Post by justfacts on Jun 20, 2006 9:08:19 GMT -5
To any interested Board Members
You were fed another line of misinformation by the Spin Doctor at Tuesday's meeting about the funding of the Library system by the District. He has a personal goal to achieve on this topic that has cost the District extra effort, extra costs and lost interest money last year, and will cost us the same this year if you allow him to pursue that path. If he is allowed to continue unchecked in the same manner, the District will loose once again!
The recent mailing from the Library Board that went directly to you about the District's requirements for handling the funds, was apparently not read by some Board members. At the recent meeting between Library and School personnel - the Board Vice-President showed she had no grasp of the District's responsibility that was covered in that letter. In fact, it even required Richman to have a talk with the School Attorney (more $$$$) and the Comptroller's office before he could grasp some of the basic facts. Both entities reaffirmed the Library's information sent in the letter to each of you. These are facts that the Library has been presenting, where it can, to the District for the past year on this topic.
But nowhere are the facts more clearly illustrated than in the District's own "Cash Flow" sheets of last year. They are called "Exhibit A" in paperwork supplied by the District to the Bond agent who handled last year's $250,000 added TAN for the District.
A Mistake!
It is clearly shown in these sheets that there was an extra cost to the taxpayers of Plainedge (about $6,000) and an extra $250,000 TAN (Loan from a Bank) obtained by the District because of the changed, and unusual way the District choose to handle its Library funding obligation last year.
Had the District passed the Library funds approved by the Voters in the same manner as has been done for 40 years, there would have been no need for the $250,000 TAN, no added costs borne by the taxpayers, and far less strife for all concerned. This is clearly shown in a modified "Exhibit A" sheet which uses the traditional funding method.
Proof offered:
Any Board member who would like a copy of the Original Exhibit A from the District, and the modified one showing how using the old funding method would have saved taxpayer money, only has to request them from me. edowdell@hoflink.com
Cash Flow spreadsheets are normally a tool of financially skilled persons, but it is very easy to see by comparing just these two sheets that the District would have been at far less financial risk last year if they handled their Library funding obligation in the traditional manner of all past years, and did not engage in the shenanigans they unfortunately chose to pursue.
Ed.
Can the District learn from its mistakes? It is up to this Board to make that happen - or drift back into being an incompetent Board. Which direction will YOU choose?
You were fed another line of misinformation by the Spin Doctor at Tuesday's meeting about the funding of the Library system by the District. He has a personal goal to achieve on this topic that has cost the District extra effort, extra costs and lost interest money last year, and will cost us the same this year if you allow him to pursue that path. If he is allowed to continue unchecked in the same manner, the District will loose once again!
The recent mailing from the Library Board that went directly to you about the District's requirements for handling the funds, was apparently not read by some Board members. At the recent meeting between Library and School personnel - the Board Vice-President showed she had no grasp of the District's responsibility that was covered in that letter. In fact, it even required Richman to have a talk with the School Attorney (more $$$$) and the Comptroller's office before he could grasp some of the basic facts. Both entities reaffirmed the Library's information sent in the letter to each of you. These are facts that the Library has been presenting, where it can, to the District for the past year on this topic.
But nowhere are the facts more clearly illustrated than in the District's own "Cash Flow" sheets of last year. They are called "Exhibit A" in paperwork supplied by the District to the Bond agent who handled last year's $250,000 added TAN for the District.
A Mistake!
It is clearly shown in these sheets that there was an extra cost to the taxpayers of Plainedge (about $6,000) and an extra $250,000 TAN (Loan from a Bank) obtained by the District because of the changed, and unusual way the District choose to handle its Library funding obligation last year.
Had the District passed the Library funds approved by the Voters in the same manner as has been done for 40 years, there would have been no need for the $250,000 TAN, no added costs borne by the taxpayers, and far less strife for all concerned. This is clearly shown in a modified "Exhibit A" sheet which uses the traditional funding method.
Proof offered:
Any Board member who would like a copy of the Original Exhibit A from the District, and the modified one showing how using the old funding method would have saved taxpayer money, only has to request them from me. edowdell@hoflink.com
Cash Flow spreadsheets are normally a tool of financially skilled persons, but it is very easy to see by comparing just these two sheets that the District would have been at far less financial risk last year if they handled their Library funding obligation in the traditional manner of all past years, and did not engage in the shenanigans they unfortunately chose to pursue.
Ed.
Can the District learn from its mistakes? It is up to this Board to make that happen - or drift back into being an incompetent Board. Which direction will YOU choose?