|
Post by techie on Aug 26, 2005 10:37:42 GMT -5
Has anyone who has read these articles seen a similarity between the school boards?
The common answer is to call accounting mistakes, simple mathematical mistakes and more or less say "Ooops!".
At least the Seaford Board has acknowledged the fact that the money CANNOT BE TRANSFERED BY LAW to be used now.
This is what was pointed out to the BOE and MR. Richman BEFORE the last Budget vote. This is why we were concerned that the money in the "Packard Fund" should be transfered BEFORE the vote.
They all knew and still the budget went back to the voters with a 7-0 approval. One Board member in particular had a full breakdown of the money and the sections of the Education Law that state why the money can't be used.
Let's see how Mr. Richman gets to use this money for the kids AS PROMISED. After all, he knew full well before the FIRST Budget what and how that money can be used.
All of these things had been posted on the site that was censored by Mr. Richman and the BOE. Was this a way to keep the posted information away from the community? Is this a try for a "Back Door" for Mr. Richman and the BOE?
any comments?
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Aug 26, 2005 11:21:55 GMT -5
Unfortunately the board member, I'm guessing, that had that information is not the most assertive person nor is he the type to really speak his mind. It's unfortunate because I think many people hoped he would breath a breath of fresh air into a stagnant "click" of a group. Smart campaigning on the part of the community is imperative to make sure the incumbent is not re-elected next May. Perhaps I should challenge the seat....
|
|
|
Post by techie on Aug 26, 2005 11:47:26 GMT -5
Smart campaigning on the part of the community is imperative to make sure the incumbent is not re-elected next May. Perhaps I should challenge the seat.... From the postings that you have made in the past on the "old" school forum, you seem to have the community in mind and probably would be a good Board Member! The first trait that I think a Board Member should have is the ability to speak up and question what is being proposed and why. You certainly seem to have that. Thank you for thinking about stepping forward,....now can we find a few more? IMHO
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 26, 2005 13:17:15 GMT -5
Hi Techie, Yruohk, Takebackmyschools and others.
The next meeting should have a group of people show up with a copy of Newsday's front page in their hands, raising it to display to the Board at periodic intervals.
If the Seaford crowd, found guilty of "little mathematical errors" amounting to $1.7 million, could own up to the fact that missing funds can't be applied back into the Budget without exceeding Contingency Budget Caps, why then can't our wondrous Board do the same with their original "Packard Fund" missing from the Budget money?
Don't they read the papers? The $390,000 inserted into Code #9950 of the Capital portion of the Budget should have been taken out from there.
Richman said on the site that the $390,000 had to come out of the Expense portion of the proposed budget ~ when he was first discussing the Program cuts, yet he didn't take it out of where the expense is located in the Budget ~ the Capital Code #9950 of the Contingency Budget!
At least, he did not show us that he had removed it from there in his latest paperwork to the public. And he has avoided answering that question "Did you take it out or not?" when asked by residents in e-mails to him.
His answers were straight from the book "Games People Play" ~ he gave a typical "harried" response! And he didn't simply answer yes or no!!!
Gee, I wish a lot of residents show up with that front page of Newsday at the meeting! It's too bad that I can't make these meetings. I'd love to get a straight answer from them ~ is it in, or is it out?
|
|
|
Post by techie on Sept 10, 2005 1:55:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by yruohk on Sept 10, 2005 7:32:16 GMT -5
ERROR on my part, quoted Techie's link rather than the one posted here. Thanks for bringing it to my attention..TG for that MODIFY BUTTON! abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=our_schools&id=2113758 Interesting article! I think the last paragraph warrants a mention here and to be sure it's not "misrepresented" I have copied it here exactly as reported in the article: Power School costs the district $10,000 per year. There is no cost to parents. It will soon be expanded to include the elementary and the middle schools in Plain Edge as well. No cost? Now how is that? As we can see, the "district" has taken on it's own personality implied here to have no financial affect to the taxpayer. Who the heck is the "district"? Has Art been told that and by whom? How else would this remark be made if not told to him unless he chose to "make it up" which is doubtful. I see that our favorite SUPERintendent is quoted in this article. Could it have been he who informed Art McFarland that there is no cost to the parents? Isn't that spreading "misinformation"? Well, doesn't surprise me!
