Board Member Info

[justfacts]

To all Board Members[/b]

I have put information that should be of interest to new Board members on a CD-ROM.

The includes the Budget Handbook from the State Education Department and the Excel Spreadsheet Form SBM-1 for preparing the 2006/7 budget. It is updated annually.

This latter item lists all the relevant Standard Accounting Codes and their description, supplied by the State - and it is recommended for use by School Districts by the State.

Also included is the Federal Guide of Accounting Practices for Educational Institutions with its expanded definition of terms and requirements.

Any Board member, or past candidate, interested in obtaining a free copy please contact me - I'll prepare your own copy and make arrangements for pickup.

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

[justfacts]

To the Financial Experts on the Board ~ or soon to be there![/b]

This calls for an overview of the Revenue portion of the Budget - avoiding finger-pointing at Spending centers.

In Revenues there has been a steady increase in State Aid over the last half-dozen years. It is true that the rate of increase of State Aid does not keep pace with the rate of increase of expenditures - so the burden of the larger payments required fall on the Property Tax.

Could you track that information and show the results to the general public in graphs of the growth - so that they can more plainly see, over the past half-dozen years, just how much the State Aid growth falls short of the Spending growth?

This would clearly put a finite number to the goal of what is expected from the public when they ask for "increased State Aid" It gives the Legislative Branch of the State a target to shoot for.[/b]

While at this - could you include what makes up the category of "Other" in the Revenue portion of the Budget? This number has been $705,000, $650,000, $750,000, and now $600,000 in the last budget. It does not show a corresponding inflationary growth rate over the past half-dozen years as other items have shown. Why not?

Additionally, it seems to be quite susceptible to the amount of State Aid received - changing inversely to the amount of State Aid! For instance - when State Aid was to be what the Governor said; $14.5 Million, the "Other" category was providing $700,000 to the Revenues. When Aid was increased to $15.5 Million - the "Other" Revenue dropped to $600,000! Why was that?

Why should "Other" Revenue change like that? It's supposed to be income to the District from leases, rentals, interest on invested funds etc.; sources that are quite independent on the amount of State Aid.

Why does it drop when State Aid has increased? Why doesn't it increase from year to year - reflecting growth from inflationary factors? By now, compared to the 2002/3 Budget year levels, it should be about $900,000.

[justfacts]

To the Financial Experts on the Board ~ or soon to be there![/b]

Here's a little excerpt from the State's Budget Handbook. It covers all the aspects of the Fund Balance - and shows that there is more than one part to the Fund Balance. The full Budget Handbook is on the free CD-ROM I burned for any or all of you. So far, just one member of the community has asked for a copy - Patriot1245. He got it Sunday.

From the Handbook:
*****************************************************

Budgeting Handbook 3

IX. FUND BALANCE

Year-end fund balances of school districts are the result of the recognition of revenues in excess of amounts estimated and expenditures that are less than the total amount of appropriations. It should be noted that there is no provision in the law or regulations for deficit or negative fund balances.

The total fund balance of a school district's general fund is made up of two parts: Reserved Fund Balance and Unreserved Fund Balance.

The reserved portion of the fund balance is made up of moneys that may be used only for very specific purposes and is, therefore, not available to be used for tax reduction in the next subsequent fiscal year. Examples of these specific reserves are discussed in Section VII of this handbook.

The unreserved portion of the fund balance is the amount which is uncommitted and is, therefore, available to be used to reduce real property taxes in the next fiscal year. It should be noted, however, that a part of this unreserved fund balance may be retained by the district and not used for tax reduction in the next upcoming year. This retained portion is called the unappropriated fund balance and is limited by §1318 of the Real Property Tax Law to an amount equal to 2% of the upcoming year's budget. The remaining portion of the unreserved fund balance that is used for tax reduction, is known as the appropriated fund balance.

The legally retained unappropriated fund balance provides cash flow and could be available to meet unanticipated ordinary contingent expenditures without voter approval. This fund balance may also be appropriated, with voter approval, for unanticipated non-contingent expenditures or the funding of certain reserve funds.

