What The NHS Expansion

Really Costs

To the Editor:

I was pleased to see that The Bee immediately posted a piece on its website reporting the Board of Selectmen’s vote against the proposed high school expansion. However I was struck by the quote from Mr Rosenthal that the project would “drive a 6.4 percent increase in the tax rate for the 2008 budget” (emphasis added). Perhaps the fact that the selectman was citing the total increase in the proposed budget was clarified at the actual meeting by breaking out the specific portion that is actually “driven” solely by the expansion project, but this certainly wasn’t done in the Bee’s report. The result is not technically inaccurate, but it leaves out the basic fact at issue and is potentially misleading to readers who fail to catch the meaning of the word “drive.”

 In fact, the high school expansion is only projected to claim 1.3 percent of the coming fiscal year’s tax revenues. At the Board of Finance’s February 11 meeting, finance department director [Benjamin] Spragg estimated the cost of 2008/2009 debt service attributable to the expansion at $1.2 million. The current version of the proposed budget calls for $89.9 million in property taxes. Given that data, we can all do the math. The 6.4 percent figure cited by Mr Rosenthal is the total increase in property tax revenues required for all government spending, not just the high school project (actually, the number is 6.9 percent, according to a March 5 document from Mr Spragg’s office, and it should also be noted that the high school project will require additional borrowing in the 2009/2010 fiscal year).

 I exchanged a number of e-mails on Tuesday with The Bee’s reporter [John] Voket, suggesting that his piece, as it appeared on the website, was potentially misleading. I urged him to cite the $1.2 million and 1.3 percent figures to provide factual context for the quote from Mr Rosenthal. Mr Voket indicated to me that he would not change the piece and that I should instead write a letter to the editor. As it stands, I fear that many readers will misconstrue the word “drive” and conclude that the high school project is responsible for the entire increase in requested tax revenues when it in fact represents less than a fifth of the amount being sought.

We are fortunate to have a town newspaper that strives to provide us with timely, in-depth reporting on the issues we face, not to mention one that prints our letters so faithfully. But readers should not have to rely upon those letters to understand the facts in a story. I did my best to encourage The Bee to avoid running a piece that might confuse rather than inform the public on a basic issue. In the end, the paper’s refusal to include key data on this matter in its report is hard to understand. Hopefully future reporting will present a more complete and less confusing analysis of the high school expansion debate.

Sincerely,

Ben Roberts

19 Farrell Road, Newtown                                            March 19, 2008