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Sept 10, 2005 8:06:45 GMT -5
All of this could have been avoided if they didn't submit the same budget!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Sept 10, 2005 8:35:40 GMT -5
Yruohk ~ It looks like I have to give you a course in the new languages. Ever since the "newspeak" twist on things was introduced in George Orwell's "1984" there has been an alteration between what is said in English and what is meant in "gobble-d-gook" This has been brought to the height of perfection in the corporate world where annual reports of how a company has been doing in no way matches how the company is making or losing money in the real world. Bill Gates has also polished up another branch of "newspeak" in the PC world by selling everyone on the idea that the next version of his product will actually work! The next version is always said to be Safer, Faster, More Reliable, etc. than the junk you now have on your PC. ;D The Spin Doctor Richman has simply said that; " There is no cost to parents"; because there is no additional cost to parents who use the system. Since parents and non-parents have already paid for the system in property taxes paid to the District - it is the District that is covering the cost when a parent uses it! There will be no charge back to the parent in this instance. Spin Speak is the forte of the administrative academic world. It would behoove you to take a course in this subject if you desire to understand the straight forward manner in which features of this service were presented to Art!
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Sept 10, 2005 8:59:55 GMT -5
The article in the State Newsletter was very interesting. Amazing that if the taxpayers don't come around next year, the teachers could be the next thing to be hit. It sure seems to me that many suggestions of consolidation of things and reductions in some administrative positions were mentioned throughout the budget proceess......the BOE and Admin. didn't want to look at that though. There was no reason people couldn't have had their increases scaled back. I still don't understand how all the increases for admin. could be determined before the budget is approved by the voters. It seems like a referendum should be passed to say once the overall budget is approved with a "pool" of increases, individual increases can be approved. It may not have impacted the overall cuts dramatically, but it sure would have sent a message that all areas would be reduced - not just the areas directly affecting the kids.
The fund-raising should be commended on the one hand, and on the other, it just shows the BOE and Admin. that they don't have to worry whether the vote passes or not, because people will just go out and do THEIR jobs for them.
|
|
|
Post by techie on Sept 10, 2005 9:20:56 GMT -5
Right you are "concerned".
This is the same forshadowing we had about the cuts to the children's programs. I would think that the teachers would be VERY concerned about futures in Plainedge with talk like this already from the administration. Still the part the stuck out the most to me was that "we just don't understand". He says there is no place else to cut, what were the Administration cuts for the second Budget vote again?
On another note, in a couple of earlier posts the link was to the article we are now refering to and the response was to another article that dealt with the APPLE Program that the High School is using. I'm sure we can correct the link quickly to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
Post by archer99 on Sept 10, 2005 10:28:12 GMT -5
I fully realize that this article is dated JULY 8, 2004. This is not meant to give "Dated" information. [/b][/color] Please read the article and absorb what is said. Notice especially the concern of the administration to find out what were the "issues with the 1700 voters". They opted for a plan that included a "Community Forum" but, when they started to hear what was said they turned it off saying it was not appropriate for a school forum. ( It was titled a Community Forum) Could someone with the "numbers" check out that $4.000. amount for what was expected as the increase from the State? What was the actual amount received? Where did the difference go?
Massapequa Post July 8, 2004
Plainedge Schools pass budget in second try by Carolyn James
Saying they were pleased by the outcome of the vote, but concerned that 1,700 Plainedge residents voted against the school budget, school officials said this week they will be reaching out to the community to find out what needs to be done for next year.
"This school board and administration will be working very hard at finding out from those 1,700 residents what the real issues are," said John Richman, superintendent of schools. "We will correct what we can and try to ensure that the community is more informed."