Since the term fund balance could apply to the total fund balance or any part of it, school district officials should be certain that any discussion of disposition of balances begins with a clear statement as to the nature of the balance being discussed.

Managing fund balances can be one of the most difficult tasks of the budgeting process, since budgets are estimates of expenditures and anticipated revenues for a future fiscal period.[/i]

Reasonably accurate estimates of year-end fund balances are essential to the budget preparation process since the amount available can have a material effect upon the estimated real property tax rates.

This page last modified 01/25/2006 14:02:08

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

Now the question to the Fiscal pro's is this;

With the RESERVED Fund balance of the following amounts for the past few years, how much interest was earned on the Reserved (a.k.a. - Encumbered) Fund Balance in each of those years at their prevailing rates of interest, and how much is the total for those year's? How was this reported to the Taxpayer?

Year_____Fund Balance______Interest Earned_______Cumulative

1999____$2,130,449________$
2000____$2,808,992________$
2001____$3,335,993________$
2002____$2,346,987________$
2003____$3,525,977________$
2004____$4,334,452________$
2005____*(See Below)
2006____*(See Below)


Next, at this year's interest rates - what would be the interest earned on an estimated* $4.9 Million in the RESERVED Fund Balance? Where does it show up in Financial or Budget reports?

* Estimated, since the District has not provided this information in the Budget as required to do so.

Does any Board member have the skill to provide these answers?

Ed.

Here's one way to tighten the controls and make sure the children get more than 70¢ on the dollar! IF - we have the courage to follow this path!

[justfacts]

To the Financial Experts on the Board - or soon to be there!

In July the new Fiscal Year starts. You will have to approve the allocation and encumbrance all the Budget money during the reorganization meeting in that beginning meeting.

Please recall that I've been a Trustee for the Plainedge Library for one-third of a century. In all that time, in those thirty three years, all the Library Budget moneys added together do not add up to the amount of Public money that you will be charged with controlling in this coming year. That is a lot of trust that this public is putting on your shoulders.

It is twice the amount of Budget money of just six years ago - it will be half of the Budget money of five years from now if the Budget growth rate stays the same.[/i]

While controlling and adjusting the spending this year to contain costs, you will have the opportunity to better understand what can be adjusted in next year's spending to ensure that more of the money goes towards programs and less towards other expenses. Please learn and use that information wisely, making notes for next year's budget.

You will find that there is no such thing as an uncontrollable cost - just people who don't know how to control costs.

Please - never fall into that category of person, just do you're best job for the children of this community, and measure yourselves by the amount of dollars that will go towards the children's part of the Budget next year. Seventy cents on the dollar is not good budget performance! Let's make it better!

Thanks,

Ed.

[justfacts]

To Members of the Board

Certain Board Candidates had set the stage in Budget negotiations by challenging the benefit of unemployment Insurance, causing its reduction. Great cost savings can be had by closely examining, and even changing, previous benefit agreements. They can be negotiated and changed - and that goes for all elements of all contracts!

Hollywood has often said to actors "The only reason that contracts exist is so we can know what we're changing! They exist to be broken!" Modifying contracts is the norm - rather than the exception!

One of the greatest cost saving negotiations that exist today is a change in the contract that involves cost sharing in Health benefits. It is a dominating change in previous benefit agreements. New employees often get less totally free benefits than existing employees. Some pay for their entire health benefit package.

Do you plan, in this coming year, to revisit all prior contracts to make cost saving changes where possible?

Do you also plan in this coming year, to examine a major employee contract for possible actions that breeched the contract?

This would permit the elimination of an existing contract with heinous conditions - and would allow the replacement of an ineffective employee - without having pay any outrageous separation agreement.

It does seem that certain recent actions have shown that expenditures beyond the voter approved 2004/5 Budget level, even the rejected Budget level, were made without Board approval - a contract breech. It is only the Board that can authorize expenditures of the amount that occurred, $620,000 over Budget - and no such discussion or approval appears in the minutes of recent minutes! Nor is any indication given as to where this amount of money came from!!![/b]

Ed.

