|
Post by irishman on Dec 15, 2005 8:16:59 GMT -5
Ho! Ho! Ho! (or is it 'Ho 'Ho 'Ho) that I be hearing from the new members? ;D Are ye' tellin' me we should be goin' over the Audit reports and be looking for dinner bills before the Board meetings and cocktail tabs after? How 'bout Motel charges? ;D Even the wee people aren't that bad when caught in the act. Seems the last Board, with Grasso dippin' in the till, will be known as the Cover Up Board - and this one'll be known as the Covers Down Board![/b] And what's all this 'bout my favorite boy Richy-Man? Don't be tellin' me he's been doin' it to, now. Seems he's to full of himself to be givin' anything to anyone else!
|
|
|
Post by want2hear2sides on Dec 15, 2005 16:16:52 GMT -5
Hey irishman that's old news I thought by now everyone on this board would have heard the real reason Mr Dick stepped down. I 'm just waiting for Ms Giardina to step down, I don't know about you but that's not the type of person I want making desions for my kids' future, or my tax money. ( I feel bad for her husband, it's bad enough to hear she's been with another but to find out it's been 2 at least. I hope he's doing ok.)
|
|
|
Post by irishman on Dec 15, 2005 17:54:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Dec 15, 2005 19:16:08 GMT -5
I truly wanted to believe that "Administrator" indeed had good intentions when setting up this community chat board, the primary ones being: 1) that positive and creative input would bring about ideas to help get the budget passed; and 2) getting more people involved and attending BOE meetings would help distribute factual information and eliminate the misinformation.
Unfortunately, this has not happened. The only thing that has happened is that this chat board has turned into Plainedge's very own "Enquirer."
So, to all of you participants who have devoted so much time to making this happen, here is my holiday wish for you....
May all the rumor mongering enrich your lives May all your accusations bring you joy May all your venomous criticisms be an inspiration to you and your loved ones May all your efforts to perpetuate negativity and ill will bring you peace.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Dec 15, 2005 21:35:34 GMT -5
Elpha:
I believe the goals of this board were to make as much information available as possible to the public. Sometimes, you can't get ALL of the information from the BOE meetings.
That being said, unfortunately with public message boards, there will always be posts similar to those that you spoke of. You (the collective you) need to move on and go forth in a positive manner.
Glad to see you still check in here now and again. I've enjoyed your posts.
;D You have to admit, though, the rumors do peak ones interest and make you think.... ;D...just kidding with ya.
You know, I feel there is so much "cleaning" that should be done and the latest state reports tend to reinforce that belief. The problem is....where do you start? It becomes a bit overwhelming and seems like a daunting task. It's impossible for one to do alone. If you try to rally people together (to make it a better place) you will be put on the "hit list" (if you know what I mean) and labeled as closeminded. I have experienced this first hand.
So, how to you try and make a change for the better?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Dec 16, 2005 14:21:43 GMT -5
Response to elphaba about your recent post concerning this site.
Please bear with me - and stay with the topic - there are a few comments I'd like to make that may allow a more open dialog to be made between all that read these posts.
None of these comments are made to be antagonistic - but to clarify why some approaches you mention may no longer be as effectively received as they could be.
The post I"m referring to begins: I truly wanted to believe that Administrator indeed had good intentions when setting up this community chat board, the primary ones being: 1) that positive and creative input would bring about ideas to help get the budget passed; and 2) getting more people involved and attending BOE meetings would help distribute factual information and eliminate the misinformation.
In response - the Administrator did and still does have these good intentions. They have not been corrupted nor changed. The Administrator is providing a great, under appreciated service for this community. However, for full freedom of expression for those that post, he does not censure nor eliminate "less desirable" content. Keeping a fully open forum does not alter his intentions or achievements.
It is only we, you and I the posters, that by feedback from counter posts such as yours above - self monitor ourselves and improve the level of the content. This is a slow corrective process reflecting the majority's evolving standards, not the standards of a select few.
As such, it is subject to abnormalties along the way. Thats' the price we must pay and that's the occasional "slip". A "slip" that we both must forgive in order to allow all to express themselves. As readers of the posts, we can individually weight the value of each post - that responsibility lies within ourselves.
On the other hand, the contrary operation of a site, using selective "officially approved material", leads to what happened on the past community site - now a selective "PR" posting of information. All of which is not automatically "bad", nor all of which is not automatically "good". However, it definitely has become selective.
************ As to the positive ideas leading to an acceptance of the Budget. This may be the end result - but what should not be neglected is the fact that the positive ideas have to produce a Budget that the positive ideas have been incorporated into! Thus, making it into a community wide acceptable budget - not just a "Budget" itself. The budget is only acceptable if it is known to be a good one for the time it is to be voted on, and it is trusted by all in the community.
Recent budgets have not met those criteria in the mind of many residents - a fact clearly demonstrated by the result of recent votes.