Resident Fred Truebig, a regular attendee at school board meetings said he was very concerned with the level of public anger and frustration he saw this year, as well as the perception of arrogance the board presented, and that he hopes the district is successful in resolving some of the conflict.
"What surprised me was the number of young people who came out to oppose the budget," said Truebig. "A district has to take a long, hard look at what they are doing when they lose faith with those who traditionally support schools."
The vote was 2,144 to 1,783, the second try for the budget that was initially defeated May 18. The budget was $521,830 less than the $55.8 million initially presented to voters, which represented a $4.2 million increase in spending over the 2003-04 school year. The changes include a freeze on the superintendent’s salary and a waiving of any pay for performance he may be eligible for upon completion of his annual evaluation at the end of the 2005 school year. In addition, the board will terminate the services of its public relations representative from BOCES for a savings of $40,273 a year and suspend publication of the district newsletter, PlainTalk. Mass mailing of the school calendar at a savings of $1,437 and the scaling back of teacher training programs will save $13,550.
In athletics, the district plans to eliminate 7th grade soccer, basketball, baseball and softball for boys and girls at a savings of $31,407 and the district’s enrichment program SPRINT for a savings of $119,429.
But Richman said that he and the board hold out hope that the state aid picture for the district will brighten once the budget is finalized and that some of the cuts made can be reversed.
"We are still hopeful of getting some kind of increase in state aid so that we can restore some of these things," said Richman.
The district projected only $4,000 in additional state aid this year and is wrestling, they said with $1.5 million in unfunded mandates.
The district plans to have study circles, community forums and informal discussion groups throughout the year, said the superintendent. "We don’t want to wait until budget time to inform people," he said. "We want to do it now so that people will understand what it is we are doing."
|
|
|
Post by techie on Sept 10, 2005 11:03:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Sept 10, 2005 19:59:52 GMT -5
I read the article you are referring to under "ABC local" about Power School. In fairness, we really can't say the quote came from Dr. Richman about it being no cost. Goodness knows the media can twist things around. I do understand the point Justfacts makes about it being "no additional" cost, but I think we should be careful in giving credit to Dr. Richman for a statement that was not a direct quote.
On a side note, how is it that everyone is coming across these old articles in the Massapequa Post and ABC. It's amazing the information that is out there, isn't it? I hope the admin. remembers all the things they have said accurately, because it sure seems there is enough documentation at our finger tips if we ever need it!
|
|
|
Post by techie on Sept 10, 2005 20:42:16 GMT -5
And RIGHT you are "concerned"! I have been getting inquiries about that program and I think the article gives a little more insight. While it is true that we don't know who may have said the comment about the cost, I would figure that the reporter would have asked someone from the Administration for a figure. Again I may be wrong and we DO NOT know who said what. But I will try to contact the reporter to find out. The thing the administration should remember each time they talk to the taxpayers is the quote in Newsday from Mr. Richman that said it all....."We ran out of GIMMICKS!"
|
|
|
Post by yruohk on Sept 10, 2005 20:48:40 GMT -5
I read the article you are referring to under "ABC local" about Power School. In fairness, we really can't say the quote came from Dr. Richman about it being no cost....I do understand the point Justfacts makes about it being "no additional" cost, but I think we should be careful in giving credit to Dr. Richman for a statement that was not a direct quote. Concerned: To clarify what I posted, here it is again. I see that our favorite SUPERintendent is quoted in this article. Could it have been he who informed Art McFarland that there is no cost to the parents? Reading the article you will see that Rich-man is quoted to which I referred to: John Richman, Superintendent Plain Edge Schools: "We cut down on phone calls from homes that ask, 'How come my child is failing? How come you didn't call me? How come there was a test and I wasn t notified?'" Then I added the question could it be he who stated no cost to the parents. Hopefully, this clears up any misunderstanding.
|
|