|
Post by devilsrus on Aug 1, 2006 20:15:23 GMT -5
I've been away from the board for a time, although I've peeked in on occasion. Good to be back? I'm not sure, just a random thought or two. A quick recap.... budget goes down....community bonds and thru tireless fundraising efforts and a generous outpouring of support [from this and other communities] sports are restored and a storybook season happens.
Fast forward to the budget vote.....a community stays united and thru tireless efforts induces the school board to produce an acceptable, not perfect, budget that is supported by the community, overwhelmingly, as a sign of a new beginning.
Hard fought elections and a new board emerges...OK so far so good.
But wait......There can be no more car washes, no more fundraising on school grounds unless an event insurance fee is paid at the tune of $500.00 per event.
Now I think I'm starting to get it. Treat them like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them alot of crap and we will still control the community.
Is it the whole board or is there a man behind the curtain?
It is bizarre that a community that was so pro-budget and remains so pro-school can continue to get kicked in the teeth.
Perhaps the board can explain exactly how the school clubs will be able to raise the money that is so necessary to buy the equipment, trophies, jerseys, jackets, warmup suits, lacrosse sticks, cleats and on and on and on that the school does not supply, even as it defines a bake sale as an event.
While surronded by a community that has continued to find a way to say yes it is mind boggling that a small minded few[one?] can struggle this hard to find a way to say no.
That being said its good to be back.
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Aug 1, 2006 21:48:57 GMT -5
While surrounded by a community that has continued to find a way to say yes it is mind boggling that a small minded few[one?] can struggle this hard to find a way to say no. Devils, You have put forth a question in exactly 36 words, that not one of us have could have put so eloquently or simply. One would think it would be a crime to want to alienate this community after so much work was put into galvanizing (District SAT word of the month!!!) it. The parameters put forth are stifling. And mean spirited. Why are we so suprised What a shame, I always looked forward to a 25 cent fudge brownie or two at the back sales that can no longer be held without posting a $1,000,000 single event insurance waiver. Way to foster those good feelings and positive relations!!!!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 2, 2006 0:36:06 GMT -5
devilsrus & wildrover
Welcome BACK!
Your inputs and insights were missed!
I was just revisiting the NY State Law site - Schools, Finance and General Business Law sites. Putting together a synopsis of why the Administrator is so "off-the-wall" with his fooling around with Library funds. The State site goes to a reference server, which just became unavailable! That's why I went back to Plainedgechat and saw both of your posts.
That's a long way towards the topic - but while on the other site I did see something that applies to your topic! It had to do with the legal responsibilities of the BOE - without Richman in the loop!
Being that the site was down, I can't go back and cut & paste the originals. So bear with me in my try of exact recall of what I saw tonight on the State Law site. The BOE's powers include:
They, at their discretion, are empowered to provide insurance cost coverage: a) for all athletic programs and activities, b) for students on premises or at events.
It is strictly up to the BOE itself to determine how, when and if, they will cover these insurance costs![/i]
Discussion & opinion: It would seem the cost of a larger blanket insurance policy would be less than dozens of smaller policy costs - just for the reduced paperwork and contracts involved. That the "buying power" of the District would enable better bargains than what residents could do individually! This seems especially true for several small "cookie sale" events that might take place several times during the year.
That brings us to the point: Has a cost analysis vs benefits been done before the BOE decided (through Rich man's strong arming the issue - pardon me! - advocating the change)? Just how many total dollars are actually taken off the $65 Million Budget by this maneuver?
Cutting the new insurance requirement does mean that a select group of community participants would benefit by reducing their costs and that all members of the community would pay a small amount more by having an encompassing blanket insurance.
But then again - the purpose of all these events, Parades and all, is for the benefits they provide to the entire community - not just the fund-raisers themselves! So the money comes from the community wide pocket and goes to a community wide benefit. Neither the Administrator or the BOE would be out money![/b]
Conclusion: A terrific cooperative BOE decision would be for them to continue providing any and all blanket insurance policies for these events. Any added budget cost has so much good-will behind it that the PR would heighten the chances of first time Budget passing - reducing the voting and second budget "agitta" and costs so prevalent in the past.
