The Plainedge Vote Yes Sign "Blitz"

[mythreekids]

I was just wondering.... I know that the "Vote Yes" Campaign is obviously well under way by the amount of signs popping up around town. I, for one think this is great!

HOWEVER-

I have heard numerouse complaints from individuals who state, " Where are the signs that say- "Save your Property"? Some, believe it or not are upset that all the signs say "Don't Hurt THe Kids" and some are taking offense to this..
Does anyone know if there will be signs made around town that say" Save Your Properties and the value of your home- Vote Yes!"? Just curious-

[momma3]

I am an absolute YES voter and I did not give too much thought about the signs until my five year old who can read asked, why do the signs say don't hurt the Kids? Its hard to explain to a five year old. IMO Don't' Hurt the Kids can me interpreted in many ways. I guess if nothing else it brings it stirs up conversation!

[thewildrover]

How I interpret the “Don’t hurt the kids” message is that it meant to address those community members, that out of anger and frustration, voted “NO” in protest of the Superintendent/Board Presidents arrogance, as well as what was previously mentioned in other posts: The putting up of the same budget for the second vote.

I think Patriot said it best: “It was a slap in the face of this whole community” and I think people took it very personally.

IMO those folks never fully realized the consequences of the budget failing the second time and the result being OUR children entering into a school year on austerity.
Sports cuts, club cuts, honor society cuts, Drama cuts, etc.

Did their “NO” vote hurt Dr. Richman?

Did their “NO” vote hurt Mr. Mallow or the rest of the Board?

Who really felt the impact of their "NO" vote and the austerity budget cuts?

THE KIDS DID!!!

Therefore, I think, the “Don’t hurt the kids” message.

As for the “Save Your Properties and the value of your home- Vote Yes!" signs, I’m all for them!!

Now we’ll just have to find someone to help pay for them!!

I do know that parents and youth sport groups raised funds through donations to pay for the existing signs. They have kids that they don’t want hurt by a second year in austerity.

Their money, their message. Seems fair enough to me.

I do see some of the red and white lawn signs with a somewhat more positive message. Perhaps monies will be raised to produce some “property value impact” signs as well.

I am sure that keeping Plainedge a desirable to live and a place for young families to locate is a major part of the “VOTE YES” committee’s message.

[thewildrover]

Maybe a little off topic, but was at the annual Plainedge School Districts "We Make a Difference Awards Ceremony" where close to 200 children from pre-K through Senior year in H.S. are recognized for their outstanding contributions to the specific school they attend and the Plainedge community in general.

Overheard a active father, Mr. B.S. Quinn, talking in a positive tone with regards to the recent signage and he made a suggestion for a banner to be carried at the lead of the "Vote Yes" parade that could be Plainedges motto from this point on:

PLAINEDGE-NOT A TOWN, BUT WHAT A COMMUNITY!!!

That sums US up perfectly.

Thought it should be shared.

I see a bumper sticker in the future!!!

[gopybl]

Wild - I think the signs are great....I do agree that having more signs would be even better.....As Mr. Hanrahan stated at the Vote Yes meetings....Do not seek reassurance or permission....If you wanna do something positive just go ahead and do it. If you are a leader of a group....get the funds and create what ever signage you would like to support for this budget. Just make sure it says VOTE YES May 16th....

[supportstudents]

I will go one step further, if you have the funding and the slogan, I will assist you by either placing the order or giving you the # to the company to place it yourself. More signs are a coming!!! Let me know.

John Danielo
[e-mail]

[mythreekids]

I really love what wild rover said..Banner sounds like a great idea for the parade.!! Thanks for sharing!

[Say What Again]

The NO voters dont care that it didnt hurt the BOE - they only care about the amount of taxes they have to deal with living here, and the school budget being the only facet of those taxes that they get say in, it shouldnt come as any surprise that they would be voting No. Perfectly valid and logical point as far as they themselves are personally concerned, especially if they dont have children in the district's education system...but if that is really an issue for them, then maybe they should rethink the residential decision they made.