Let's change our spending ways so that the Children get more than 70¢ on the Budget dollar!

[justfacts]

To Plainedge Board of Education Members[/b]

We don't have to live in the past, dwelling on prior mistakes - but we certainly can learn from it!

FUND BALANCE USE:
Take the issue of Fund Balances. Especially the unencumbered amounts that appear at the end of a fiscal year. You will soon be dealing with those moneys that are left from out last "Contingency Budget" - at least $1.7 Million worth!

We know that you soon will make a Tax Levy statement to the Town of Oyster Bay where the Budget information promised that $1 Million of those Funds will be used to reduce the amount of Property Tax levied on Plainedge homeowners.

But what about the remaining $0.7 Million? Where will it go?[/b]

Well, from examining some past information about the use of the Fund Balance money, maybe you can get an idea!

In the rejected budget of the 2005-2006 "Contingency Year", $1,090,000 was to be transferred from the Fund Balance to reduce Property Tax Levy. None ($0) ever was used for that purpose according to recently supplied District information in the Budget Newsletter. That means the money was available but since not used for Property Tax Levy reduction, it was used elsewhere - but where?

The budgeted items and cuts were already defined and fixed, and the existing Revenue dollars defined and fixed in the published Budget documents. They balanced out perfectly to match the Property Tax actually levied for last year, so none of the Fund Balance went to pay for Program, Administration or Capital expenses.

Where did the $1,090,000 go? - Or did it stay in the unencumbered Fund Balance?

In the prior year, 2004-2005, $600,000 was designated to reduce the Property Tax Levy in the published Budget documents. We later found out this was really a partial transfer of the Packard Fund money, actually used to buy an Air Conditioner for the new Middle School - instead of using Bond money to do so - as was done with all the other equipment for that school.

Again, no Fund Balance money was actually used to reduced the Property Tax levy, despite published Budget documents that said $600,000 would be used for that purpose!

That's a total of about $1.7 Million in promised Fund Balance money to be used to reduce the Property Tax Levy that never actually occurred!

The year before that, 2003-2004, there was no money that went for the reduction of Property taxes. That is the year that State Aid fell short of the promised $12.12 Million by about $1.32 Million, leaving us with a Budget Revenue deficit of that amount.

But this did not deter that Board from spending the full $51.64 Million approved by the taxpayers. (Budgeting requirements are that spending should be adjusted during the year so that Expenses do not exceed Revenues - a requirement that was ignored!) So it is quite understandable that no matter what was promised to be used from the Fund Balance to reduce the Property Tax Levy in Budget documents, none was used.

So, in summary; You will be the first Board members in several years to actually apply Fund Balance money to reduce the Property Tax Levy - if you really do so!

At least for the past few years, budgeting requirements and our Budget document statements to the contrary - none of the promised $1.7 Million in Fund Balance money has been used to reduce the Property Tax Levy! Zilch! Nada! Zip!

Congratulations on the restoration of the use of Fund Balance money!


LOST STATE AID GAMES:
But do not feel too sorry about the "lost" $1.32 Million from the State Aid in 2003-2004. The following year the School District filed State reports in January saying they expected $13.9 Million in State Aid (they actually got $14.6 Million) However, they used the State Aid figure of $12.65 Million in the published Budget documents to the taxpayers in April!

This resulted in collecting more money in the Property Tax Levy - to make up for the State shortfall. The excess amount collected from property owners to make up for the State Aid shortfall of $1.32 Million was expected to be a flat $1.25 Million.

BUT - it turned out to be more than that! It was actually $1.99 Million more! That's the year that the "innocent arithmetic error" of Jeff Burns understated Revenues received by $600,000! It left the perception that the excess of Revenues over Expenses was about $1.22 Million!

If you are one of those "Financial Experts" on the Board and followed this closely, you'll find that the $1.99 Million actual excess was listed as $1.22 Million when a $600,000 Jeff Burns error was included. But any 1st Grade math student would see that there's $170,000 unaccounted for in those numbers. Where is that money?[/b]

Look to the "Other Revenue" category, both planned and actual, and you'll find it changed from $865 Thousand "planned" to $705 Thousand "actual" - effectively hiding the other excess funds collected (within $10 Thousand of "round-off" errors!)

