|
Post by justfacts on May 10, 2006 17:48:02 GMT -5
A very interesting appeal by our District Secretaries made directly to the Board. I assume this was done in Dr. Richman's presence - it shows how much internal stress there can be, and is, within our District doors as well as outside of them! Here's the address to go to. Since the District hasn't put out the Meeting Minutes in a while, this is the quickest way to see what's going on! www.plaintalkonline.com/OurSchools.htmlThere you will see what the Secretaries said to the Board! There's a mountain of information about wasted legal fees therein! And the retaliatory nature of Richman. Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jun 27, 2006 14:17:57 GMT -5
Just read the minutes of the June 13th meeting on the "other" site - plaintalkonline.com.
So tell me - what have the Sports Parents done to Richman this time? Did they ask for an accounting of what went where with the donated Sports money? Did they persist in trying to get this info from Richman?
Well, someone ticked him off! Here's the extract from a record of the meeting:
************************************************
"One of the topics of discussion was the fund raising and how the community would need to purchase their own insurance to hold a fundraiser like a car wash. The Superintendent stated "We have not followed good practice; before someone gets hurt or sued we should have rules and insist that everyone observes them.
Most of the community members were confused by this topic of conversation as it never came up during recent community car washes. The Superintendent asked the board to vote to support this new policy. Vice President Loretta Giardina requested that the Superintendent provide the Board with written guidelines in order to support the decision.
The Superintendent claimed that he did not have guidelines prepared but he still insisted on a vote this evening and he would get the guidelines. The Board voted 7-0 to support the Insurance issue even without proper and basic guidelines present.
Again off the record, community members were left shaking their heads as the Board failed to hold the Administration accountable for the guidelines before voting and they asked why it was so important to get the vote tonight. Shouldn't the vote have waited for the proper guidelines?"
****************************************************
Almost all other Districts, and other entities within the District, do not require the Public to obtain a separate Insurance policy to use Public property within the District! They, the Districts, supply insurance coverage (as part of their overall liability insurance costs) for the public that meets on their own Public property! It causes far less trouble and expense to the public to do so! It is the TAXPAYER that bears this burden, not the District!
For the District to penny pinch and cut that part of insurance costs off their main policy is a short-sighted action not in the Public's best interest. The cost to the Public to pay for a special insurance rider far outweighs the savings for the taxpayers if the same coverage is bought under a main insurance policy!
This leads one to wonder if charges for that coverage are on - or off - our present insurance policies? MAYBE WE ARE ALREADY COVERED FOR THE COST OF THE PUBLIC ACCESSING SCHOOL GROUNDS ON FUND RAISERS! IF NOT, WHY NOT?
IF YES = Then why make the Community pay twice for the same service?
Vindictiveness and meanness are the only motivators to make life more difficult for those that wish to do something positive for this District. It IS difficult for a small group to obtain separate Insurance policies! Community volunteer groups are only hindered and harmed by this policy forced though a witless Board by Richman!
The cost of separate policies for the public to provide coverage to use their own Public facilities have been quoted as costing from $2,500 to $7,600 for one particular group that uses the NY Institute of Technology as a meeting place. As a rider on another larger group's policy the cost is $750!
The Plainedge Public Library puts the School District on its Liability Insurance for a rider cost of about $350 per year. Against advice given at that time - Jeff Burns felt he could drop some of the School District's liability insurance coverage and lower the bottom line of the School District's Budget! This seems like a mistake in that we all know that lawsuits include those with the deepest pockets!
Again! This Administration seems to persist in doing what it wishes and the Board seems to rubber-stamp these wishes - without due concern for the best interests of the Community - or even listening to the Community's input on these topics!
The latest "policy change" is one that makes it much more difficult for the Community to hold positive fund raising activities, using the Public property that they own!
It is not in the interest of the Community - It appears to be in the self-interest of just one administrator. Who ticked him off?
Remember however, that any Policy made by the BOE can just as easily be unmade by another Board!
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by mythreekids on Jun 27, 2006 16:18:53 GMT -5
Ed- I would be curious to see what our "sports" friends think- or comment on this topic.. I do believe that each entity- PYBL, PGSA, and the Plainedge Soccer Club- each hold their own insurances to cover injury in the event of one of their players getting injured on school grounds. Even as a member of a PTA within Plainedge, I can tell you that each school PTA must have their own insurance policy in the event a child gets injured during one of the PTA events on school grounds. The uniqueness of what happened with the car washes this year, in my recollection has never been done before. What does happen in the event of a child getting hurt during a non school sponsored event like that and ..whos insurance covers it or should cover it? That is the question. To the sports organizations of Plainedge- do you each hold your own insurances for your events on School property?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jun 27, 2006 17:21:57 GMT -5
The "Car Washing" incident, and the resulting potential for an accident with a car, should also be covered by the car owner's insurance for faults in their use of the vehicles. Since there is no machinery involved, as in a Commercial operation, the car washers in this case can cause no more damage than an owner washing their own car - which should be part of the owners normal risk and coverage.