Budgets in Plainedge should not be accepted solely on the criteria that it is "The Budget". Nor should they be rejected for this same reason. There should be no automatic "YES" voters! Nor should there be automatic "NO" voters. Nor should any of us be classified that way!
Budgets must be well prepared, well published and well promulgated. They can't be "Summarized" or "Draft" copies subject to change and error, poorly distributed, or distributed in a form that is misleading and differently arranged from the proposed detailed budget - preventing effective comparisons by the voting public.
Only a blind advocate of "Pass the Budget because it is" can claim that some of our recent budgets did not fall into some of the above categories. This is what we have to improve if we want more first time approval - the budget, its clearness, its accuracy and its presentation.
This is what will help to get the budget passed - not ideas and dialogs themselves - but a clear, consistent and trustworthy final product based on those ideas and inputs from the community as well as the inputs from the Administration - a truly "balanced budget".
**************** As to "getting more people involved and attending meetings". This forum has been very successful at getting more people involved - as was the first "Community Forum" now deceased. [/b]
Despite often made claims about "misinformation" there has been little proof that this site has provided misinformation. And there is no corrective, traceable corrective information, provided by those that make these off-handed comments about misinformation. Most posts on this Forum provide traceable links to the source of the information - especially information that resides on State Education Department sites - or prior Board minutes and posts.
Stop calling the other person's information "misinformation" and your information "factual" - unless you can - and do - offer proof with an audit trail. Proof that the other is wrong, not just a differing opinion, and proof that your's is right - and not just the authority of "I said so!" Frankly, I've developed more of a trust in the information that appears on this site - not a blind trust - than I have in the statements made by Board members in newspapers and in meetings. Not all meeting info has been defective - but enough untrustworthy and incorrect statements have been made at meetings and by Board members to warrant checking out their information at trustworthy sources.
I can provide a "laundry list" of these items in another post if someone wants to see them - and either correct them if I'm wrong or agree to them publicly. If the Board would openly admit to misinformation supplied on its part, it would go a long way towards re-establishing public trust. The Board need not be infallible - but it does need to be trustworthy It can no longer rely upon its "Position of Authority" to incurr blind trust.
The recent Hevisie report summary makes beatifically clear that all was not as well with the control of finances in this District as was reported by the District in their meetings with the public. It is no sin to not have a "perfect" report - but it is a sin to misconstrue that report to the public. It's even more so to do naught to correct its findings - or not mount a campaign of correction and keep the public at large informed of each corrective step!
It is obvious that the traditional method of saying these things at a public meeting, which the Board admittedly notes is poorly attended, is not sufficient to inform the public at large about these corrective steps and not effective in promulgating Budget information.
There is an old saying "If it ain't broke - Don't fix it!" Well, the counter to that statement is "If it's broke - fix it!" And that is just what he Board should be doing by now with regard to distributing information to the public. The "meetings" route is broke! Fix it by supplementing it with alternate routes for information traffic.
More of the "Same Old-Same Old" is not making things better for the Board to reach the public. In fact, the "Same Old-Same Old" is now becoming detrimental to the Board's cause. People have been to meetings - and their inputs rejected and passed over, not discussed. People have sent one-on-one e-mails - which have been (to put it politely) uncivily received! People are, and have been, turned off by the Board's non-responsive, sometimes hostile, handling of them. The Board now needs to use new methods in order to succede with the present public.
This site is one of those new routes, a restored Community site would be another new route. And, as Techie has suggested (here's an idea from this Forum that can be put into practice to help pass the Budget), Video tape the meetings and put them up on the School Forum for all to see - at the times they have available to see the meetings! Not just at traditional times convenient for the Board.
Restoring printed material to the homes to reach all residents, not just those that have children in the School was done away with because of "mailing Costs". What if these costs also included positive PR costs - and PR benfits? Maybe this District would find that direct mailings do improve the chances for the budget passing - as other Districts have found this to be true. One then might admit the the simple cost-saving study was flawed - and fix that decision.
Public attendance at meetings is not the only way to get information to the public - it would benefit the Administration to recognize that fact and reach out to the public to distribute information. And this should not be another "Come into my parlor - said the Spider to the Fly" such as "Coffee Hours" held on School grounds at school times. Change your approach! Reach into the homes at times convenient to homeowners - this Forum does just that. Video tapes of meetings on the School site would augment that way of reaching the public on their terms.
The discontinued "Adult Programs" - mostly self-funded by participants - was another method of reaching voters for PR purposes. Many schools still use these programs since older participants develop an affinity towards the school. This reaches out to another segment of the population that may no longer have children in the schools. Yet our Administration has closed down these activities for "cost reasons" It may be that the costs of these programs are far less than the "cost" of operating under a contingency budget. Yet the District seems reluctant to revisit that decision.