But it would provide a lowered total cost to the District residents if the BOE kept this item in their Budget! It has to have a very small impact on the budget bottom line - the whole purpose of what's behind Richman's advocacy of this issue.
The voters would not be as hostile - especially in the powerful organized groups that now had to bear some ridiculous costs to do good for the District!
A reminder BOE - Their power can, and will, work both ways.[/i]
Too often - we've allowed Richman's misdirected cost-cutting ways to eliminate the good will previously brought to the community budget passing process - and also reduced the overall community benefits!
He does this by reducing small programs (Plaintalk newsletter mailings) and services (Adult and Senior programs at the Schools) whose costs that were very minor compared to the Community benefits and good will derived therefrom!
So BOE, decide for yourselves what to sponsor and keep in the way of costs. Certainly Richman's past decisions have not been very good in these matters - and in fact. they are often counterproductive!
And it looks like this latest effort is the worst of the lot!
Why don't you consider rewriting the Fund Raising Policies? Or, at least, have a cost/benefits analysis done and shown to the public? Why not bring more community input into this decision?
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Aug 2, 2006 7:35:41 GMT -5
Let me add: Supposedly these bake sales and PTA Fundraisers can NO LONGER take place during school hours. Allegedly, this takes the students away from school time and possibly makes them feel pressured into buying something. They can happen after regular school hours or in the evening. This is not a STORY but information received from the horses mouth at a BOE meeting. They were going to try and get a real definition of what this was about from the state.
|
|
|
Post by devilsrus on Aug 2, 2006 10:22:12 GMT -5
Hello Facts, Thank you for another "YES" solution that seems reasonable, reflects the benefits to all involved, continues the strong community involvement that most districts on Long Island would kill for, and finally sponsors continued good will.
It is far preferable to have a partnership with the community rather than an alien relationship or even worse an adversarial one.
Car washes,bake sales, parades....all those things which reflect community, that reflect our way of life are not supplemental to school life. These things are part of the fabric of school and community.
This is why we live here.
It would make more sense to me to continue to build on good will and strong community support, to discussions of ideas, to allow for differing points of view to be reconciled in a non-hostile arena than to breed again the dark days of mistrust, disinformation and "us" against "them"
Why would anyone deny people who are willing to contribute their time and money to making a contribution to the community ?
Volunteerism is generally encouraged in every other walk of life; why would it be or who would discourage it here?
Thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
Post by plainedgewatcher on Aug 2, 2006 11:05:33 GMT -5
Hello all,
Devil to answer your question why? Because he fears this community! The community that was indifferent has awakened and his power is slipping. So what does he do, he resigns because he cannot deal with the thought of working side by side with the community and it's leaders. He cannot stand the thought of having to entertain and possibly follow the will of the people. The bully was beaten, and he is running, but before he goes he wants to inflict as much damage as possible.
lets all look VERY carefully at this insurance issue lets all look VERY carefully at who he appoints lets all look VERY carefully at the tenure he wants to give out lets all look VERY carefully at packet/picken lets all look VERY carefully at the Eastplain expansion lets look VERY...VERY.. carefully at email gate
Let us not forget we are close to 2 million in the hole starting out for the next budget.
LET US NOT FORGET...WE ARE A GREAT COMMUNITY NOW !!! AND WE NEED TO HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD !!!!
lets look VERY carefully at EVERYTHING !!!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 2, 2006 11:26:55 GMT -5
Go Plainedge!
I've searched the State Law site and found no reference to Fund Raising restrictions during school hours. But there is often Legislation passed which is not placed in the Law information source, so something may be in effect.
I've sent a query on the topic to Saladino and will post the response when it comes. Salidino has been very active in this type of school legislation * - so he may provide an authoritative source.
It does seem unlikely that any State official would back a Bill to restrict local School District Fund Raising in the manner you said was presented at the BOE meeting. It would be so against "Apple-Pie-&-Motherhood". But who knows - it MAY not be the figment of someone's imagination that, once more, may want to divide this community with false facts.
I'll keep you posted when I get more facts.
