School Accountability Bills Passed

[yruohk]

FYI...............


CONTACT: Press Office
[phone] FOR RELEASE:
Immediately
July 25, 2005

Hevesi Praises Pataki for Signing School Accountability Bills

Calls Bills a Major Step Forward in Restoring Public Trust in Schools

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi today praised Governor George Pataki for signing two school finance reform bills last week which had been drafted by the Comptroller’s office.

Calling the final legislation a team effort, Hevesi also thanked the many groups that worked to help develop the legislation, including the New York State School Boards Association, the New York State Society for Certified Public Accountants, the New York State Council of School Superintendents and the New York State Association of School Business Officials.

He thanked the State Education Department for contributing its expertise during the development of the plan, and said that the bills would not have been passed by both houses without the leadership of Speaker Silver and Assemblymember Tom DiNapoli in the Assembly and Majority Leader Bruno and Senators Steve Saland and Carl Marcellino in the Senate. Hevesi also praised Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillion for his investigation into the widespread fraud at Roslyn, his support of this legislation and his ongoing cooperation with the Comptroller's Office.

“I would like to thank the Governor for signing these two bills that will help restore public trust and accountability in school finances following the scandals in several Long Island districts,” Hevesi said.

“These bills are examples of what we can accomplish when all parties work together,” Hevesi said. “These new laws represent real reform and a significant step forward in improving school governance in New York State. I look forward to continuing to work with the Governor and Legislature to protect taxpayers and to help improve educational opportunities for all of New York’s students.”

Hevesi said the bills, which include a new five-point plan for school financial accountability, correctly make strong internal controls inside each school district the primary defense against mismanagement and corruption. The bills also improve the quality of independent audits and provide funds for his office to audit school districts.


Albany Phone: [phone] Fax:[phone]
NYC Phone: [phone] Fax:[phone]
Internet: www.osc.state.ny.us
E-Mail:[e-mail]

[irishman]

The following info was extracted from a Newsday article of September 21, 2005.

It might, if given due pause and some light shined on it from the Saints above, show some Administrators why we voters develop an "attitude" about the standards & value judgments of some, but not all laddie, school administrators.

==============================================================================

More problems hit Hempstead district.

Nassau prosecutors yesterday unsealed an indictment charging a former Hempstead consultant, John Finn of Ann Arbor, Mich., with bribing a school board member that also implicates a top-ranking administrator in a cover-up of the scheme. Finn is also charged with evidence tampering to make it seem as if the money to pay off Parsley was actually a loan to Sally Thompson, a special assistant to Superintendent Nathaniel Clay.

The indictment names, but does not charge, Parsley or Thompson. Thompson is a school principal on special assignment as Clay's chief aide. Prosecutors say Finn prepared the phony promissory notes bearing his and Thompson's signatures in February 2004, but that it was Thompson who gave them to investigators, in a bid to cover-up the bribery

Finn and his group were paid $411,000 by the district to encourage fathers to get more involved in their children's lives, in tutoring and mentoring programs, for example. Prosecutors say that after the school board dumped Finn's program by one vote in September 2003, Finn paid Parsley a total of $10,000 and bought him furniture to switch his vote. On Dec. 18, 2003, the board reinstated Finn's contract. Four days later, Finn sent Parsley $2,000, prosecutors said.

Clay said he is troubled that Thompson was implicated in the indictment, and is considering reassigning her.

Still, he and board President Ralph Schneider said they remain confident in Thompson's administrative abilities, if not her judgment.

"Knowing now about her possible involvement, I will do what's necessary ... ," Clay said, "but she's still a good administrator and it's not like I have people knocking down the doors to work here."

Schneider suggested she was duped by Finn and Parsley.

"Sally doesn't have smarts when it comes to trusting people," Schneider said.

==============================================================================


Now, in the hard world outside the Hempstead School District - any one else caught in similar shady and illegal activities - would have their walking papers handed to them immediately. Their backsides'll be out the door just ahead of my shillelagh!

