Addressing the BOE Majority Narrative on the Busing Issue

The BOE Majority narrative is that the reasons behind the secretive process on who gets free busing, who has to pay and who gets nothing connect to safety.

Here are the facts:

(1) During the reconfiguration, the District went on and on about how there were no hazardous roads in town – even as parents wondered out loud as to how the BOE majority supported a reconfiguration that had children walking over train tracks where as before their schools where a hop-skip away. They were even okay with kids going through hidden paths to get to school.

(2) The “historical precedent” argument only seems to apply to terrible ideas. It was precedent to have an open budget process, to allow residents to come up more than once to speak, to comment on the District’s social media, to get OPRA requests within seven business day – these “precedents” and so many more are gone. But the precedent of secretly giving out free transportation with no criteria and no clear numbers – that’s the precedent they plant their flags on.

(3) The kicker – during the Budget Meeting – Pam Stanley stated 144 students receiving courtesy busing are going to GL. GL is far from the rest of town – I want to understand the perspective on safety connected to this argument while elementary school kids must cross over train tracks.

Also let me address the “BHCW is just doing this for votes” narrative. I am not running for anything. But the idea that one would take the side connected to 40 families vs. ~400 to win “votes” is Stanley-Varley logic. As I wrote recently, this should be a concern families have about the thinking Dr. Varley and the BOE majority are using.

This is about authentic equity and making sure that the process around how public funds are used is transparent, fair, and humane. That our transportation services are affordable, stable and sustainable.

None of this explains how there are no criteria, precise numbers, or answers to questions that have been asked for weeks, if not months, that remain unanswered two weeks before school starts.

1. What’s the precedent for courtesy busing?

2. How long has this practice been going on that taxpayers are footing the bill for?

3. Who makes the determination on which students qualify for courtesy busing?

4. Why is the District misrepresenting the courtesy busing numbers to the state?

5. Who is responsible for the discrepancy?

6. If the number is 337 and the number used during budget by business admin is 200, where is the additional money coming from?

7. How much does courtesy busing cost our District?

8. Is the finance committee overseeing budgetary spending? We hear the finance committee chair screaming “transportation” in response to Dr. Foregger’s basic question on whether real numbers are reviewed in the committee. Isn’t that an odd response to a reasonable question?

9. The most crucial fact: a representative of the DOE recommended Courtesy Busing be eliminated and level set rates for subscription busing to actual costs (see minutes Feb 2023).

I don’t agree with the last point entirely. I believe we should charge everyone a lowered rate to make the service affordable, fair, and far more sustainable. I do believe students who meet certain criteria (more flexible than the lunch program) should still receive free busing. Of course, those who qualify under state guidelines for free busing due to distance should continue to do so.

All Articles on Transportation