Thursday, October 1, 2026
There is supposed to be nothing more public than how local elected officials spend taxpayer money. But a $2.3 million project labeled simply as a classroom legislation flew under the radar when the Valley Stream District 13 school board adopted its budget last spring. And that perceived lack of openness has parents and other taxpayers worried this project isn’t quite what it’s billed to be.
It’s known as Proposition III, which pulls from the district’s capital reserves fund, intended to pay for the “extension and renovation of classroom space” at James A. Dever Elementary School. It’s also earmarked to fund renovation and redesign of a boardroom and business office — space critics say benefit the superintendent and administration more than it does students.
Their bone of contention comes from what they say is ambiguity surrounding terms like “extension,” “renovation” and “redesign.”
An architectural diagram of the Dever Elementary project, obtained by the Herald, calls for the demolition of two classrooms, the removal of at least part of a playground, and what would become larger office space for the superintendent and the administrative offices.
But there would be space created for educational pursuits as well — especially in the arts, with a new music wing housing both a choral and band room.
“This is poor communication from the school district to the community,” said Vincent Toma, who said he voted “yes” on the budget last year. “In normal long-term planning, there are capital construction assessments — roofing, grounds, secu
rity, doors, boilers, air conditioning — that all take precedence. At no point has anybody that I know of received information about upcoming plans with any cost-benefit analysis to determine if this is even necessary.”
Lauriel Morales, who also voted for the budget last spring, said Proposition III “sounded good on the ballot.” But had she known more about the specifics of the proposition, she might have reconsidered.
“You don’t even know what you’re voting for,” Morales said. “A clear outline of how the funds were going to be spent should have been provided to the community.”
The district did attempt to break down some of the expenditures in its It’s Elementary newsletter, but seemed to lack specifics when it came to operations and maintenance as well as summer recreation, which noted only the total proposed spending for the academic year.
In its legal notice detailing the budget, which was published in the Herald last May, the district reused a lot of the same language found in the newsletter.
Marteena Morano-Singh did not vote on the budget, but recalled those who did were pressured to vote in support.
“Last year’s budget passed [on] the second vote” after failing in the initial vote in spring 2020, Morano-Singh said. “When it came time to vote on the budget [for] this year, residents were encouraged to vote ‘yes’ to avoid the possibility that the budget would fail again, under threat our children would end up going without.”
“But if I knew what renovations they were planning, I personally would have voted ‘no.’ I do not think they were clear at all about what the $2.3 million was going to be used for.”
Board Trustee Anthony Bonelli says the expenditure sent a chill down his spine. He since filed a complaint with the state’s education department accusing the board of violating the law limiting reserve fund expenditures only to those approved by voters, and which is clearly spelled out. That came after Bonelli twice attempted — and failed — last December to persuade the board to call for a special meeting canceling the construction project.
School district spokesman Ron Edelson, said his bosses have been “completely transparent throughout this process,” and believes the state education commissioner “will rule in favor of the district.”
And so far, that’s happened. On March 1, the state education department denied Bonelli’s request to halt the Dever Elementary construction. Because of the pending legal matter, district officials refused to comment further.
