Oct 2, 2011 By Bill Elias 3 min read

Recently your newspaper published a commentary I wrote, which offered a critical analysis of a school administration consolidation proposal and subsequent study funded by a state grant that was secured by state Rep. Tim Mahoney,  D-South Union Twp.

In the meantime, Mr. Mahoney has advised all to remain patient and uncritical. Does he prematurely know the study’s conclusion as he’s convinced that the consolidation proposal is a sure-fire money saver.

Apparently my critical study and suggested proposals offended Mr. Mahoney’s sensitivity and he responded on 9/18/2011 with a letter to your newspaper excoriating me — and other board members similar to me.

If Mr. Mahoney and his minions who compose his letters had carefully read my 8/28/2011 critical analysis they would have discerned that I made no negative conclusion on his proposal and subsequent study.

As a matter of fact, in one of my closing paragraphs in my commentary, I stated that I would withhold judgment on the validity of his proposal and study until I read the study (by EMG) and had analyzed its data and methodology. I had made no final conclusion.

Surely, as an experienced politician, Mr. Mahoney should expect — and welcome — a critical analysis (and input) from the voting public on all suggested issues. Usually better laws are implemented — and bad ones defeated — when a thorough and critical debate occurs.

Perhaps a thorough and critical debate could have shown him that his referendum was illegal — and thanks to perspicacious observations by Robert Frasconi and Belinda Young that proved to be the case.

In addition, all civil servants, including members of boards of education must meticulously monitor all public moneys and Mr. Mahoney has centered his money-savings’ proposals on the public schools. I accept his concern and all schools must be accountable. However, in none of his pronouncements have I heard him acknowledge that Pennsylvania shortchanges the public schools.

The national average of state support of public school budgets is approximately 45 percent while Pennsylvania contributes about 35 percent of local budgets. This reduced amount places significant pressure on local school boards and real estate taxes.

Finally if Mr. Mahoney is not duplicitous in his self projection as a savings hawk, he would publicly acknowledge three uber-expensive anachronisms in our state: the Liquor Control Board (LCB), the Turnpike Commission, and the bloated, largest full-time — and most expensive — legislature in America. The first two are unneeded and the third is a sinecure and all three are absurdly expensive and religiously protected by state politicians. Let’s say they — state politicians — have a vested interest in the continuation of the current forms of all three.

In closing, I accept all who question school cost. However, I would be duly impressed by a thorough and critical analysis of the three groups mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Money saved from these extravagantly expensive organizations — that other states have eliminated/reduced — would perhaps allow Pennsylvania to fairly and adequately fund its public schools.

Maybe some state legislator with courage — and wisdom — will propose a state constitutional convention, enabling all citizens to implement sorely needed changes in the laws and organizations in our state.

Bill Elias is a resident of Uniontown.