production of our shows. Ticket sales and donations from the community help provide those finishing touches and any extra supplies that make the productions at Byram Hills so noteworthy.
I would like to apologize to the music department and the Board for being misinformed in my facts and falsely representing our school. Byram Hills is so fortunate to have not had the level of financial difficulty that many other public schools are facing. I believe our strong music department stands as a testament to the hard work of the Board to provide for all aspects of a well-rounded public education.
My experience with the Byram Hills music department has been a very positive and favorable one. It has made all the difference throughout my time at the high school. From the variety of music I’ve had the chance to play, and the many productions I’ve been given the opportunity to participate in, to the amazing teachers I have been so fortunate to learn from—this program has meant more to me in my high school career than I can adequately describe. And I am very grateful that I am lucky enough to go to a school that supports the arts as much as I do.
Respectfully,
Sam Birkenholz
To the Editor: Recreation (and respect) at a Crossroads in North Castle
Posted: Jan. 27, 2011
At the January 12, 2011 Town Board meeting Councilwoman Diane Roth demanded to replace three Parks and Recreation Board (PRB) members whose terms are expiring with three new members. Ms. Roth’s actions were inappropriate and disrespectful. Without giving any prior notice she insisted on nominating her own slate of new PRB members and demanded that it be voted on at the meeting. Not only did she embarrass the current PRB members but she placed her proposed new members in an awkward position. All of this should have been done in private session, not in a public forum. I respect and appreciate Ms. Roth’s service and she has every right to ask for changes. However, publicly expressing her desire to replace dedicated town volunteers is completely inappropriate and unprofessional, especially since she never discussed it with the sitting PRB members whose terms are expiring. Ms. Roth’s actions turned the situation into a public spectacle and detracted from important agenda items. Dedicated town volunteers deserve better treatment.
By her own admission Ms. Roth has attended only two PRB meetings (the last being in spring, 2010), has not discussed board performance and replacements with the retiring superintendent, has not reviewed the qualifications or accomplishments of the existing PRB members, yet now she wants to enhance her personal vision of recreation by replacing 40% of the PRB. She said that she believes in” terms” for the boards and that “these people” have been on the board for 20 years. This statement is incorrect and could have easily been researched. None of the members in question have served for 20 years and two of them have served for less than 6 years. Over the past eight years six of the seven PRB positions have been filled by new members. This is far from stagnation and it represents logical turnover with fresh ideas without forcing wholesale changes.
Throughout their tenure, these three PRB members have provided outstanding service and have attended meetings regularly. All wish to continue in their current volunteer roles. Much has been accomplished over the past 10 years in the area of recreation. Accomplishments include the implementation of public-private partnerships that produced multipurpose domes at Community (IBM) Park (providing more than $150K in annual revenue to the town), lights on the Community (IBM) Park fields, rehabilitation of the Lombardi-Clark complex and the construction of the Hergenhan Recreation Center. All of these were made possible through a combination of generous private donations and hard work from individuals, businesses, sports leagues (such as ABL and AYSO) and town funds. The recreation staff, PRB and previous town boards were essential to these accomplishments and all worked together for the good of the residents. North Castle Recreation was recently recognized by a local magazine as one of the best programs in Westchester County. Recent analysis has also demonstrated that the department is cost effective in relation to a number of our peers.
Ms. Roth indicated that she has her own vision and agenda for recreation and that “There are so many wonderful things that I want to do with the Recreation Department.” She indicated that she laid out her agenda at a PRB meeting over a year ago. Ms. Roth must be reminded that HER agenda and vision do not matter. What matters are the collective desires of our residents.
More troubling are the possible reasons for this attempt to replace 40% of the PRB. Last spring Ms. Roth invited a representative from a private company to give a presentation to the PRB. The proposal was for the construction of a dome in the existing Community Park track and installation of an artificial turf field and track. This plan was subsequently expanded to possibly turn the track area into a parking lot and then clear-cut the wooded area past the field for this facility. In addition a proposal was made to replace up to all four of the IBM ball fields with artificial turf and place domes on two or more of them. These facilities would be open to non-resident sports leagues for the purpose of clinics and tournaments. Teams and athletes from throughout the northeast would be invited to use the facilities for a fee. Town residents and sports leagues WOULD NOT have scheduling priority. Subsequent to this meeting it became obvious that this company had proposed to take over all operations and scheduling of these fields, run them as a for-profit operation and pay a fee to the town.
When these plans were presented the entire PRB expressed serious concerns. The PRB took issue with residents and sports leagues not receiving scheduling priority and being shut out of prime time field availability, not to mention the possibility of new resident use fees paid to a for-profit company. Residents might have to pay a fee each time they used some facilities. In addition, without the knowledge of the PRB, discussions were held with the town engineer and an outside company regarding the construction of new domes and turf fields. Without informing the Town Board or PRB, an attempt was made to organize a committee of residents to help with implementation of the plan for domes and artificial turf fields, all to be open to non residents and operated by a private company. All of this has been done without the support of the PRB, the Town Board or the people of North Castle. Is this transparency in government?
After the PRB expressed serious concerns, discussions ensued regarding a survey to determine the desires of North Castle residents. The recreation survey was completed this past October. It must be stated that PRB members include people who are experts in mathematics and who have undergraduate and graduate training in statistics, testing and assessment. In addition, the PRB consulted (on a pro bono basis) with a PhD from Pace university who is an expert in surveys. Sample surveys were reviewed from recreation departments throughout the country and experts in recreational surveys were consulted. Contrary to assertions made by Ms. Roth at a previous Town Board meeting, the survey was conducted in a timely manner, with full approval of the Town Board and within budget guidelines.
The survey results were clear. Ms Roth noted that “We want to accomplish many things…We want to bring in an indoor ice skating rink.” The results of the survey demonstrated that an ice skating rink is not a top priority of North Castle residents. Top priorities were bike paths, hiking areas, indoor pool and nature areas. In fact, turf fields and domed athletic facilities generated among the highest net negative responses. The town has experience with two existing domed facilities run by a private company with revenue sharing. It is clear that there are positives, but also some negatives with this facility. All of this needs to be taken into consideration, especially issues of size and scope and whether or not the purpose of recreation is to bring additional revenue to the town.
Now that the PRB has expressed deep concerns about this “vision” and the completed survey does not support it, Ms. Roth, in my opinion, is attempting to change the PRB in order to implement her personal vision for recreation and facilities. It is important for the residents of North Castle to have a full understanding of the reasons behind the spectacle that took place at the January 12th meeting. Ms. Roth has every right to seek change on the PRB and to present her views on recreation facilities. However, the town must make an informed decision based upon facts, experience and the will of the people.
Going forward, it is critical that residents understand the history behind what is happening in recreation. One person’s vision should not result in the disrespectful treatment of dedicated volunteers or in an attempt to change our recreation facilities while ignoring public opinion. I believe that Ms. Roth owes these three PRB members a public apology. The residents of North Castle should carefully monitor this issue over the coming months or face the possibility of dramatic changes in facilities, availability and user fees.