Boy! Is that "Other Revenue" category useful, or isn't it! It's nice to be able to juggle this routinely by a hundred thousand or so - as was done this year when State Aid was increased! (Increased State Aid dropped the "Other Revenues" by $100 Thousand!)

Where did those variations in reported, or planned to be spent, money go? That includes the $700,000 left in today's Budget, the $600,000 in the Budget of Jeff Burns "Innocent Arithmetic Error." and the $100,000 dropped from "Other Revenue" as State Aid increased this year. That's a sweet $1.4 Million somewhere in "limbo"!


SUMMARY:
With $1.7 Million "floating here" and $1.4 Million "floating there" is it any wonder that there is a lack of fiscal trust in the present financial operations and reporting in this School District?

Will your spending and Fund allocation actions be looked at in the future as these immediate past actions have been looked at? Will you continue to "adjust" numbers presented to the public year to year as seems to have been the common practice of past BOEs? Or will the Financial Experts on this Board really make a difference in the School District practices?

Will you find out where all that "floating and changing" money went and nail it down for once and all? We all hope you will.


Ed.


Let's get a financial operation that gets more than 70¢ on the dollar to the children!

[justfacts]

Another view for Board Members

Since the District doesn't like to supply financial "big picture" information, but instead chooses to cut it down into daily "snap-shots" of cost to make it appear smaller - I thought I'd do the same thing with the "Floating Funds" of the last post.

The floating $1.7 Mill of the Fund Balance support (now it's here, now it's gone) plus the $1.4 Mill variations in "Other" revenue with changes in State Aid, comes to $3.1 Mill - maybe all there at once, maybe not! But, due to the lack of District reporting about where these items go - it would not be out of place to say they exist all at once.

That "worst case" calculation comes to about $500 per average home in Plainedge! Which breaks down to just $1.36 a day! Now, who could best benefit from that money? The individual homeowner, or the "Reserve Fund" that Richman feels entitled to have as a "Revenue Stream" to run HIS $63 Million enterprise?

If you feel it's not worth your effort to "clean up" a $1.36 a day cost issue - so be it! We'll understand and remember.

But if you choose to look at the Big Picture and account for $3.1 Mill in "floating Funds" - we'll appreciate that - and remember it too!

Ed.

The whole enterprise exists only to give the Children a fair chance for a future - not to put money into a "Revenue Stream", nor to pay outlandish salaries and bonuses! ;D

[justfacts]

Question to Board Members

BACKGROUND INFO:
(You are advised to verify this info for yourself!)

In this past year there were four Tax Anticipation Notes taken out by the District. They totaled $9.05 Million - 3 were taken in July, 1 was taken in September. The interest on them has to be paid by June 30, 2006.

In December, about half of the $283,700 in estimated interest for these TANs was collected as part of the Property Tax Levy. You can assume that money was deposited in a separate account for that advance on the interest payment and it pays about 4% interest for the six months it is held onto by the District. In mid-June the remaining half will be collected. There then will be about $289.4 Thousand in that account.

The Interest amount due on June 30th for all of the $9.05 Million in TANs will be about $221 Thousand. When that is paid out of the TAN interest savings account there will be about $68 Thousand left in the account, about 24% of the total collected from Property Taxes for TAN interest costs.

QUESTION:
Where will that excess money collected for interest go? How will it be accounted for to the public? How many of the children's Programs could be funded by this $68,000 without affecting the Property Tax Levy one iota?

Hopefully, you will answer this question, not only as part of your own homework on District Finances, but also for the public on this forum. As they say; $68,000 "ain't just walkin' around money!"[/i]

If the coming year's $495,000 to be collected for TAN interest has the same 24% of "built-in reserve money" because it too is an estimate, that amounts to about $120,000 of overage in Property Tax collections for that Capital Account 9760.