*******************
Elphaba, this has been longer than anticipated. But if you have stuck with it you may see that simply stating prime items you want changed - such as:
Meetings=Involvement=Passed Budget
Is countered by many viewers inherent:
Can't make meetings: - work - dinner - kids (single mom) - sports activity - invalid care - scouts - night college - single car - etc.,
Can't get involved - full plate of other activities - they'll do what they want anyway - others are active - etc.
Passed Budget - too much taxes - can't understand it - don't trust it - cut out medicine last year - no more income last few years - got laid off - enough is enough - etc.
As you can see - our solutions (yours and mine) don't yet address the public's problems. There may be better insights to come as yet from members of this Forum.
So my basic message is, Please don't give up on this site! Let us both use it in our own way to bring about our mutually desired end goals - many voters who turn out to vote - and many Budgets which will be good enough to vote YES for on the first vote!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2005 15:49:51 GMT -5
Elpha and others:
I can certainly understand your concerns about some of the posts on this forum. However, I refuse to delete any posts that only state rumors and here-say. This becomes the readers responsibility to do some research and either prove the rumors correct or dispel them. Rumors will always exist. How you process those rumors is up to you.
I hope that you (along with others) will continue to lead the way in offering factual information here. This is the most accessible way for us regular folk to reach the masses of the community. I have to believe more people look at the posts than we know of.
There is nothing else like this for the people of Plainedge - a community only defined by a school district. Spread the word to others and lets make the most of it.
Thanks for being a part of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Dec 17, 2005 17:31:16 GMT -5
To Administrator:
Perhaps you are not aware of what the screen name cunext tuesday means, I do not believe that you would allow it. It is one of the most degrading and insulting remarks to women, but I guess it shows his mentality as well as his lack of respect for all women.
I would hope that you do not allow him back on this chat board.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2005 18:13:30 GMT -5
To Administrator: Perhaps you are not aware of what the screen name cunext tuesday means, I do not believe that you would allow it. It is one of the most degrading and insulting remarks to women, but I guess it shows his mentality as well as his lack of respect for all women. I would hope that you do not allow him back on this chat board. Please check you Personal Messages (PM).
|
|
|
Post by techie on Dec 18, 2005 11:39:53 GMT -5
And I thought cunext tuesday refered to tuesday meetings.
I wonder what elphba65 stands for? Is go plainedge! sinister also? Maybe we should research all the names on the member list. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Dec 18, 2005 11:57:49 GMT -5
I can see her point as to what it stands for.
I never thought of it that way. I only thought of it as See You Next Tuesday
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Dec 18, 2005 12:08:31 GMT -5
Gee Techie You beat me to the punch! -
That's exactly what I thought was meant by cunextuesday when SHE registered in on that Monday! (How does/can anyone recognize the sex of a member unless they disclose it when registering?)
Why assume the member is male as elphaba65 has done?
That is, unless one registers with a name that is sexually defined - like the "Wicked Witch of the West" which is one of the lead characters in a Broadway play that has developed a cult following of the elphaba lead character.
Now Delilah, Helen, Irishman, JDavola and JohnDick have obviously defined sexual connections to their names (among other members) but how does CUNETUESDAY, or JUSTFACTS for that matter, indicate the sex of the member?
Or, maybe I and the Administrator shouldn't use the term MEMBER - for someone might find that offensive!
What an imagination to stretch anyone's name to an offending statement! On top of it to demand that they be removed from this Forum!
Hey - alphaba65 - lighten up! We tolerate a "Wicked Witch" - how about tolerating any one and all of us!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Dec 18, 2005 21:41:08 GMT -5
Now that we've strayed off the last major topic on this thread by a diversion about the meaning of a members name, let's return to that old saw of the major topic - Go to a Board meeting to get the "facts".[/b]
As any who've read these posts for a while can see there is a recurring statement made that unless one goes to a School District meeting, one can not get factual information. Anything obtained elsewhere is "misinformation".
I'm now going to challenge that statement about information supplied at a School District meeting being factual with a couple of true incidents. I would enjoy any qualified and substantiated rebuttals.
And I'll not refer to the abysmal twisting of the truth about seriousness of the Hevisie Audit that was done by the Board and the Administration. Their downplaying of that Audit was most effectively countered by the recent Hevisie Summary Report that showed the status of financial controls in Plainedge as having "Serious internal control deficiencies were identified in the following audits that could easily lead to theft and misappropriations of taxpayer assets. OSC found pervasive weaknesses in internal controls in the areas audited."[/b]
I understand that a report such as that can be complex and the professional opinion expressed by Hevisie's accountants could be debated in some areas by other hired accountants or those with a vested interest in denying deficiencies in their control of public funds.