Because getting a replacement person might be some trouble - excuses are made - not only for the actions taken by the employee, but also for the employee herself!

It's not only Sally that doesn't have the "smarts" lads!

"She was duped!" Sheeezze!

She handed the false papers over herself!!!

The statements made by these "administrators" reflect incompetence and no sober judgment when it comes to enforcing moral and professional standards required by all that are involved in handling a public trust.

There is not excuse, no justification whatsoever, for such unethical and immoral behavior.

[concerned]

Thanks for sharing the article. Do you, or anyone, have the article that was supposedly published last week about all Long Island Schools being audited?

[techie]

concerned said:

Thanks for sharing the article. Do you, or anyone, have the article that was supposedly published last week about all Long Island Schools being audited?

The article was originally posted in NEWSDAY. If you can't find it in a search of their site, then it has been moved to their archives. You can pay a small fee and have permission to search all through their archives. Very well worth the price!
Also, NEWS12, Cablevision ran a similar story. If you are a Cablevision subscriber you can access it for free.

[justfacts]

You've often seen and heard about administrative reductions from 24 to 18 in the past few years. It is voluntarily brought up by Board members. Here's a recent e-mail on this topic that you may find interesting.

Particularly interesting might be the question you may ask back the next time someone tells you this tall tale![/b]

==============================================================================
e-mail question:

A resident forwarded me the 8/25 email "The True Amount of Administrator Reductions in the "Last Few Years". Could you send me the web address of that table?

One of the wrestling dads is a CPA and got a list from Cathy Flannagan that showed only 3 years: maybe 1993 or 94, 1999 and 2004. It totally skips the "leaner" years like 1997 and 2003. I will send to him so he can see real numbers

==============================================================================

Answer:

O.K. Here's the site(s); emsc32.nysed.gov/mgtserv/cdlead.htm (1997-2004)
And for current years: emsc32.nysed.gov/mgtserv/ (2005, 2006)

Focus on this fact: It is the cost of Administration that the public has questioned. "Just how much of the money that comes out of my pocket goes to the Children and how much goes to Administration? It looks like its gotten higher in recent years."

The response has been a misdirection - it talks of the number of Administrators being reduced in the past few years - not the Cost of Administration!

And the above State supplied information proves that statement is not true, (it has been 17 +/- 2 Administrators from 1997 to 2005) - and that the cost of Administration has increased.

The proper question back to anyone that makes that statement is: "Oh! Is that true? Then how come the cost of Administration has gone from $1.4 million to $2.4 million in those same few years? The State gives those Administration cost numbers!"

The number of Administrators is not as important as the fact that the overall cost of the Administration salaries (for 18 people, 12 people or 24 people) has increased 7 1/4 % per year each year. The bottom line has gone up 1.75 times in nine years! A 7.25% raise per year for nine consecutive years "ain't hay!" as they used to say! It's $1 million more in annual cost.

Think that's something? Look at the Administration support costs - from $128,613 for this in the first 3 years of the last nine years ($42,871 average,) to $1,231,399 for the last three! ($410,466 average) About a ten-fold increase in cost! (Forget about how many people it's divvied up over)

Now to the Superintendent. Salary and benefits and car allowance cost (Bonus and Free Tax deferred $20,000 Annuity not included) has gone from $191,923 to $ $283,959 in nine years - a 1.48 times increase. The last 5 years, the Salary, etc. has increased 8.23% per year. That's a pretty healthy increase for each of the years Richman has been here.


Don't feel sick - just remember, all the information that has been spread on this subject by the School Board has been with the directions included: "Look what a great job we have been doing! How could anyone do any better?" They told us to look into this - and that's what we did! We looked into official School statistics - and this is what they have filed with the State - who they can't mislead! What are we to do about this?

