One way to rein in spending

Editor, OBSERVER:

On Aug. 12, the OBSERVER had a story about Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and his prediction and projection of a huge budgetary shortfall over the next several years.

May I make a suggestion that would relieve some, not all, of the difficulty. The simplest way to say it is “cut the reimbursement aid ratio for school capital building projects.” The current ratios are irresponsibly generous to the point that they encourage extravagant boondoggle. They are irresponsibly generous to the point they encourage the building of monuments to perverse incentive. What I mean is architects and construction managers are paid by percentage, so they have a positive economic incentive to maximize spending. They become commission salesmen (like say, car salesmen) instead of fiduciaries.

My suggestion: for economically challenged districts the aid ratio should be reduced to 75% or maybe 80% max. For more affluent districts 55% or 60% would be more appropriate. That is enough money so that needed and necessary projects would still be built but pie-in-the-sky profligacy would be examined and avoided.

As an aside, I have one more comment.

My belief in freedom of the press is ironclad, carved in stone, and cast in bronze. However, concomitant with that right is an absolute obligation and responsibility for accuracy. News stories leading up to a bond issue referendum commonly say, “Interest and principle will be paid 10% by the local taxpayer and 90% by the State of New York.”

That is simply not true and is inaccurate. What the story should say is, “10% of the principal and interest will be paid by the local taxpayer and the other 90% will be paid by the taxpayers in the other 700 or so districts in New York state.

LARRY ZOLLINGER,

South Dayton