Post by justfacts on Aug 30, 2005 13:51:25 GMT -5
To: NEDRA RHONE Staff Writer, Newsday
In today's Newsday you reported the following statement;
"The money, Duffy said, will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of a lowered tax levy. Legally, spending caps of a contingency budget, which the district was forced to adopt after the proposed budget was defeated twice, prevent the district from using the funds to restore lost sports programs and teaching positions, he said."
Yet, recently in the Plainedge School District, the following information appeared on the school's Web site;
"Budget Update – Board of Education Meeting – July 13, 2005
At the June 27th Board of Education meeting, the Board fulfilled its legal obligation and reduced the 2005-2006 by $2,456,854, but announced that a $390,000 expenditure, earmarked for a “repair reserve fund”, could not be used for that purpose under a contingency budget. They decided to use the $390,000 to restore some of the programs and services cut. Last night, the Board of Education met to restore the $390,000 to the contingency budget. After an hour of input from the community, the following restorations were made: . . . ."
How can these two diametrically opposed actions by two differing School Boards be achieved? Is one Board "missing the boat", not taking advantage of what the other knows? Or is one Board doing what the other says is illegal?
The basic question is: If Programs and Administration costs have a cap limit of just how many dollars can be spent on them, and the budget was "cut" to these limits, then how can dollars be "restored" without exceeding the caps?
Notes about the Plainedge information:
The "Under a Contingency Budget" statement is wrong. They could not be used because the voters did NOT approve the transfer of the $390,000 in former "Packard Funds" into this "repair reserve fund" account when they twice rejected the budget. The funds, now unencumbered, must go back into the general fund balance and be used for property tax reductions.
Commissioner's decisions say funds can't languish in the general fund if they cause the unencumbered amount to exceed 2% of the prior year's budget. They must first be used to reduce property tax, and not be assigned later to some encumbered purpose ~ like restoring program cuts. The "Income" for last year exceeded "Expenses" by $1.8 million (there is an sworn under oath statement by the Assistant Superintendent that the "Income" was incorrectly shown with a $600,000 addition error), so all this money exceeds 2% of last year's budget.
However, at this time the funds apparently remain as an item in the Contingency Budget's Capital portion of the budget under Code # 9950, not having been fully retracted from the expenditures. Answers to e-mailed questions as to the status and legal use of these funds by community members have been adroitly avoided.
Full information about the Plainedge comments can be found at the following link:
nemesis2.com/pedge/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=223
In today's Newsday you reported the following statement;
"The money, Duffy said, will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of a lowered tax levy. Legally, spending caps of a contingency budget, which the district was forced to adopt after the proposed budget was defeated twice, prevent the district from using the funds to restore lost sports programs and teaching positions, he said."
Yet, recently in the Plainedge School District, the following information appeared on the school's Web site;
"Budget Update – Board of Education Meeting – July 13, 2005
At the June 27th Board of Education meeting, the Board fulfilled its legal obligation and reduced the 2005-2006 by $2,456,854, but announced that a $390,000 expenditure, earmarked for a “repair reserve fund”, could not be used for that purpose under a contingency budget. They decided to use the $390,000 to restore some of the programs and services cut. Last night, the Board of Education met to restore the $390,000 to the contingency budget. After an hour of input from the community, the following restorations were made: . . . ."
How can these two diametrically opposed actions by two differing School Boards be achieved? Is one Board "missing the boat", not taking advantage of what the other knows? Or is one Board doing what the other says is illegal?
The basic question is: If Programs and Administration costs have a cap limit of just how many dollars can be spent on them, and the budget was "cut" to these limits, then how can dollars be "restored" without exceeding the caps?
Notes about the Plainedge information:
The "Under a Contingency Budget" statement is wrong. They could not be used because the voters did NOT approve the transfer of the $390,000 in former "Packard Funds" into this "repair reserve fund" account when they twice rejected the budget. The funds, now unencumbered, must go back into the general fund balance and be used for property tax reductions.
Commissioner's decisions say funds can't languish in the general fund if they cause the unencumbered amount to exceed 2% of the prior year's budget. They must first be used to reduce property tax, and not be assigned later to some encumbered purpose ~ like restoring program cuts. The "Income" for last year exceeded "Expenses" by $1.8 million (there is an sworn under oath statement by the Assistant Superintendent that the "Income" was incorrectly shown with a $600,000 addition error), so all this money exceeds 2% of last year's budget.
However, at this time the funds apparently remain as an item in the Contingency Budget's Capital portion of the budget under Code # 9950, not having been fully retracted from the expenditures. Answers to e-mailed questions as to the status and legal use of these funds by community members have been adroitly avoided.
Full information about the Plainedge comments can be found at the following link:
nemesis2.com/pedge/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=223
. We as a community, as taxpayers, as parents, grandparents and neighbors have merely taken control of our right to freely inform those who are interested in knowing the truth. 
which befell those in New Orleans and the surrounding areas. There are those who had so little to begin with and what little they had in the way of property, would give anything to have a lovely community to sleep and eat in, to send their kids to school in as we do. Our priorities ought to be ALL the children and what's RIGHT not what benefits a few. Objectivity and truth must prevail for there to be unity and peace. 
Yes, pray for those victims in this community whose TAX $$$$$$$$$$$ don't add up which in turn is taking from the kids!