* Here's a sample of Saldino's recent Legislation that is FOR Apple-Pie-&-Motherhood when it comes to School District Fund Raising efforts.
*****************************************************************
A11148 Summary: BILL NO A11148
SAME AS No same as SPONSOR Saladino
COSPNSR Walker, Alfano, O`Mara MLTSPNSR Barra, McDonough
Amd S1115, Tax L
Provides an exemption from sales and use taxes for books, candy, pictures, trinkets, or any item containing a logo, collectable or seasonal item sold for ten dollars or less per item at a book fair or program sponsored by the school or associated with a PTA or as a fund raising activity to support education groups associated with a school.
A11148 Actions: BILL NO A11148
05/02/2006 referred to ways and means
A11148 Votes:
A11148 Memo:
BILL NUMBER: A11148
TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the tax law, in relation to exempting certain items sold by a school-related group from the tax on sales and the compensating use tax
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : Provides that items which are sold in a school facility or at a school book fair, school or club or extracurricular event, or game associated with that group shall be exempt from tax.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS : Books sold in a school facility or through a program sponsored by the school, a parents association, a parent teachers` association, a student group or other not-for-profit organization, a sports team or club or other extracurricular group associated with students or youth.
JUSTIFICATION : It is proper and just to exempt student groups, educational groups, sports teams, clubs, student government, PTA and the like from the complications, record keeping, labor intensity and diminishment of not-for-profit fundraising when the items they traditionally sell are charged a state sales tax. This is especially the case when the items are one of an educational use such as books sold or are logo items or team spirit items such as shirts or pennants or mugs, holiday items or candy sold to solely support the school team, club, activity or PTA or school or students cause.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : New Bill
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS : To be determined.
EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect March 1, 2006 and shall apply to sales made and uses occurring on or after such date.
*****************************************************************
It seems that this Bill, and all the efforts taken to implement it, afford a savings to the Fund Raisers in taxes that is far less than the cost of buying an Insurance Policy to have a Fund Raiser!
I wonder what Saladino and the co-sponsors of the Bill would think about our District's recent attitude towards drastically increasing "the complications, record keeping, labor intensity and diminishment of not-for-profit fundraising" to Fund Raisers in the District?
Maybe Saladino should write a Bill prohibiting BOE's from enforcing the Insurance requirement? Requiring instead, that the District provide Blanket Insurance coverage for the school's own libility, and let the Fund Raisers determine just how they would cover the potential cost of their personal risks during any given event - by an insurance policy or by any other means.
In other words - keep the School's nose out of the Fund Raiser's conduct of their own business!
Any comments about Saldino's rational action in this Bill and our BOE's irrational change in policy?
Ed
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 2, 2006 12:22:22 GMT -5
Plainedgewatcher
A minor "nit-picking" point about your recent great post about cautious examination of information and actions by Richman in the coming final year of his term. I agree whole heartily with all your statements but one!
In that last post you made reference to being "close to $2 million in the hole starting out for the next budget".
Because next year's Budget has yet to be compiled or looked at, this seems to be a very unsubstantiated "fact" tossed out to the BOE and the community by Richman for effect rather than for accuracy.
I believe, from being told other information around my dining room table by people directly in touch with the Administration, that this number, given as both $2 Million and as $2.2 Million by Richman, was a reference to the amount of the total Library Budget! It came up during his discussion with them in a non-public meeting talk about the Library TAN interest costs as a very weighty and misleading (almost threatening) impact statement on why they should continue TAN Interest action against the Library.
When reminded that the actual cost estimate for TAN Interest last year was $16,300 (which mysteriously elevated itself to $27,000) the people at the table realized that the total cost impact could not be the amount Richman quoted! At most, it couldn't be much more than $27,000 - and even that charge is dubious. Both "table sitters" came away with a new mistrust of Richman's quotes about money! And they both were BOE members.
So, until there is a "reduced to paper and examined for accuracy" Budget projection for next year, I'd hesitate to continue to speculate on any "Starting off in the hole" unsubstantiated comments from Richman. It seems to be too much like a statement he made last year to the BOE about starting off this year "$1.4 Million in the hole" if they used Packard's $390,000 to reduce the Budget proposed for a second vote. "Go with the same Budget!" was his dictate to the BOE.