But that aside - this taking out of individual policies by each entity that uses the school property is something they should do only for any unusual of added risk that they incur. Ordinary risk, as in just using a meeting room containing no added hazards (No hot coffee, heating stoves and the like) should not incur any added risk and is best covered under a blanket policy of the District. This is the least expensive way to pay for the insurance. And it should be a normal part of the way that the Board provides its service to this District!
This is an area that is best looked at by some of the many Insurance experts in the District. They can look at the many different coverages you mentioned that different entities have, and see what cost savings could accrue from a professional viewpoint. Where the Board can effect savings, not just to themselves - but to the community of users, they should do so!
Many Agencies would love each entity to take out its own coverage - so we really have to be careful about who are the ones making the review.
Carrying the concept of each entity that uses the community's property having their own Insurance coverage to its limit would require each resident that attends a Board meeting, or an Auditorium concert, to carry their own liability insurance while on School District property! How ludicrous that is!
Clearly, operations that pose special risks (such as events that have had amusement rides) must see that the added risk is covered by a policy of the vendor used. But, student car washers? What is the special risk? The sponge is too dry or too wet?
Remember - that whole fund raising event was a service to the community by a few that enabled the District to better serve the needs of the children! Adding to their costs and efforts by a Board that wants to "chintz" on its insurance coverage is an obscenity!
If the Board wanted to reduce "their" exposure - it could require the cars be washed off the School Driveways, in the street adjacent to the School grounds! That would cover their butts! - But think of the real added risks it would expose the students to!
Which would the community prefer? (to heck with the Board) ~~~ Students washing cars in the School driveways or in the local streets?
Sometimes decisions of the Board have to be tempered by what is in the best interests of the community that they are there to serve - rather than the narrow viewpoint of the Administrator in a District.
Let's hope that decisions in the best interest of the COMMUNITY are the standard from the new Board. Ed.
|
|
|
Post by mythreekids on Jun 27, 2006 19:59:10 GMT -5
Just Facts writes-"Carrying the concept of each entity that uses the community's property having their own Insurance coverage to its limit would require each resident that attends a Board meeting, or an Auditorium concert, to carry their own liability insurance while on School District property! How ludicrous that is!" - Not true-When you are at a Board meeting, you are covered under the insurance of the district. If you are at an Auditorium concert, that is run by the school, you are covered under the districts insurance policy.However, If you are in attendance at a Girl Scout Fly up ceremony, you are covered under GS insurance, If you are at a PTA Halloween Party, you are covered under the PTA insurance blanket. This is why this is best answered by those in the sports community who know the need for individual entity insurance coverage....However, you do raise a good point.. maybe one coverage for all..but, FYI- most, if not all school districts operate in the same fashion as Plainedge. With the need to have each entity have their own coverage. Do you know how many times the school district, the PYBL, the PGSA and the Plainedge Soccer Club have been sued by a parent whos child got hurt? The school district alone has been hit with many lawsuits from parents whos children got hurt by another student on a playground. WOW- I must have missed out on that one because if I sued each time my child got hurt on a playground, I would be a milliionaire by now!!!! PYBL- PGSA- and PLAINEDGE SOCCER CLUB-- any comments?
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jun 27, 2006 20:07:33 GMT -5
I think I am more disappointed in the BOE that they were bullied into a decision.
I'm surprised Richman didn't ask for the sports parents to pay the water bill!
|
|
|
Post by mythreekids on Jun 27, 2006 20:16:25 GMT -5
I agree with GO PLAINEDGE- I would have liked to have seen the Board have the written guidelines first before voting as requested. They could have tabled the discussion to the next meeting.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jun 27, 2006 22:47:58 GMT -5
mythreekids
Exactly my point!
Presently, when community members attend meetings, concerts, etc. they are covered under a blanket policy.
The case I cited - was that the logic of community members, individually or in a group, being required to provide their own insurance to use School District property owned by them - if carried to its false extreme conclusion, would result in no blanket coverage being carried by the District.
Also, if a Fund raising event, sponsored by an organized entity that collects dues, fees etc., wanted to use the public's property in a Fund Raiser - it is obvious that they should provide their own liability insurance.
However, a fund raising event by local students to raise funds for local student sports activities - where their is no organized structure backing it - should not have to provide its own liability insurance. No more than a school band performance in the District auditorium to raise funds for a similar purpose, should be required to obtain liability insurance! They both should be covered under the District's policy!
Additionally, how would they plan to ask for insurance from a community sponsored parade of community volunteers that begins at one school site and ends at another? The risks encountered while travelling local streets between the two school district properties is higher than washing a car! Should the school have prohibited the last parade without having a separate insurance policy in place? After all, as the terminus points in the Parade the District became liable for the risks that would be encountered along the way! What Hippocoprus!