As you can see, this is an ongoing financial condition for you to look into - if you are interested in running a tight fiscal ship and getting most of the Budget dollars to the Children's Programs, instead of ending up in the Capital part of the Budget! Cut down on that 20¢ of every dollar going into Capital expenses!

Ed.

How can we get more of each dollar in the Budget to go to the children? By answering questions such as this one for all the relevant Account Codes! [/i]

[justfacts]

To the New Board Members Mary Ann and Alan

The Laws of NY State regarding School Districts and Libraries investing funds obtained in a lump sum, which will be paid out over a period of time, are quite restrictive in regard to which banking institutions can be used. This is different from what commercial firms can do.

But there are advantages to be gained from doing this investing. Money can be earned at a higher rate that will offset any interest to be paid on Bonds or TANs. Usually this can reduce the interest cost to taxpayers to about 1/3 of what it would be if the money was not put in an interest bearing account. Other non-interest cost funds can be increased by the amount of the interest earned, requiring less taxes to be raised.

One must be careful however, for the field is filled with banking "gotcha's". For instance - TANS over $10 Million generally cost 3/4 of a point more than those at $10 Million and under. To give a dimension to that cost consider the recent interest cost on the $5.8 Million TAN for this current year. It was for 2.62%. That interest cost for a full year at $10,000,000 would be $262,000. If 3/4 of a point higher, the interest cost would be $337,000 - or $75,000 more. Although a simple arithmetic calculation - this shows how "knowing the ropes" can save the District money.

These same banking rules apply to the amount of money to be invested. Higher interest rates can be obtained on larger investment amounts than smaller amounts. This favorable interest increase can be used to reduce the amount of taxes to be levied. The Plainedge Library, and other libraries have been taking advantage of this fact for a couple of decades. Joe Eisner, former Director at Plainedge, had the Laws of NY State rewritten to allow cooperative investments among libraries (and school districts). This allowed several libraries to "pool" their money into larger sums that gained higher interest rates than could be gotten individually by investing only hundreds of thousand dollars each! Everybody benefited.

The CitiBank TAN manager that handled the School Districts two smaller TANs last year, Mr. Tom Murphy, is very knowledgeable of Joe and our much larger (multi-Million dollar) Library investments - and he has a great deal of respect and friendship with Joe. The Nassau Library system now handles this operation for the 54 Libraries in Nassau county, rather than the smaller group of local libraries that we started with. (The Plainedge Library is part of a NLS District of six libraries - Wantagh, Seaford, Island Trees, Massapequa, Levittown and Plainedge)

It would seem that the School Districts could also take advantage of this rewritten law pushed through by Joe. The General Municipal Law, Article 3-A - Cooperative Investments, could provide a means of getting the most interest available for our Property Tax and State Aid Funds that are paid to us in a lump sum and dispensed on a rather uniform monthly basis (Salaries, etc.) From reports provided to date, there seems to be little advantage taken of this Cooperative Investment law by various School Districts.

Could you two, as fresh new Board members, look into taking advantage of this law? All it takes is getting a few local School Districts to cooperate and pool their investment resources. With Computers and Spreadsheet financial programs to monitor the results, this is now easier to do. Doing so will allow the same amount of taxes to be raised - but more of the dollars involved going towards Children's Programs than into the pockets of bankers!

Ed.

Every penny taken from the Capital part of the budget can go into more money for the Children! Let's squeeze the Capital part as tight as we can - 20¢ on the dollar is too much!

[justfacts]

Board Members Elect with Fiscal Know-How

BACKGROUND:
A Cash Flow document is being prepared (or already has been prepared) for this coming year by the District. As you know, it is a month by month chart of Revenues vs Expenses. One use is to determine how much money will be needed in a TAN to provide operating funds until Property Tax money is received. Please review this document very closely so that the mistakes of last year are not repeated.

I recently sent an e-mail to other Library Trustees and to the Comptrollers office which was based on the District's Cash Flow spreadsheets of last year. It clearly proved that there was no financial need for the District to withhold and delay payments to the Library for their monthly operating funds. It also revealed that there was a questionable need to obtain an additional TAN for the District in September - it just became and added Capital cost.