The butal fact was: We did not start off this year in the hole - but instead had at least a Fund Balance of $1.7 Million! That's a heck of a lot more than $390,000! So much for the reliability of Richman's projected estimates of money shortages!
We should be able to learn from experience that repeating Richman's unsubstantiated statements about money amounts is servicing his cause and not necessarily in the best interest of the District.[/i]
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by plainedgewatcher on Aug 2, 2006 13:32:43 GMT -5
Just, thank you for the warm response. I was not speaking of any statements that JR made. You should never repeat anything from a person you cannot trust! I was speaking about the 1 million in the fund balance and the additional 900k in state aid that we had to put forward to reduce the tax liability for the residents in this years budget. Those dollars may not be available for the next budget, thus putting us 2 million short. I may not be totally correct, but you get my drift ?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 2, 2006 17:20:56 GMT -5
plainedgewatcher
Thanks for your clarification - I got your drift. You were looking at the support money that is used to reduce property taxes.
The amount you figure was very close to the one Richman used - but you did have a different basis for your number!
But also remember that the "Other" category of Tax offset money, in the final amount of $600,000, had initially been $700,000 before we got the Legislator's $900,000 addition to Patakie's original Budget support. That's another $100,000 floating around someplace.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Fund balance at the end of this year - due to the new Board members and the sincere other members of the BOE - ended up being something greater than $2 Million? That would certainly "fill in the hole!"
And if they could hold the line on next year's Budget to some minor multiple of the CPI? WOW!
Could it be something under a two times multiple? Last year the increase came to more than 3 times the CPI.
The CPI this year was about 3.5%, next year it could be around 4.6%.
At the allowance Patakie made for an Enhanced STAR addition of monies - that means a Budget increase of about 5.5% would qualifiy us for that added State support.
A 5.5% increase would bring the Budget to $67 Million - $3.5 Million more than it is now. It would be a nice goal to shoot for!
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Aug 2, 2006 18:30:51 GMT -5
Justfacts - 5 Stars now - thanks for 500 contributions to this MB ;D
Unfortunately, we have one more "brow-beating" budget to deal with. I have a bad feeling that Dr. Spin (as his finale) will push for double digits again.
|
|
|
Post by devilsrus on Aug 2, 2006 20:48:49 GMT -5
As usual, cogent insights from a concerned citizenry, but if I may press for a quicker solution to the current problem....how do we raise money for those items that the district will not or more likely cannot fund. There is some burden to be borne by the particular sports constituency that should not necessarily be borne by others. Thats OK. But how is the money to be raised if the platform for raising the money is removed? We are already in August, the semester is not that far away. The seasons will begin shortly. This not a cost to be carried by the whole community but a means of suppling the teams with the extras that matter. Where do we go if the BOE says no?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 2, 2006 23:06:25 GMT -5
devilsrus
Part of the reason that persons who wish to divide opinions among factions in the community are successful is that we too readily accept a "headline" from their story and don't have all the information available to us. We enjoy little opportunity to view all five sides of the coin* as we can do on these sites.
For instance, when it comes to insurance costs, the Sports program is more organized than many of the ad-hoc fund raising activities and can afford their own insurance policy. Those involved in Plainedge sports belong to an organization that can add them to the State wide insurance policies as a rider, minimizing costs to the local effort.
Their insurance cost is minimized by being a part of some larger organization that has even more "buying power" than the School District has. This is also true of the Plainedge PTA, it belongs to a larger PTA organization that adds them as a rider to their policy in a cost effective way.
Additionally, many other costs in the sports programs are directly paid for by the parents of the children involved. The school does not pay all their costs as some would have us believe, or as the myth often repeated in the neighborhood states.
The School cost portion mostly involves the additional money that is paid by contract agreements to Teachers and Staff that take that involvement on as a "second job" to supplement their income from the District. That pay is for "Chaperon", "Coaching" and "Field Maintenance" duties, etc. The appointments are regularly made by the BOE and the pay costs approved by them - the parents don't negotiate or control those non-negotiated District attached costs.