==============================================================================

So! Just what are we going to do about this? Go to more Board meetings to hear more propaganda? Or are we going to show that we have more reliable data available to us and we want our basic question answered - Just how much of that money that comes out of pocket goes to administration and not programs - and why is it getting to be so much?

Why can't the line on that part of the spending be held as tight as the line on programs spending has been held?

[elphaba65]

Once again your facts are VERY misleading. If you recall it has been stated (and this you can verify) that years ago ONLY the salaries appeared, not the benefits. Let's try factual information.

By the way, have you checked your library website yet? Any answers for my questions?

[Go Plainedge!]

Elpha

Can you provide a link to the library information? I just looked at their site and I can't seem to find the discrepancies you mentioned.

[concerned]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again your facts are VERY misleading. If you recall it has been stated (and this you can verify) that years ago ONLY the salaries appeared, not the benefits. Let's try factual information.

Dear Elphaba - Interesting you say things are misleading.....while looking for one thing in my files, I ran across the salary sheets of the administrators and benefits for 2004/05. Recall this is the year that Dr. Richman gave back his $10,000 increase. Yet, the State Ed Web Site still listed his base salary for that year as $232,000, rather than the $221,000 that was posted upon the revised budget process in June 2004. So, rather than jump to conclusions, I called someone in the State Ed. Dept. to find out when these numbers get published. They said they DO get published prior to the community voting on the budget, in May but after the BOE approves the proposed budget. But, the individual pointed out that the superintendent is the one who has the pin number to enter the information. So, if information is misleading and outdated, I would think the person with the pin would have gone back into that State Ed. web page and updated it with the accurate numbers. I guess we'll never know if the salary reduction actually went into place. The overall money in last year's Chief School Administative line of the school budget read (line 1240) read $295,000. That certainly equates to more than the $221,000 plus $33,000 in benefits and $5,100 bonus that was listed on the "Administrative Compensation Information" sheet listed in the budget materials in May 2004. Obviously, there must be more to this line that one would think and there probably is an explanation that makes sense to everyone who works with this information all day long.

My point isn't to argue about our superintendent's salary. I guess what I'm saying, is if the numbers aren't accurate with the State, then why not? Shouldn't someone from our school district be demanding the numbers reflect accurate amounts since everyone is quick to refer the community to the State Ed Web pages, etc.? Then, when people use these numbers and refer to them, we are quickly told they are outdated.

By the way, the full document I was referring to lists Superintendent salaries for the 2004/05 year....

www.emsc.nysed.gov/mgtserv/educ%20Mgmt/adminSalary/SAL0405.htm

[concerned]

P.S. The link doesn't come up. Try this....

www.NYSED.gov

Then type under Search

New York State School Administrator Salary Information for 2004-05

Our code is number 280518 to help you in scanning the information

[justfacts]

elphaba65

Why do you persist in leaving yourself open to being called a (B)oard (S)tuff artist?

In your reply to the recently posted facts about Administration staffing and Administration costs in the Plainedge School District you claim the information is misleading - without supporting that statement, nor providing a verifiable source. Yet it is you who are misleading - or very poorly attempting to mislead. [/i]

You attempt to discredit the State information source provided in the initial post by throwing out the BS line: "Once again your facts are VERY misleading. If you recall it has been stated (and this you can verify) that years ago ONLY the salaries appeared, not the benefits. Let's try factual information."

If you bothered to check the facts by linking to the site information provided with the post to support the facts in the message - you would find that the site lists SALARY, BENEFITS and OTHER for the compensation shown for all the years shown.

The sum of those items for Class 1 and Class2 administrators,which is the community's out-of- pocket cost, is used to give the total compensation figures for those two classes. Since the State does not require that beneifts be included in Class 3 Administrators compensation, they are the only ones that uniformly do not list Benefits and Other costs. If these were also listed, the community's out of pocket costs would be even higher!

That site data goes back to when the State law was changed to make the data available to the public. It starts nine years ago and that's when the information provided in the prior post begins! It does not mislead - it is from State mandated figures for Administration Salaries, Benefits and Other compensation.

