Consider at-large school board voting

To the Editor:
Re Leon Campo’s and Frank Saracino’s open letter, “Don’t fall for at-large school board balloting,” in last week’s issue:

I write this solely in my capacity as a community member and as a trustee on the Board of Education, but I do not speak for the entire board. Mr. Campo and Dr. Saracino wrote that the community should not have a choice in how the election of school board members is held.

As former superintendents, they are familiar with open-meeting laws, and that’s why I don’t understand how they could accuse the board of taking a “surprise action.” This “midnight surprise,” as they claim, was open for public discussion and, furthermore, can be found in the minutes of the board meeting for the public to view.

The board’s action has done nothing other than put a vote in the hands of our community. If either letter writer had attended the meeting, they would have learned the reasoning behind this action, on which the board voted 5-0, with two abstentions.

Currently, a candidate must select the person against whom he or she will run. This makes the process unnecessarily adversarial. Whether he or she is an incumbent or a new candidate, I believe a person runs for this unpaid position to make our community better.

The writers make a point of saying that our success is based on “accountability.” But how is someone supposed to be held accountable if he or she is running unopposed and, therefore, not even at the table at the candidates forum because there is no opponent?

Community members have been deterred from running because they don’t want to have to run against their neighbors. An individual who opted not to run because of the adversarial nature of our elections might have been an asset to our district and community. In an at-large election, candidates can run on their own merits without the uncomfortable nature of trying to “take down” another candidate.

The letter also failed to mention some key facts and history. I had a meeting with Mr. Campo last year, at which time he shared his opinion on this subject and attempted to dissuade me from bringing the topic to the board. I was not swayed. At a board meeting, Mr. Campo stated his view and convinced the board not to hold a vote.

I believe the letter writers’ reasoning for keeping the current voting system is flawed. Mr. Campo has been consistent in his attempts to use fear tactics to claim that an at-large vote would be easily manipulated by “cliques” that would take over the district.

Two years ago I ran on a platform of providing more transparency in our district and holding trustees accountable for their actions. In the event that the community feels that elections should remain as they are, I will be satisfied that the board has have given our community the choice, rather than making the decision for them.

Matthew G. Melnick
Vice President, East Meadow Board of Education