DISCUSSION:
It came to light, In discussions with others, that this Fiscal planning document also verified that there was no financial need to cut the expenses incurred by the full sports program for the year.[/b]

We know this to be true by the end result - there was a Fund Balance left over at the end of the year of about $1.7 Million - but analysis of this planning document shows this was predicted BEFORE last year's fiscal year began - at the time that cuts in the Sports Programs were being considered!

Those Cash Flow Documents were included in a series of Documents, submitted and signed by the Board's Vice-President, provided to TAN Financial agents before the beginning of the last Fiscal year. So, obviously, at least one Board member knew of the Cash Flow plans.

Had BOE members used these planning Documents, they would show that the average monthly expenses of the Sports Programs ($47,500) would have been well within the reserve funds available each and every month!

The attached e-mail sent regarding the unnecessary withholding of Library operating funds, reveals the planned for minimum reserve funds available to the District on a monthly basis. There is at least $2 Million planned to be available in the monthly Balance account in even the least funded month.

This clearly exceeds the monthly amount needed for the Sports Programs. Had the Board of last year used and understood this already available information - the "cuts" might have never occurred!

I recommend that interested persons obtain a copy of last year's Cash Flow analysis and review my observations. I also recommend that the Board members elect get their hands on this year's document and review it very critically!

Ed.

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

e-mail Attachment:

Mr. Peter Novak and fellow Library Trustees.

Hi,

The information that came from the District with the last large package from Richman contained two "Cash Flow" spreadsheets. The first, an early one, showed the payments to the Library would be made in Oct ($182 Thousand), Nov ($606Thousand) and Dec ($430 Thousand). These amounts total $1,218 Thousand, $131 Thousand over our 1/2 year needs.

During that first half of the year the District's Cash balance never falls below $3,027 Thousand in any month. This means there was no need to "lump" the payments to the Library into three end of the half year packages. The payments could have just as well been evenly distributed in amounts of $181 Thousand over each of the six months for that period - and there is no need for an excess of $131 Thousand in December. This information is readily apparent even in any casual review of the District's plans for cash flow.

Likewise the last half of the year shows a lumping of Library payments towards the end of the period. $145 Thousand in April, $654 Thousand in May, and $157 Thousand in June. The minimum cash balance for the District in that period is $4,973 Thousand. Again, this illustrates that instead of arbitrary lumped payments that do not reflect the Library's needs at the end of each six month period, there was sufficient funds always available to the District to have made evenly distributed payments to the Library in each and every month, as has been the past practice of four decades that reflects the Library's funding needs.

The School District's own supplied Cash Flow analysis clearly establishes that the Library funding nonsense of the past year was not driven by financial needs or limitations, but was entirely due to other decisions.

The second Cash Flow spreadsheet, modified from the first based upon the receipt of an additional $250 Thousand TAN, also clearly shows that in the first six month period the District's Balance never fell below $2,190 Thousand. This was in September after a lump payment of $1,087 Thousand to the Library and receipt of $250 Thousand from an added TAN. It also clearly reveals that if no additional TAN had been obtained, the District's minimum balance would still have been $1,940 Thousand in September followed by a balance of $2,615 Thousand in mid-October. This gives rise to questions about the need for a $250 Thousand TAN and its expense to the District.

The period in the later half of the year provides a revison which supplies funds to the Library in the manner that has been done for four decades - even monthly distributions. In no case during that period does the District's balance drop lower than $3,210 Thousand, indicating more than ample reserves in cash to provide operations for the District concurrent with adequate Library funding by the method the Library prefers to have.

Conclusion: The hazardous funding of the Library during the past year was totally unnecessary from a financial viewpoint as proven by the District's own Cash Flow predictions. The need for an additional $250 Thousand TAN in September is quite questionable from a financial viewpoint. The Cash Flow analysis provided by the District reflects residual money always being available to the District in considerable amounts (about $2 Million greater than need) during the year. There is sufficient room for tighter fiscal control with lowered costs for TAN funding; and a revised Cash Flow analysis.