Are you trying to BS the Plainedge public by saying that the State figures are not factual? OR, are you once again, without providing source data proof or backup for your claim, making a statement to mislead and misdirect the public by calling State Supplied data NOT FACTUAL?

Come on, lets get down to this one issue and stick with it only - show all of us where the State listed figures are not true!

Show us where the total number of Administrator positions has not been 17 +/- 2 persons for the last nine years. Show us where the cost of Administration has not increased 7 1/4% per year over the last nine years.

P.S. Thanks also to Go Plainedge! and Concerned for checking out the information from any source posting on this forum (mine included)

It's time the "pot stirrers" woke up to the fact that residents will no longer take their statements at face value - but they have the means, and will use them, to verify in depth, all the statements made on this forum for themselves.

And the residents will keep to the point: Why have Administration costs risen so much lately? If there is a verifiable answer, we'd still like to hear it! [/i]

[justfacts]

Here's a recent e-mail exchange I've had with a Plainedge taxpayer who has experience in school systems outside of Plainedge.

It concerns the enclosed Newsday article about another LI School District's weak financial reporting. I offer my friend some viewpoints about how the "blame" might not be the fault of the people involved, but the fault of the way the present system is set up. I believe it needs change. What do some of you others that are involved think? Is this a good subject for a Forum thread?

==============================================================================
Hi my friend,

To answer your question (Ed - Does anyone really know what is going on around here?) bluntly - NO!

The system used to manage District funds is flawed more than the people in the system. We don't have anything in the system to firmly provide the needed checks and balances. It is based upon "the honor system" and the untutored skills of the transitory people who are chosen from the general population to monitor the process - the Trustees.

I've yet to find the all powerful School Administrator(s) who have even marginal skills in managing a large operation WITH AN ATTENDANT PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DO IT WELL! There is no penalty except for a "well after-the-fact" public and legal embarrassment - which you can see from the Roslyn Superintendent's letter, has yet to sink into his consciousness. Industry has provided a method to evaluate these skills - it's called the "profit and loss" motive. Maybe if all of the school district management's salary was based upon performance . . . .

If, just if, we had new civil service professional positions inside the school systems that did the financial controls and reporting, these persons would be independent of the local school district management personnel - and would be better able to control the funds according to testable and verifiable professional standards within the State Education Department requirements and the State laws. This relieves that burden of knowledge from transitory Trustees.

The value judgments from the use of these funds however, would still be at the "mercy" of the local Trustees. This is where a great deal of effort should be spent - training the local Trustees in making judgments about how to best use the funds and how to set up methods of feedback so they can better evaluate how programs are meeting their intended objectives. Methods for setting and meeting goals, and the actual sessions devoted to this, are not in the non-existent "training manual for trustees". We do need training and certification for Trustees - it is about to come about.

They need new tools to use, other than the present evaluation by personality - whether strong or weak, to find out just how well their administration personnel are performing, and how their goals, not the administrations goals, are being met. Those standards of performance (what to minimally expect from the management staff) are nowhere to be found! Want to write a good book on this subject? I'll bet you can with your background.

Regards, Ed [e-mail] 516-249-9308 516-694-6440

----- Original Message -----
From: "My Friend"
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Surprise surplus miffs PTA leaders


Ed - Does anyone really know what is going on around here?

Your Friend

<[e-mail]> 10/17/2005 9:08 AM

==============================================================================

--------------------
Surprise surplus miffs PTA leaders
--------------------

Hauppauge school district, they say, should have revealed it had the $5.6M when it cut jobs, services

BY JOHN HILDEBRAND
STAFF WRITER, October 17, 2005

Hauppauge schools have run up a $5.6-million budget surplus while cutting student services and raising class sizes - a sore point among PTA leaders and others who wonder why they were not told of the accumulating windfall last spring when reductions were being planned.

