I wonder if the timing of the proposed UA school levy (Issue 52), scheduled to be on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, is a wise strategy?

To the Editor:

I wonder if the timing of the proposed UA school levy (Issue 52), scheduled to be on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, is a wise strategy?

Since the new contract with the teachers' union won't be completed until December 2014, how is it the school board leadership can factor their fiscal operational needs at this point in time, without firm labor costs for the next four years?

It appears this levy request is putting the cart in front of the horse.

Additionally, the bargaining strategy by the board of education seems to want to enter these negotiations by dumping $6.3 million (the annual revenue produced by a 4-mill levy tax increase) on the table and asking the union lawyers for the OEA, "How much do you want?"

Let me be clear: I think the taxpayers deserve a more steely-eyed, tightfisted approach to the prudent management of our educational dollars, especially in an ailing economy.

Wages and benefits are 85 percent of the UA school district's budget. These costs are the biggest piece of the pie when determining the trajectory of spending in the district.

If cuts are not made to this area, we cannot put the district on a sustainable path.

Let's put the horse back in front of the cart where it should be. Vote no on Issue 52.

George Momirov
Upper Arlington