There's plenty of houses up for sale in the town - 1 more wouldnt hurt

[Go Plainedge!]

saywhatagain said:

The NO voters dont care that it didnt hurt the BOE - they only care about the amount of taxes they have to deal with living here, and the school budget being the only facet of those taxes that they get say in, it shouldnt come as any surprise that they would be voting No. Perfectly valid and logical point as far as they themselves are personally concerned, especially if they dont have children in the district's education system...but if that is really an issue for them, then maybe they should rethink the residential decision they made.

There's plenty of houses up for sale in the town - 1 more wouldnt hurt

So, they should move because they don't agree with the school budget?

[Say What Again]

Im very bad at expressing verbal satire and rhetoric on a written medium such as boards like these because unfortunately, others reading a statement, cant get the full impact of tone or body language, that would communicate them, rather than taking what is read at face value, which is the only real way they can be taken on a written forum.

What I was trying to express is more along the lines of....

The "No" voters have some options to consider:

1. Either reluctantly agree with the budget and vote yes, and eat the increase
2. Vote no and hope it doesnt pass
3. Vote no and be miserable about it if it does pass
4. Consider that there is a very high percentage per capita of homes with children in the district and accept the realization that their "No" vote would most likely sit in the minority.

There's nothing really to do about it as school budgets are part of your taxes - like it or not. Some of them might say, "I've raised my kids and they are all out of school. Im paying a fortune for college - let families with kids still in school deal with the budget and leave me alone. I've paid my dues."....or...."I dont have kids, what do I care if the budget fails?

Again, a valid argument from their point of view, but unfortunately one that just doesnt really fly living in a district/town with a school and a high percentage of homes with kids. If this particular brand of No-voter feels that strongly about it, they have very little alternative other than to either accept it, or vote it down and hope, or move to a locale without a school district, and hope that district doesnt build one there eventually.

Its a situation of absolutes, and you have to be prepared to live with those absolutes (and the consequences assocaited with them), whichever ever way they fall. Last year, it failed and the consequence was that the community got "fund-raisered" to the extreme...There were also some people who wondered how come other activities didnt get reinstated in addition to sports - thinking that those were what they were also contributing to. So while it was shown that a community can come together to defeat adversity, it didnt work for everyone.

This year, the community rallied to vote the budget through and give the kids the best they could give - obviously a wonderful thing - but you have to wonder how many of them were thinking to themselves "Im just voting yes - I cant go through all that fund-raiser hooplah again", despite the fact that it probably wouldnt have happened again.

Im glad it passed, because school is supposed to be more than just reading, writing, 'rithmatic...and under an austerity budget, thats all the kids get - its supposed to be about the expansion of their minds and to strive to fnd new and better ways to put that reading, writing, 'rithmatic to pratical use and development to better society as a whole, other than to be able to tell McDonalds or Stop-n-Shop that they "gots an edumacation".

[honebee]

How about a Fifth option, such as: The same people that fought so hard to pass the budget and indeed accomplished what they set out to do, use their energies and creativeness to change the way things are done on Long Island in reference to the schools. Maybe we need to have less administrators getting over $300,000 a pop for a salary. Maybe we need to combine districts. Maybe we have to cut costs and investigate criminal behavior. Maybe we have to stop the fat cats from getting more and instead give it to the kids, but also help the rest of us not go to the poor house with the school taxes. People that have lived in their homes for over 20 years just don't want to leave because things are expensive. We want change so that we can stay in our homes and die here if we want to. We want the taxes to go down and whatever taxes are paid distributed to the very ones that should be getting it: the kids. It's time for reform, not resignation of business as usual. If we truly are a community, then we need to rally together and do something, not just wake up to pass the school budget!