The surplus - $4.1 million more than anticipated - was revealed last week in a district memo to school board trustees, and is scheduled to be reviewed at a public board meeting tomorrow night.

The surprise surplus represents 5.6 percent of last year's $72.8-million budget - an excess large enough to stun some trustees already under pressure to keep a closer eye on the district's treasury.

In his memo, Superintendent Peter Scordo describes the surplus as a "positive" that can be used to build up depleted reserve funds and, perhaps, curb taxes.

He said district officials did not reveal the surplus earlier because they wanted to be fiscally cautious, and that he had shared the information now because it had been confirmed by a routine audit.

Nevertheless, as word of the memo has leaked, parent leaders say the information should have been shared when the district cut 54 staff jobs and student services ranging from hours at the school library to Friday night dances.

"My question is: How did this get past us and what do we do to rectify it so it doesn't happen again?" said Marti White, past president of the Parent Teacher Student Association at Hauppauge High School and the mother of a ninth-grader who has encountered crowded classes this semester.

Community attitudes are crucial in Hauppauge these days, with the approach of a Nov. 15 vote on a $26.2-million bond issue intended to expand and renovate the district's aging middle school.

The original school was built in 1951, and some facilities are so undersized that student lockers have been installed in former shower rooms.

Adding to pressures are recent scandals in Roslyn and in several other districts that have intensified demands on all school boards to keep residents better informed of their finances, and to curb the practice of squirreling away money.

In August, the two top officers of Seaford's board resigned, after the district disclosed a math error resulting in a surplus of $1.7 million - approximately 4 percent of its budget.

Ed. - Shades of Mr. Burn's $600,000 "minor arithmetic error"!!!

"It blows me away," said Steve Burton, an attorney and former Suffolk County prosecutor, who has clashed often with Hauppauge administrators in his attempts to get more financial information since being elected to the board last spring.

"You don't want to micromanage, but the board has to be kept up to date on where we stand," added Ann Macaluso, a board member the past three years, who teaches business courses in another district.

Burton and Macaluso say they cannot be certain whether the administration withheld the information out of secrecy or due to an error, but they intend to ask.

Scordo and other Hauppauge administrators insist their situation is different from Seaford's - that most of their surplus resulted from deliberate economies in school maintenance, textbook purchases and other items meant to be prudent.

They dismiss any assumptions that money saved could be applied to restoring services, saying this wouldn't be fiscally responsible in light of the district's depleted reserves.

Moreover, Hauppauge is under pressure to economize.

Last spring's initial $80.4-million budget proposal, which carried a 10.4 percent spending increase, was rejected by voters. A $78.4-million budget passed on the second vote.

Administrators concede they could have handled things better.

In an interview Friday, Carol Perkins, the assistant superintendent for business, said she regretted not informing trustees last spring that the surplus - known as a fund balance - appeared to be bigger than anticipated.

Scordo, a superintendent with nine years' experience in three districts, promised to keep trustees better informed. He added that there was no intent to hide information: "I've always been a straight shooter."

Copyright (c) 2005, Newsday, Inc.
This article originally appeared at:
www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liskul174473325oct17,0,7833369.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines

[justfacts]

Levy’s school tax plan concern
BY RICK BRAND STAFF WRITER
January 25, 2006, 9:04 PM EST

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy says the way to stop school taxes from climbing is to make the chief budget officer -- normally the superintendent -- an elected official directly accountable to voters.

But Levy's proposal, made Tuesday in his State of the County address, sparked an immediate chorus of concern from school officials and others who worried it would unduly politicize education and could create a costly extra layer of government.

Levy acknowledged the proposal, which also calls for similar elections in fire and library districts, is controversial. "It's a heavy lift," he said, but emphasized he does not envision a new layer of highly paid officials. "We don't want to hire new people, just make the people who are there more accountable."

Levy becomes just the latest local official to weigh in on the issue even though county government plays no part overseeing public schools. As far back as the 1980s, then-Suffolk County Executive Patrick Halpin called for consolidation of local school districts. In recent months, Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi also began talks with local school officials on education issues.