I even question the need for a PTA group to carry a separate policy. Unless the PTA meeting have gotten out of hand and very risky lately - their meetings should not incur any more risk than any other meeting! Like a Board meeting with the Public attending!
The PTA is comprised of community volunteers working in the best interests of the community and using community owned property to benefit the entire community.
Organized sports groups do entail activities that have a higher risk of injury for the participants. And they do collect fees or charges and have regular officers among their volunteers who are available to sign insurance policies. And they do incur lawsuits. Their extra risk does make added coverage a reasonable added cost to be covered.
And yes, too many people look to the "Insurance Lottery" to make money - and they sue over trivial matters - at the expense of all their neighbors in the community. That is a less than desirable action.
But - let's have a well thought out total policy for spontaneous District level fund raising, using District owned property, and conducted by an ad-hoc group of District residents - before a general requirement is made to mandate separate insurance costs be purchased by them!
The Board action at that meeting was premature and not well planned! It was dictated!
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Jun 28, 2006 9:48:54 GMT -5
I'm surprised Richman didn't ask for the sports parents to pay the water bill! Please Go, dont give him any ideas!! It is my understanding that each youth sports league must carry a $1 Mill. policy. I have no idea if it is the District that requires them to carry the policy or the leagues governing body that does. ( I am pretty sure that the Nassau/Suffolk Football League still requires the Bobcats to carry a $1 Mill. policy as a requisite to joining that league, which would then satisfy any district requirement that exists). Facts, your assumption that someone must have pissed the good (?) Dr. off is right on IMO. This move is as vindictive, mean spirited and "anti-community” as any one of the other B.S. moves he's pulled in the past. I can’t wait to see how restrictive these fundraising guidelines will be. I will be willing to bet cash money that they will be so limiting that any community organization will be stifled in their fundraising abilities. But wait, I can hear it now..." The community should be thankful…I am looking out for their best interests"…………PLEASE…
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jun 28, 2006 10:08:46 GMT -5
wildroverThe first clue I got that it was done not in the interest of the community, but was done in the interest of the mad Doc was the urgency of the move! It must be done now! First! Tonight! Give me a blank approval, I'll fill in the policy later!Methinks the Doc has some devious plans that require such urgency. Is he planning some other catastrophic event that would require a new Fund raiser?[/i] When in hades is the Board going to wise up that they run the show, not him? This was a forced Board vote, and despite some dissension from a few and some questioning by them, they voted 7-0 to give him his way. It was a beautiful opportunity by the Board to move to table the motion until a full policy was provided. They missed the boat! Ed. ;D Remember ~ What one Board does, another can undo!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jun 29, 2006 14:47:26 GMT -5
Speaking of Minutes!
We know that the last posting of School Board Meeting minutes was done over nine weeks ago and today the minutes for the 3 meetings in May were just posted.
That's not too good a track record for posting of minutes which should be made available within two weeks of their being taken.
If and when the June minutes will be posted is anyone's guess. Sometime in August or September is probably a good bet!
Meanwhile, a good summation of the June 13 meeting can be had by looking on the Plaintalkonline site.
At the least, Felice Cantatore, even if he was not elected to the Board at this time (nor yet appointed as a replacement for one of the two Board members who both should be asked to leave before their "official term" is up because of their turpitude), is diligently keeping us informed of Board activity that the Board does not wish us to see!
To explain that last statement better - see the "Letter from the Secretaries to the Board" on that site. Did such an important letter ever make it onto the School District site?
But what about the minutes of another meeting held this month? Will they ever be published?
Last night the Board had a meeting. Will we ever find out what transpired? Although it was in "Executive Session" the topic was not one that is a legitimate reason for calling Executive Session - at least, not according to the Open Meetings Law!
Did you even know a meeting was to be held last night? (June 28, 2006) I wonder if the minutes of that meeting will ever be published!
