The budget vote

As my readers probably know, I was one of two dissenters in the 7-2 vote in favor of the "proposed final budget" early Tuesday morning.

Because this issue has so many moving parts, it might not be entirely clear why a person voted as they did. Even if you voted "yes", it is likely that there are parts of the budget that you would like to change. If you voted "no", it is likely that there are large parts of the budget that you support. So an explanation might be useful.

I have two primary concerns with this budget.

Rather than using an "all-at-once" strategy, State College has been very deliberate in its approach to technology. As we've gradually increased the access that students and teachers have to computers in the classroom, teachers have had opportunities to develop and share ideas for improving instruction, and our students have benefited.

While it was never realistic for us to "fully-fund" our technology budget this year, I think it is important to do enough to maintain our momentum, which I believe the administration's modest recommendation would have accomplished.

My second concern was about the additional 1 1/2% tax increase, to be set aside for future payments into the retirement fund.

This is almost certainly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Unless the stock market has an amazing recovery (thereby boosting the value of the state pension fund), we will be facing a substantial increase in the district's contribution to employee pensions, beginning with FY2013.

I would normally be on the other side of this issue (that is, on the side of putting money aside that will be needed later) but given the current state of the economy, this strikes me as one of those times when it might be better to "pay me later." If the economy doesn't begin to improve by next year, then I think we'd have to begin to bite the bullet. But given all the effort that was made to minimize this year's tax increase, it strikes me as counter-productive to almost double that increase in order to pre-fund PSERS.

But reasonable people can disagree, and they did.