"Every county executive is frustrated that county property taxes are just a small part of what people pay, but too often they get blamed for other levies, like school taxes, which are beyond their control," Halpin said.

Levy yesterday pointed out that New York City's long-troubled public schools only started making strides when responsibility for education was put in the mayor's hands.

"It may sound nice on the surface," said Susan Bergstraum, president of the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association, "but in all practicality, I don't think it achieves anything the county executive wants."

State Sen. Kenneth LaValle (R-Port Jefferson) favors making requirements for administrators more stringent. "It's competency, not popularity that we need," he said. "The county executive has pointed to an area that needs concern, but has come up with the wrong remedy."

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
=========================================

Hey! Here's some news for you Mr. Levy - The accountability for the Superintendent's performance rests entirely with those that can HIRE or FIRE the Superintendent! - Those persons are known as SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS!

The VOTERS, in turn, can HIRE or FIRE the School Board Members (very slowly, unfortunately!)

Ed

[justfacts]

Here's one more Editorial piece about School Costs - Costs that result in taxes that exceed normal standards for the State but are put up with here on Long Island!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From Newsday column:

Taken to school on taxes
Joye Brown January 31, 2006

Long Islanders talk about taxes as if they were some demon jumping, unbidden, onto our backs and beating us senseless.

But, yeah - I have seen the Taxman.

And he is us.

Last week, as I lay sick in bed, the Long Island Index released its latest report.

It said, no surprise, that Long Islanders think taxes are a problem. It said, no surprise, that we're ready to do something about it.

The meatiest part of the report, however, received virtually no attention. It was an analysis of local government expenditures and revenue - the guts of what drives taxes - by the Rochester-based Center for Governmental Research, a not-for-profit research group.

For the first time, the report calculated the cost of our many layers of government, concentrating on 359 entities on Long Island that spend the bulk of your tax dollars.

So what's the tab for all of those elected legislators, town boards, village and city councils, along with their staffs and office expenses?

Answer: $32.1 million.

And what about the supervisors, county executives, mayors and other top elected officials?

Answer: $53.2 million.

The judicial branch came in at more than the other two categories combined - $96.8 million in 2003, the last year for which complete figures are available.

And there's more:

Twenty-two different government entities on Long Island share finance, general governmental and highway functions, to the tune of $424 million.

Thirteen others share law enforcement-public safety functions for a total of $790 million.

But all of that is a drop in the bucket for a region that in 2003 rang up a total $15.9 billion to cover the combined cost of operating towns, counties, cities, villages, school and fire districts.

School districts, again - no surprise to anyone with the courage to survey their own tax bill - accounted for half the $15.9 billion in spending.

Running Nassau and Suffolk counties took a third of the total cost. Operating fire, cities, towns and villages represented about one-fifth.

The Center for Governmental Research, founded in 1915, spent years perfecting ways to help residents see the costs of their local government.

Here's what it wants you to know: Long Island residents could save 75 cents for every dollar reduced in local government spending. In other words, local taxpayers directly - through property and sales taxes - bear 75 percent of the cost of the local bureaucracy.[/b]

Yesterday, I called upstate to Rochester and asked Charles Zettek, the report's author, what Long Island should do next. He couldn't say, but cited Monroe County, where residents voted down an effort to consolidate their local law enforcement agencies.

For Long Island, the study showed, school spending is wildly out of whack with the rest of government spending, he acknowledged.

"But I know people think of the public school system as being the jewel of Long Island," he said. "I don't know whether they would support taking that on."[/i]

What would you give up to lower your tax bill?

Joye Brown can be reached at [e-mail].

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

[justfacts]

To all viewers - and to Board Members

Sometimes we are so close to a situation we can miss a point. I did that - couldn't see the forest for the trees! My apologies!