[Say What Again]

I always wondered, what the hell do those guys need with a 300K/Yr salary anyway? dont they get a town car and a gas allowance and other taxpayer-funded perks? Hell, I'd do it for a third of that and the state can keep the car and gas. More and more people who might be able to do some good, face the prospect of having to leave, while the administrators that are making policy are the only ones able to afford to stay and deal with the taxes imposed by the budgets they present the community with. Hey, If I didnt have to work for a living, I'd consider running for office myself if I thought Id have a chace in hell of winning.

[Go Plainedge!]

Combining school districts was discussed a few years ago. The thought was to merge Plainedge with Massapequa. The "fat cats" and ones with any type of job in this school district administration poo-poo'd the idea because they would (more than likely) lose a job.

I am not one for comparing school districts on an academic level. But if you compare Massapequa and Plainedge on a financial and administrative level accounting for the number of students, you will see Massapequa runs much leaner. Why?

I predict that Plainedge (as a school district) will be dissolved if we continue going the way we are.

[justfacts]

One District doesn't have to merge with another to control costs.

It is seemingly true that having one Administration staff for several School Districts would reduce the amount of people getting $100K plus salaries per year. But an alternate is also true - the remaining Administrators - having a larger power base - would be getting $200K plus salaries per year! This is what has happened in a short time when some governmental agencies have merged.

This is also what happens in just about every business merger. The remaining company has CEOs, COOs, etc. that get salaries that are four and five times what the combined previous staffs of the individual companies got! Plus - exorbitant bonuses are now introduced!

But - bringing certain major cost elements under common rule - such as setting County-wide or State-wide salary ranges for common jobs, could effect savings. And having certain jobs filled under a common head - like BOCES - not at a District by District level.

Why aren't many of these common minor administration jobs subject to at least County-wide levels of pay and County-wide levels of performance? Other local government agencies have these requirements, why not School Districts?

Why do we have the pay scales we do have in Plainedge for the minor administration personnel? $129 Thousand for a "Chief Information Officer"; $150 Thousand for an "Assistant to the Superintendent"; $154 Thousand for one "Assistant Superintendent" and another $172 Thousand for a second "Assistant Superintendent" That's $605 Thousand dollars in salaries, not alone other operating expenses, for just a couple of support people to a Superintendent that has a 36 Hundred level student enrollment!

That comes to $168 per student for four Administrative support people! These seem to be jobs that would be competitively filled with fewer personnel that paid at about 60% to 70% of those salary and benefit levels! At least, that's what other schools in Nassau are capable of doing.

Wouldn't it be nice if they shared their management economy secrets with all of us in the County? Wouldn't it be nice if these tasks were shared across districts? Cutting down on the myriad of tasks behind common paperwork and reports. development of Standards and revisions in Procedures, etc.

Just some questions and thoughts.

Oh!, by the way Say What Again: The number of homes in the District is 6242. The number of enrolled students is 3557. That hardly constitutes a "high percentage of homes having kids" This is especially true if you take into account the other demographic - There is an average of 1.8 children per home with children in them.

Translated that means the 3557 students live in a total of 3557/1.8 homes or 1976 homes in this District have children in them. That comes to 1/3rd of the homes have children in them. Support for the School Budget does come from many homes that do not have children in them!

So, this should show that a large portion of the homeowners that do NOT have children in the school (68%) DO vote YES on the budget!

That's the only way we could have had a large majority (62%) of YES votes on the Budget! This is true even when the Budget fails (as it did last year) by about an even fifty-fifty split!

If the vote was determined only by the homeowners having children enrolled in the school, as claimed, the vote would always end in a NO vote by a two-to-one ratio! 32% YES, 68% NO![/b]

These demographic studies and County counts of homes should put to rest the mis-truths about why and how people vote the way they do.

Ed.

[Say What Again]

seems like more - or maybe there just a higher majority of homes with children that showed up to vote - wasnt there somewhere around 5000 total votes or something like that? assuming that maybe only 65-70% of homes voted, how many of that are possible "2-family" homes? and what is the stance (if any) on a single property casting opposing votes?