last nights meeting

[scotchboy]

I thought it was just a little ridiculous to talk so long
about security when no one seams to hold any trespassers for police and how about surveillance systems well and the mistake about key span I would think that even if they lost there records the administrators of plainedge would be responsible enough to keep records of there own and not tell us that keyspan lost them sounds like incompetence to me
not some one I would wont to lead a school district I live
in and the Yong man who asked why their was no cuts in the administration that question was asked by me at
the last meeting it was UN answered then and now
and probably never will be because the board is richman
rubber stamp if he was concerned with the children as he stays he is why was it the first place he cut not the last

[justfacts]

Scotchboy, (or any one else at the meeting)

Interesting post!

Can you elaborate on two topics?

"No cuts in Administration" [There should have been ~ to the tune of $307,000.]

"Lost the Keyspan records" [What was that all about?]

[Go Plainedge!]

justfacts said:

Scotchboy, (or any one else at the meeting)

Interesting post!

Can you elaborate on two topics?

"No cuts in Administration" [There should have been ~ to the tune of $307,000.]

"Lost the Keyspan records" [What was that all about?]

1. Apparently the school has the ability to switch from oil to gas energy when needed (and then back again). However, they need to let Keyspan know that they are switching and can't take it upon themselves to switch. The school was then fined $100,000 from Keyspan for not notifying them of the switch.

The school said they did notify them of the switch and asked Keyspan to check their records. Keyspan said the records were lost. Allegedly, this happened to Seaford too. So, now the negotiation of the $100,000 comes into play and it was settled on a $25,000 fine. However, no one on the board asked to see the letter stating the original $100,000 fine and then agreed the $25,000 was a good settlement.

2. A gentleman asked about travel costs being cut. He noticed that only $5,000 was cut from the travel budget and wanted to know why there isn't more cut. He questioned the percentage being cut. He then went on to say that he felt more cuts should be made from the administration portion of the budget. This went unanswered as they claimed not to "know the numbers off hand and not have the paperwork in front of them". He was invited to the office to pick up a copy of the budget.

[justfacts]

Go Plainedge!

Thanks for the info.
Keyspan topic deserves some "corrective action" policy by the Board and at least a follow up to even see if they're liable. Sounds like they were ~ and saying $25 K is a better settlement than $100 K is not the answer to what seems to be a problem ~ How about the controls for the next switch? Any in place?

Not having "the paperwork in front of them" is a stall to avoid answering the question. Since this was a tax levy session, the paperwork behind the amount of the levy (i.e.; the Contingency budget amounts) would be there and provide the number for the administration part of the budget. This avoidance is part of a continued attempt to cover up a wrong budget amount ~ wrong by $390,000!

Someone should go to the office and pick up a copy of that Budget. Better yet, given the topic of the meeting, copies should have been made available for the public by any decent and respectable Board.

[irishman]

Scotchboy wrote:
Re: last nights meeting
« Reply #2 on Today at 8:27am »

1. Apparently the school has the ability to switch from oil to gas energy when needed (and then back again). However, they need to let Keyspan know that they are switching and can't take it upon themselves to switch. The school was then fined $100,000 from Keyspan for not notifying them of the switch.

The school said they did notify them of the switch and asked Keyspan to check their records. Keyspan said the records were lost. Allegedly, this happened to Seaford too. So, now the negotiation of the $100,000 comes into play and it was settled on a $25,000 fine. However, no one on the board asked to see the letter stating the original $100,000 fine and then agreed the $25,000 was a good settlement.

And Justfacts wrote:
Re: last nights meeting
« Reply #3 on Today at 8:58am »
Go Plainedge! Thanks for the info.
Keyspan topic deserves some "corrective action" policy by the Board and at least a follow up to even see if they're liable. Sounds like they were - and saying $25 K is a better settlement than $100 K is not the answer to what seems to be a problem - How about the controls for the next switch? Any in place?


Sorry to say boys, but you both missed the boat!

Those bloody incompetents should have passed the fine on to the staff - docking them a total of $25,000 - and not accepted the fine for the public to pay!

Just how big is that fine? Well lads, besides amounting to washing 5,000 cars, we can use the recent cost of the famous "cuts" to find what programs it would pay for; (hold your breath now!)

Health Benefits Administrator, Interns, Operations & Maintenance equipment, High School Equipment, Field Trips, After School Programs, Mathletes, Summer School (elementary/middle), Summer School (elementary/middle), TAN Interest Expenses for Library, Administrative Travel, Elementary Science Supplies and Grade 6 World History Textbooks.