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jul 2, 2006 12:03:22 GMT -5
Second Thoughts about Funding Activities![/u] Before the Board gets much into writing Policies about Fund Raising activities, or giving into the immediate needs of Richman to ensure that Insurance Polices are obtained by kids doing Fund Raising Car-Washes - or even Cookie Bake Sales - it is about time that the BOE include the most important part of a Policy about Fund Raising! Just what is that most important part? Having the District account for, and report upon how the Funds that were raised were spent!!!Each of you who wrote a check, or had a car washed in last year's fund raising and the donation of these funds to the District for the Sports program - deserves a report from the Board of just how that money was spent.What was spent on what, when, how and what was "left over" or "was short" - with money to be taken from another account to make up for the short fall! The State Law requires that the District Treasurer keep such records and provide them to the Board on request - from even a request by just one Board member! The District Superintendent can not interfere with that process - except if a weak Board allows him to do so! For all we know - much of the $575,000 collected for Sports restoration may have ended up in that excessive Fund Balance last year. The new Fund Richman wants for his retirement pay (under Section 6p of the GM law, not under Fund Balances allowed under the Educational Law) is $500,000. How many of the half-million dollars that may go into that fund came from the $575,000 Sports Fund?Last year's Cash Flow analysis presented to Bankers as part of the TAN applications, showed that the monthly expenses for Sports that were cut (amounting to $47,917 per month) was well within the Monthly Balance amount left at the end of each month. That proves the cutting of Sports funds was not a financial requirement but was done for other reasons. Since Sports cutting was not based on a financial need, where did that $575,000 go? Did it go into the Fund Balance of $1.7 Million? Without a School District Accounting for spending this money - which is being denied at this time - we can never be sure where the dollars we donated went!Get on the back of every Board member you know to give a policy on Fund Raising that calls for a full, in depth, reliable and accurate accounting of the handling of those Donations. Don't let the money fall into "Slush-Funds" Then, maybe they might be justified in asking the ad-hoc groups of students to spend part of their fund raising activities to buy insurance policies! First things first! Ed. Can you imagine the gall of a Superintendent who was handed such a unique Donation, one the he wants to take pride in its remarkable accomplishment, refusing to supply open and ready accountability about what he did with the dollars?
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jul 5, 2006 22:30:23 GMT -5
Ed:
Assistant Superintendent Christine P'Simer was announced as the successor to Richman. Was this something that the BOE approved or, was this Richmans recommendation?
Does the BOE get to approve/vote on something like this?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jul 9, 2006 20:33:38 GMT -5
NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE
A recent change in the Date for the reorganization meeting of the Board of Education was posted on the School District site by Richman!
As usual, there is an error. The date given is Tuesday July 12th. The day of the week that occurs on July 12th is Wednesday. Tuesday occurs on July 11th.
Please resolve this error with the District Office.
(A similar day of week - date of month error was made by Richman in a formal letter to the Library for the previous week)
Would somebody in his office check his work - - - or give him a current year's calendar?
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jul 10, 2006 9:59:27 GMT -5
Some hard hitting questions for the July 11th BOE meeting.It would seem that after the prime purpose of the Organizational meeting is met, that the first order of business should to not move to the legacy Agenda items that the last Board left - but to move onto the real concerns of the community which have been purposely neglected for these past few months! Concerns which have a high priority in the public's mind.1) What is happening with the e-mail gate issue? Is "Jim" going to be prosecuted? - or at least have a sworn and Notarized deposition taken for his role in this affair? What is the new Board going to do to get to the bottom of this violation of the District's e-mail Server? Will the full extent of the Penal Code 250 be brought to bear - and the persons participating in both ends of this illegal tapping be brought to justice? Will the new Board continue to try to sweep this matter "under the rug" because a continuing member of the past Board and the Administration was involved? Or will they get ethical and prosecute this case as they should do to protect the public's interests? What about the content of some exchanges between another continuing Board member and an Administrator? Is it true that even some non-tapped e-mails reveal exchanges between those two that are more than Employee/Employer in nature? Will cooperative collusion be revealed in those e-mails - that the e-mails were used to "settle" voting positions before meetings occurred? It this the real reason that the FOIL request for copies of these e-mail contents was denied by Richman? Did the Board ever exert its authority to grant or deny access to these records, overriding Richman? 2) What is being allowed to happen with regard to the Community's $575,000 Donation to the Sports program? Why isn't Richman routinely providing an accounting of spending against these Accounting Cost Centers to the not-for-profit group that raised this money? What is being hidden? The Sports Group has to have this information to give the State an accounting for the use of these funds. They have to do this to maintain their not-for-profit position - or else pay default tax monies and penalties to the State. Will the Sports Group be forced to raise further donations to cover these fines, taxes and penalties because Richman refuses to disclose the proper information as should be done by the District?And the State requires an accounting that does not accept Richman's word that the money was used exclusively for the sports program. His word must be backed up by authentic accounting records, even Audited and Certified records. What assurance is provided to that volunteer fund raising group and to the State that the $575,000 was even applied to the Sports program accounting codes - and not to some other expense such as $500,000 applied to a newly created retirement fund code? Why is the Board allowing Richman to act as a go-between twixt them and their Accountant in these matters? When are they going to assume control of the issue? 3) Is this new Board going to address the concerns of the community - or is it going to continue to play "Hide behind a fixed-up Agenda" at public meetings? Ed. P.S. Some may say I put forth these questions because I don't like so-and-so. Let them say that, as long as answers to these questions are supplied! It is time that this District has a Board that openly asks such hard hitting and to the point questions of the Administration that it employs and forces the Administration to respond to the community's interests!
|
|