The prior posts on this thread dealt a lot with the Financial reporting and verification of numbers (or the lack of constant dollar numbers) from the School District. I've been remiss in not giving the contact point that can put these numbers straight for us.

A discussion with Patriot on Sunday also revealed his inability to get paper commitments about cost items from the District - a problem the Library also has had with the District.

Proper invoices needed for accounting records before payments can be made to the School by the Library have not been forthcoming, despite extensive efforts to obtain them. Inconsistent and shabby papers have been supplied - as well as extensive arrogant letters - but no accounting level invoices and receipts.

The proper place or agency that is empowered by law to examine the School District financial records is the State Comptrollers office. They can also separate the right from the wrong procedures and reports.

They did that a few years ago only for the expense reports of key Administration personnel and Board members and found the records inadequate and incomplete - despite the school Districts synopsis of the report that said "No fault found".

In a later summary report to the State by the Comptroller, Plainedge came out second on the list, just under Roslyn, in being found wanting and having inadequate financial controls!

As an example: For $16,000 in expense reports by two top administrators, only $6,000 of these could be verified with extended accounting efforts. There was $10,000 still in unaccounted for expenses by these two that could not be backed up with the proper documents! This information comes directly from the "Hevesi Report" as found on the District's web site.

So if we can't get ordinary adequate and consistent financial statements from the District - we have but one recourse - contact the State Comptrollers Office!

And here is where I've been remiss - Just how does John Q. Public do that? Writing to Albany is not a direct way. If, and that's a big IF, your letter does get followed up, you are rerouted to another office - who then gives you to a local office, who then . . . Well, you get the idea!

I've gone that route and have found out who to deal with locally. So, after a long tale here is the contact for the State Comptroller's Office (Alan Hevesi) that we can deal with.

Mr. Richard Rennard, Chief Examiner of the Long Island Office [phone]. His "man in charge" of Plainedge affairs is Mr. Peter Novak. His e-mail address should have his name included (Attention: Mr. Peter Novak) and sent to - [e-mail]

They will have the authority to get into the District's records and find out the audited numbers for any financial reporting. And - they are pretty nice and competent people to deal with!

Ed.

P.S. In the main, I am of the opinion there has been no intentional illegal activity in reporting on District accounts - just inadequate and incompetent handing of financial matters and poorly done reports. Many reports are filled with simple errors and demonstrate a lack of knowledge, care and skill on the part of the preparers.

This has been coupled with an intentional drive to prevent open financial disclosure because of the Administration's lack of trust in the Board and the Public's competency to deal with and understand the Administration's Financial goals for the District.

There also seems to exist decided air of arrogant superiority within the Administration that is counter to the public's need to know and the general public's assumed qualifications to deal with the financial facts as perceived by the Administration. He seems to be convinced "He knows better".

This has been followed by a lack of tight fiscal controls and inadequate reviews by the Board in itself. They took too many things at face value and did not do enough questioning; or firmly request higher standards in fiscal performance from the Administration.

[justfacts]

Late News from Newsday!

Here's a release cut & pasted from today's Newsday.

While reading it please remember that the Budget last year included an increased expense from $20,900 to $35,400 for the District Meetings category. That cover's mostly the cost of food and refreshments at meetings.

Let's see, at about 50 meetings per year, including "Coffee hours" that comes to over $700 per meeting. Take a look at how the Brentwood Supervisor handled this and how much was spent on an Administrator's Breakfast Meeting.

Ed.

***************************************************************
THE ROSLYN Effect
Two years after scandal, districts deal with massive reforms
BY KARLA SCHUSTER, Newsday Staff Writer,
September 19, 2006

One day in July, nine auditors had camped out at the Jericho school district: three from the state comptroller's office digging into records from 2004-05; three from a private accounting firm doing the annual external audit; two more from another firm reconciling bank statements for the monthly internal audit; and, finally, an independent claims auditor reviewing every bill submitted during the last week.