O.K. You can take a breath now. That list comes straight from their - [False Chart 5 -1 "Contingency Budget Reductions"] (Oh!, How I love the title they gave it! ) posted on the Web Site. I got it there today. Each of these programs is listed as under $25,000 in cost. ;D

Let the fights begin as to which was lost due to this $25,000 fine for the administration's foul up!

This is a total of 13 items on the line that the fine could pay for! And this Board and Dr. Richman say they don't know how they could save any more money! Pay attention to the details you bloody incompetents!

To fix it, why don't you have the courage to dock whoever caused the foul up. In industry, heads would roll!

All the Board seems to do is roll their eyes and be happy because the administration's foul up didn't cost us $100,000.

It's time for us to hold their collective feet to the fire! Stop screwing around with our money! Get it back from the administration!

[justfacts]

Irishman - Sorry for the delay in responding.

Please, don't be too harsh on the Administration for the Keyspan fiasco.

I'm sure that because all the controls and procedures were not put in place by the Superintendent to avoid this risk of a $100,000 fine (which was negotiated down to $25,000) the Board took these two facts into consideration when they went through their annual evaluation of the Superintendent. After all, it is he who is responsible for insuring that cost-effectiveness is continually maintained.

Reference from:
"Plainedge Board of Education
Evaluation of the Superintendent of Schools
3.01 Assumes responsibility for the management of all district financial resources to insure that fiscal integrity and cost-effectiveness are continually maintained."

In the first instance, the failure to establish controls and procedures required according to the Keyspan contract, they must have degraded his evaluation by a few points. But then, offsetting this, they must also have added back to his evaluation many more points since, in the negotiation, he must have done well for he had "saved the District $75,000 in fines!"

;D Overall, he most likely gained several "brownie points". ;D

What does this annual evaluation achieve? Well, members of the Board rate the Superintendent for performance to goals, tasks and accomplishments during the year. They then give a total score in three ranges of; 40-59, 60-79 and 80-100. For each step he gets a Bonus of; 3%, 4% or 5% of his annual salary. This merit increase "shall be paid to the Superintendent in a lump sum on or before June 30."

Reference from:
"Appendix A
Evaluation Pay Procedure
C. Merit Pay
Merit increase for the Superintendent shall be awarded on the basis of the Superintendent's overall numerical rating established as a result of the evaluation process as follows:
Score of 40-59 = 3% of annual salary
Score of 60-79 = 4% of annual salary
Score of 80-100 = 5% of annual salary

The Board shall award merit increases to the Superintendent at a June meeting which increase shall be paid to the Superintendent in a lump sum on or before June 30."

;D So the action of saving the district $75,000 in fines probably ensured that the numerical rating exceeded 80% this year as it has in past years; and the Board awarded the Superintendent a lump sum of cash in the amount of $12,185.65, or thereabouts ($11,605.40 if last year's salary is the base), in June of this year! ;D

[archer99]

This is such a generous district!

Imagine, you can have a job that pays well, be responsible for a $100,000.00 dolar fine,(reduced to $25,000.00 whew!)
and get a performance bonus for doing it!

I was at one of the local Supermarkets one day and a young woman got fired for her register being "short".

In all fairness, I hope "justfacts" remembers that the Superintendent didn't get the bonus for just this LIPA fine business. Remember his refusal to pay the secretaries what the courts continued to say was theirs cost the taxpayers more than $31,000.00 in legal fees. And just how did that all turn out? Did the district still pay what was owed to the secretaries? Can someone enlighten us?

[Go Plainedge!]

I guess only a School Superintendant and Weatherman can screw up that badly and still have a job.

[archer99]

Oh I forgot, remember he also gets a $20,000.00 tax free Anuity each year!

Life is SOOOO GOOOOD when you write your own contracts!

I have just been reading over The Superintendent's 13 page contract for 2001-2004. The latest one I haven't had the chance to review. (In it it states that anything he had before cannot be reduced) This is very interesting reading. Is there any interest in it being posted?

[Admin]

archer99 said:

Is there any interest in it being posted?

I would advise against posting it. BUT, I'm sure you can share it through other electronic means.

[archer99]

THANKS ADMIN.!

The response was the responsible one that I knew I would get.
In approx. 30 min.s time the Administrator of this site took the notice and time to reply. But also notice,...nothing was censored.
I of course would take the advice to not post the contract by this means. It is public information and can be obtained very easily. As soon as I scan it, anyone that is interested can send me a private email with an address outside of this forum and I would be happy to send it along. Once you are a member you can email me here.