Bedford Central: Mental health clinic plan fails again to win OK

By JEFF MORRIS

At its Oct. 8 meeting, the Bedford Central Board of Education once again failed to authorize Superintendent Robert Glass to sign an agreement with Putnam Northern Westchester BOCES to partner in the Northwell Mental Health Clinic in Mount Kisco. 

The agreement had been discussed at the Sept. 10 board meeting, without reaching any resolution. This time, after extended discussion, the authorization came to a vote.

Access or not?

The discussion actually began earlier during the public Q&A portion of the meeting, when Erica Charpentier of Mount Kisco spoke. She recalled that the Mental Health Clinic had been part of the deliberations for the 2025-26 budget, and funding was included in the budget that voters approved. 

“We are now in the second quarter of the 25-26 fiscal year, and BCSD students still do not have access to this invaluable mental health resource, because you have not fulfilled your commitment,” she said. “In total, students from 54 school districts can access these services, while ours cannot.”

Board President Gilian Klein responded, “Our students are currently accessing the clinic; I feel like I need to say that clearly because that is the most important thing.” 

She said they had had clear communication with Northwell, which had sent data on the number of students who had already been seen. 

Klein said Charpentier was correct that they voted on it as a board, but they voted pending receipt of the contract. 

“There were concerns in the contract around insurance and liability that we did not have access to when we voted on it,” she said. “This board has spent a great deal of time very thoughtfully discussing the risk/benefit analysis of exposing the district fiscally due to liability.” 

Klein said they were not diminishing that there is a need, but trying to be fiscally responsible. “One of the things we learned in this contract is that districts that don’t buy in, our students still have access.”

She said the community should “rest assured that our students are accessing the clinic.” 

Charpentier said she was curious to learn more about how that works, and Trustee Lisa Mitchell said she thought it would be important to provide more context during the later discussion around how students in the district are accessing it.

Board deliberations

When the matter was brought up again about an hour later, Glass said when it was proposed as part of the budget, they didn’t know that much about it because the plan was still being constructed. He said once the BOCES contract became available, the board did a “magnificent job” delving into the details, and it had a responsibility of considering fiduciary and liability concerns as well as student health. 

“I think I’ve reached the point where I feel like I cannot give you much more information that would affect your decision on whether to participate or not,” he said.

As at the previous meeting’s discussion, approval hinged on whether board members felt the district was opening itself up to liability claims by signing on, due to the fact that BOCES, through which the contract goes in order to be subsidized by state aid, would not indemnify the district. The district’s attorneys had reportedly disagreed as to whether this presented a “low risk” or a “very low risk.”

Trustee Leo Sposato said he initially had questions about how students would access the services, but believed all his questions had been answered, and he was ready to make a decision. Trustee Steven Matlin agreed they needed to make a decision, but expressed continuing concerns about what is and is not in the contract. He confirmed what Klein had said, that they learned from Northwell that morning that about 50 of the district’s residents “have already partaken in the clinic, even though we’re not signed on and are not officially participating in the clinic at this time.” Glass said there were different levels of service that depended on participation, but that Matlin was right: “You can participate at a more basic level.”

Trusty Betsy Sharma asked when, if the board decided not to participate, the next opportunity to do so would come up. Glass said the opportunity was annual, so would probably be during the next budget cycle.

Mitchell said she was also ready to make a decision, and recognized she was less risk-averse than Matlin. She called the benefits of the publicly adopted budget item “material for a district like ours, in which 40% of our kids are economically disadvantaged; that’s almost half of our students who very well may not have access to insurance, or have the mechanisms to navigate how they can be insured despite their economic circumstances.” She said, “That really matters to me, when we consider the benefits of buying in versus anyone can just access it; I don’t think anyone can ‘just access it’ in our district.” Trustee Blakeley Lowry echoed earlier remarks and said she was also ready to make a decision, and felt the need for mental health services outweighed other concerns.

Trustee Prasad Krishnan said initially, when he heard how much the services were going to help students, he felt it was “a no-brainer.” He said if he had confidence that the district’s costs would be “capped at $65K and there was no downside from any liability” he would say they should do it. But unfortunately, he added, as they talked more about it, he found “a level of risk that is hard to quantify on the downside.” Like others, he said knowing the service is still available to students helped him come to a decision.

Mitchell pointed out that “it is available to the students that can afford it currently,” with “limited payment flexibility to uninsured patients.” Klein said it was a sliding scale; Krishnan said he didn’t believe they could turn away any patients.

Matlin announced he was abstaining from the vote. “The contract is not clear to me,” he said. “I don’t want to keep talking about this, but I in good conscience can’t vote on this yes or no, without having more information.” He said legally, the contract “needs a lot of work.”

“I’m not sure how to proceed,” Klein said. “I could just call a vote.” 

She said she was confused about abstaining, because “a lot of us could come to that.”

Matlin reiterated that the contract was not well written.

Klein said, in her opinion, it was “kicking the can down the road” to not come to a decision, and she didn’t think waiting for more information was ever going to get them to that point. Matlin clarified that he did not think any more information would be forthcoming; he simply felt there was information missing from the contract that should be in it, but he did not think Northwell or BOCES was going to renegotiate at this point.

Mitchell enumerated a list of benefits for students that, according to a memo from Northwell, were reduced or missing without a partnership.

The vote is called

A motion was presented to execute the agreement with BOCES: Sposato, Mitchell and Lowry voted in favor; Krishnan and Klein voted against; Matlin and Sharma abstained. Klein immediately moved on to the next agenda item, but that was not the end of the matter.

As she was adjourning the meeting, Klein asked for clarification about the results of the vote, as she thought the motion had passed, three to two. But she was informed that a majority of the board had to vote in favor for the motion to pass, which would have required four yes votes. So in fact, with three yes votes, two no votes, and two abstentions, the motion failed. 

Further confusing the matter, a “BCSD Board Meeting Brief” page on the district website contained incorrect information, indicating the motion had been passed — until this week, when The Recorder pointed out the discrepancy.