Instead, I'll stick with just one of the simplest and most blatant lies told by a member of the Administration, Mr. Jeff Burns, during a Board meeting where a simple element of the Budget was questioned - by me. I had nicely called attention to a Budgetary increase of over 800% in one item that was listed in the adjacent column as a 100% change - and to ease the embarrassment it might cause - attributed the error to a "typo".
The blatant and instant untrue response from Mr. Burns was: "It's because the computer can't calculate over 100%". This falsehood was allowed to stand by the other Administrator and the whole of the Board as a "true" response to the obvious error - despite the fact that 5 lines down on the same budget sheet there was an entry for a percentage increase in a similar budget item of 205%, totally exposing Mr. Burn's statement as a lie.
To date, none of the Board nor the Administration has refuted Mr. Burn's "misinformation" response - nor apologized for it! They continue to let it stand as a "fact" based only on the Authority of their Position or Title. This is just one of the pieces of misinformation and untruth promulgated at Board meetings.
Another was the misinformation the if one makes a value judgment to spend a dollar in exchange for something of $1 in value this year, then one starts off the next year being $1 "in the hole". This misinformation was used by an Administrator during Budgetary revision debates to prevent the return of the Packard Fund to where it had come from. And the misinformation given then was never challenged or corrected. In fact - it was vehemently supported at that time and in a later e-mail that questioned how that could be true.
Put in plain and simple English - that statement is a crock! Buy and pay for something with a Buck and you end up owing a Buck? What kind of fact, or truth, is that?
Had this statement been examined for its accuracy by any Board member during that meeting - it would have been easily refuted. But because it was left standing and unchallenged by any member of the Board - the $390,000 in old "Packard Funds" was not returned to where they came from - the Unencumbered Fund Balance - where they now reside. If that money had been returned to the Fund Balance, instead of being rejected with the above false logic and misinformation, the Second Budget offered to the voters would have been reduced by $390,000. That possible return of the money to the Fund Balance in order to reduce the Second Budget was recommended in an e-mail to a Board member - by me.
Ask and answer this question for yourself - might a Second Budget lowered by $390,000, caused by returning the $390,000 to the Fund Balance (where it ended up anyway) - have caused just 35 "No" voters out of 2117 to have voted "Yes"?
If your answer is probably, or most likely, - then we can be pretty sure that the uncontested misinformation from the head Administrator about beginning the year "in the hole" had a significant impact on the second budget failure. And this is very serious misinformation supplied at a Board meeting that has not been challenged, refuted or corrected to this date. It's impact upon everyone in Plainedge has been devastating.
So far, I'll stick to checking out all sources of information for myself - and not rely on biased, ill informed or incompetent persons pushing their "facts" down my throat, or telling me where to go to get "facts" they want me to accept!
|
|
|
Post by BOEBUSTR on Dec 19, 2005 18:07:38 GMT -5
HEY elphaba65 GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER, IT WAS EXACTLY WHAT THE ADMIN, THOUGHT, IT WAS ABOUT THE UPCOMING BOARD MEETING THAT IS WHERE I GOT THE NAME, BUT IT IS KINDA FUNNY WHAT YOU THOUGHT, I GUESS THIS IS WHERE YOUR MIND IS AND SO I GUESS THE CURRENT AFTER HOURS ACTIVITY THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FITS RIGHT IN. ;D THESE ARE DANGEROUS TIMES WITH 2 BUDGETS FAILED, WHY DID THEY FAIL ?? WAS THERE TO MUCH OTHER STUFF GOING ON ? WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE ACTIVITIES LEADING UP TO THE FAILURE OF OUR BUDGETS NOT JUST LET THIS STAY STATUS QUO. OUR BELOVED SUPERINTENDENT IS ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. HE HAS NOT ONLY CALLED US AND I QUOTE "JERRY SPRINGER PEOPLE" AND TOOK ALL OUR SPORTS AWAY. HE DOESN'T LIVE HERE AND DOESN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS AS LONG AS HE IS GETTING PAID..... AND I CANNOT BELIEVE WE STILL ALLOW HIM TO HAVE A JOB HERE ?? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING. AS FOR MRS G. WELL SHE SHOULD BE RUN OFF THE BOARD JUST TO SAVE FACE, RESIGNING WOULD BE TO GOOD, THOSE POOR KIDS, I SURE DON'T WANT THAT SL_ _ MAKING DECISIONS FOR MY KIDS EITHER, I SAY WE QUESTION THE BOARD ON THAT ONE, SHE SEEMS TO BE PRETTY CHUMMY WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT TOO WHATS GOING ON THERE I WONDER ?? YEP INVESTIGATE AND ELIMINATE THATS WHAT I SAY.... OH YEA YOU GOT THE SEX THING WRONG TOO BUT ITS NONE OFF YOUR BUSINESS LETS DO THE RIGHT THING AND CLEAN HOUSE !!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2005 18:15:14 GMT -5
CU:
Check your PM
|
|