"This is the picture of a school district in New York in the post-Roslyn era," Superintendent Hank Grishman remembers thinking at the time.

The Roslyn embezzlement scandal exploded into public view more than two years ago when a still-anonymous tipster charged that former schools chief Frank Tassone and others had stolen millions - $11.2 million, state auditors would later determine.

Case coming to a close

With the two key figures in the case, Tassone and former Assistant Superintendent for Business Pamela Gluckin, scheduled to be sentenced today, what began as a juicy tale of excess in one Long Island district has evolved into a story of dramatic reform felt in school systems across the state.

"If no one is watching, you're going to have a geometric increase in corruption," state Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi said. "We now know it with the public schools, the same as we know it with Enron and WorldCom and Tyco. The variable here is not high-income or low-income. It's not ethnic or racial or geographic. The variable is 'Is anybody watching?'"

For the past 20 years, after state budget cuts virtually eliminated regular state audits of local districts, no one was. Now, it seems, everyone is.

More than a dozen Long Island school officials, including six from Roslyn, have been charged with malfeasance in the past two years. A special grand jury in Suffolk County is examining the finances of every county district. Federal investigators are conducting a similar review of every district on Long Island.

Beyond that, a new state law requires additional, permanent layers of oversight. The law requires districts to solicit competitive bids for those external auditing contracts at least every five years and that the state's estimated 5,100 local board members get six hours of financial training. State lawmakers also funneled to the state comptroller's office an additional $5.4 million annually for five years to hire 84 auditors who will review spending in every school district in New York State by 2010.

Many local districts also are doing even more than the new law requires - hiring private firms to perform nearly all auditing functions although they are only legally required to use an outside accountant for the annual external audit.

"I'm just very, very careful about everything," said Brentwood's new interim Superintendent Mike Cohen, who said he picked up the $200 cost of coffee and Danishes for this year's annual administrators' breakfast, a goal-setting session the week before school started.

"Pre-Roslyn, something like that would probably be paid for by the district," he said. "But now ... in this environment, you have to ask yourself: 'Is it worth the risk?' "

Costly changes

But school officials say the more intense focus on the business side has come at a price.

Grishman says that Jericho now uses several private accounting firms for auditing jobs it once delegated to district employees. The annual cost of all those auditors will be about $125,000 next year, compared with about $18,000 just a few years ago. And those auditors do more than they ever have before, said Vinnie Cullen, a partner in Coughlin Foundotos, Cullen & Danowski, a Port Jefferson Station-based firm that audits about 77 Long Island districts. "You're looking at more, especially in the high-risk areas," such as travel, credit card expenses and cell phones, Cullen said.

An annual school district audit that took 300 hours now takes more than 400 hours, he said.

Perhaps no schools chief on Long Island can lay claim to a more direct impact from the Roslyn case than Anthony Annunziato, now superintendent of the Bayport-Blue Point schools. Annunziato was hired as the assistant superintendent of business in Roslyn just as the scandal broke. In the year he worked there, he spent much of his time working with prosecutors and state auditors investigating the fraud.

"Personally it has probably guided my behavior as a superintendent more than anything else," he said. "People will say, 'Oh, it must have been terrible' and you know what - it wasn't. It's almost like being in combat - once you've been a part of it, other things pale by comparison and seem easier."

Stricter legislation

Most of the statewide impact of the Roslyn schools scandal can be seen in the state's Fiscal Accountability Act of 2005. Its key tenets:

Districts must solicit competitive bids for external auditing contracts at least every five years.

Districts must hire an internal auditor, either as an employee or by contracting with an outside firm, by the end of this calendar year.

Every school board member in the state - more than 5,000 people - must undergo six hours of financial training.

Districts must create an audit committee.

In addition, the state comptroller's office has an additional $5.4 million each year for five years to hire 84 auditors. Their job: Review spending in every school district in New York state by 2010.

To read more about the Roslyn scandal and its players and vote on how it looks two years later, log on to newsday.com/li

********************************************************