These District costs and efforts often duplicate what the Sports parents actually do, clean up before and after themselves, escort their own child to the bathrooms, coach, etc,
The Blanket coverage within the scope of the District's insurance coverage of certain other less formal organizations is what I had made more of a point about.
Certainly the use of the Schools during last year's spontaneous $750,000 Fund Raising effort involved risks in the car-washing efforts - and it is laudable of the BOE to allow this to occur.
But to have to delay the start of that fund Raising effort to create an organization and to raise enough preliminary funds to pay for a policy to present to the District, would have been a ludicrous impediment to the overall effort - in fact it may never have occurred if that was the requirement at the time.
The same goes for the "Community Pride" parade. It started at one school and ended in another. What if the organizers had to raise a couple of hundred dollars for insurance before the parade could be allowed to take place? The volunteers who made that parade possible had enough to do without starting up and registering an organization that could legally sign and pay for an insurance policy.
And "bake sales", or volunteer efforts to get businesses in the District to donate proceeds toward playground replacements, etc. are school District supported fund raising events that could involve risks and possible lawsuits to the volunteers. These, technically, should also be covered by insurance. Having a wider based blanket coverage provided by the District, instead of being required by the district, encourages more volunteer fund raising activities - from which the whole community benefits!
The State law says it is within the duties of the BOE to raise by taxation, the monies to provide insurance coverage for District supported and sponsored events such as these.
Why not provide this as part of their service plan to residents of the whole district? It only heightens the feeling among residents that "at least we are getting something for our tax contributions to the School", even though we no longer have children in the school.
Remember, almost two out of three homes are paying for the basic education of the children in school although their children are long gone from the District, or have yet to start school.
Rhetorical Question: Would you have only those parents that have children in school pay a major portion of the school tax as you suggested that it is the obligation of parents who have children in sports to pay the major share of sports insurance costs? (Which they presently are doing)
I wonder if the BOE even has a District wide Service Plan anymore?
Note: These comments were made just to give more points of discussion and thought about the Fund Raising Policies to be generated by the BOE that will have a real impact on others who want to do volunteer work for us all. Their inputs are not yet sought out in Richman's plan to generate Policies that are one-sided in their considerations - what he presently thinks is in the best interest of the District. It seems that this policy will not even have much input from the BOE.
My attempt is to provoke and stimulate discussion on the topic so it does not fall prey to the rubber stamp approval of policies made by one person. A person who often satisfies other objectives that those professed - and saddles the community with a poor plan.
Ed.
*There are more than the conventional "two sides to the coin" than often stated. Can anyone, as a simple discussion provoking effort, name the five sides of a coin?
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Aug 3, 2006 13:29:39 GMT -5
*There are more than the conventional "two sides to the coin" than often stated. Can anyone, as a simple discussion provoking effort, name the five sides of a coin? Let me see, If I am looking down at the coin from above it has a front side (Heads) , a back side (Tails), a left side ("my quarter has a scratch on the left side) , a right side (same example) and an outside (the ridged ring). Thats my theory and I'm stickin' to it!!! Unless, of course, this quarter is being spent by a Long Island school district, then it would magically transform into a 50 cent piece.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Aug 3, 2006 16:22:32 GMT -5
thewildroverGlad to hear from you! And to get your viewpoint on how approval to spend a quarter in a LI School District is taken as authorization to spend a half-dollar! But in your halving the front and back sides of the quarter to Left Side and Right Side, or quartering those two faces, you opened up the possibility of two more sides - Top side and Bottom side! Those two, combined with your two side additions and the Rim side, increases the side count further than 5! The total is more than 7 however - it now becomes THIRTEEN sides to the coin - when the Inside and Outside are added to the list! The basic five sides; Front, Back. Rim, Outside, Inside -- grows by; Left Front. Right Front, Left Back, Right Back, Top Front, Bottom Front, Top Back, Bottom Back -- to a total of 13! I wonder how much further this can be extended - Can anyone out the take "an added side" to the coin question? ;D (Are you sure this is not a "Bar bet" type of question where the looser has to buy drinks for everyone?) Ed.
|
|