Ed.

[justfacts]

To all Board Members and Board Members elect.

After tonight's meeting you all should be pretty much aware of the inadequacy of the District's Financial staff to provide up to date and consistent financial information. Your ability to manage resources becomes almost impossible when ordinary financial information is in such a disarray and is so unreliable.

Whether this is a contrived situation, or a result of poor skills on the part of the staff is immaterial - it is your butt that is on the line, no one else's.

The voter approved $57.3 Million Budget of 2004/5 is now shown (as of February 28, 2006 the amount Audited and reported on was changed) to be overspent by $620,000 - to bring the claimed spending level in that year to $55.9 Million - more than the amount of the first rejected Budget request for that year.

Who authorized such spending? Where did the money come from? There are no indications in minutes of meetings that the Board approved overspending the Budget. You are the only persons permitted to disburse District funds. How did you allow this to happen?

Each of you is responsible for allowing the spending to exceed the voter approved amount. That is a violation of Section 1718 of the State requirements for Budgets. Any taxpayer can start a lawsuit to recover from Board members the amount of the violation.

This erratic nature of fiscal reports puts each of you at a severe disadvantage. How long are you going to allow yourselves to be exposed to this risk? When are you going to demand a change?

And some of the information you got tonight about TAN and TAN issues! Especially the dribble about starting off $2.2 Million in the hole! Shades of the stupid administration arguments made last year before the second budget was put up! - when you had a chance to reduce the second budget by $390,000 but was talked out of it by that same stupid comment!

Poor knowledge and planning by the Administrator and his financial "guru's", inept understandings of fiscal obligations, are the direct result of your present hired staff's inadequacies. Inadequacies which are putting you at risk!

The information ineptly provided to you on some TAN, or non-TAN requirements imposed on the District by law, just reflects what was provided to the District staff a year ago - it's taken that long to sink into the heads of some persons who are relaying to you the requirements the District has to meet. Requirements that were mailed to each of you in a recent letter. Yes! Both the district's attorney and the State Comptroller, reaffirmed that information.

This is after the administration spent additional attorney fees to be told what they already had been told for quite some time!

The District's methods of planning to meet library funding obligations last year resulted in the District having spent money for interest AND principle AND fees on a $250,000 TAN that did not need to be spent.

This is proved by a review your our staff's Cash Flow Documents for last year (IF they were made available to you!) A revision in the analysis to show even monthly distributions of funds to the Library, as has been done for the last 4 decades, would have resulted in the least Reserve Balance period (first part of Oct) to have $328 Thousand in reserve - as compared to the $25 Thousand in reserve with the method your staff used - had the equal payment method been continued!

And, having 13 times the amount of reserve funds available would have occurred WITHOUT taking out a $250,000 TAN - which has to be paid back with interest and fees!!! No wonder the taxpayers have cause to grumble!

And the wonder is that we hear no grumble from you. No demand for replacement of under qualified personnel. No demand for accurate and meaningful financial data. The person selecting the fiscal staff, the person "interpreting" fiscal data to you is allowed to continue in his position despite these obvious shortfalls. And no one on the Board tasks him to end this terrible fiscal performance.

When are you going to do your job and find replacements for these inadequate employees? Will it take a lawsuit against each of you?

Ed.

These are Personal Comments not associated with the views of any other District Board. Independent statements can to be backed up and explained, shown and verified to any Plainedge residents who request so.

[Go Plainedge!]

Ed:

The problem is...who is the Board going to believe? You or the person they work for?

[rinx]

Jim must have been the financial man too.
yeah, yeah! That's the ticket. It was Jim again.

[themom]

Here in lies the problem: The Board DOES NOT work for Richman!

[Go Plainedge!]

themom said:

Here in lies the problem: The Board DOES NOT work for Richman!

I was wondering who would pick up on that first.

;D

By the way, if anyone has the email address for our two NEW BOE members, please email them about this message board. It would truly behoove them to read up on things here.