Post by justfacts on Sept 6, 2005 12:18:25 GMT -5
Here are cut & pastes from two recent Posts on the Unofficial Plainedge School District Message Board. Both recommend going to a board meeting to get the "real facts" and/or "information first hand"
==============================
jdavola, New Member, member is offline
Re: Newsday Article - Seaford Schools
« Reply #17 on Sept 4, 2005, 10:57am »
You Go rsacamano!!!! go ahead and meet with the horse....but wear some big boots....you'll be steppin' in it the whole time. Go to the source, don't listen to a talking horse. Go to a board meeting get the real facts.
Remember...pray for the victims. Peace out.
love y'all,
J.D.
=============================
rsacamano, Guest
Re: Newsday Article - Seaford Schools
« Reply #18 on Sept 4, 2005, 3:01pm »
dear justfacts;
Thank you for the offer to meet. I really don't know who you are so I don't think meeting at a diner would be a good idea. Better we meet at a board meeting and get information first hand?
=============================
Is going to a board meeting the best way to go? Or is there a better way? This Post will give you some facts with which you can make up your own mind.
Last year's budget released by the Board, and discussed at meetings, and mailed to your homes showed an expected Revenue from the State of $12,652,535. That's what the board told the community in April at budget meetings. However, just 3 months before in January, on the 20th, they told the State in an official report that they expected $13,903,535 in State aid! I have a copy of that report, and actual Budget Summary mailings which don't reproduce here.
If you want to see them, come to a diner with me and anyone you like and check them out for yourself! Call to set it up. 516-249-9308
Now then, what did the Board actually get in State aid? $14,638,059! Got to the site:
www.nysed.gov/stateaid/dist/gov05/280518.html to see what was filed with the State.
Look at the recent Budget and the flyer they mailed to your home. They also showed this last amount, like the $12,652,535 amount never existed!
That means, they claimed less State aid on the budget to cause the Property tax levy to be $1.251 million higher than their estimate! This is a "trick" accounting procedure to "accelerate cash flow", as it is known in the trade.
However, the actual money from the State turned out to be $1,985,525 higher than what was put in the Budget!.
This bounty goes into a "Fund Balance" as an excess of Revenues over Expenses. From there it is up to the Board to decide how it is to be spent. We have yet to be shown a full disclosure about what is in the general Fund Balance, both encumbered and unencumbered funds. It's required to be disclosed to the public with the Budget information.
Compare the understated State income the Board told us in the Budget information for last year with what they estimated to the State just 3 months before. Will you get true information from the Board or not?
For a second and "Worse Yet" incident, if you go to your copy of this last proposed Budget, you'll find that they told you in a big bold number on the Budget Summary, that Revenues were $56,539,922. They were not!
Add the numbers for yourself.You'll get a Revenue total that's $600,000 higher! That means there's $600,000 more money going into the Fund Balance for future spending.
That's a total of $1,826,024 more in actual Revenues than Expenses that happened last year. The reason that this actual amount is less than the estimated amount above, is that "Other" revenues came to $705,500, not the $865,000 the Board originally estimated.
That is also $1.8 million more in Property taxes last year than was actually needed.
Why? Who knows, who follows up?
Jeff Burns, in an affidavit filed with the Commissioner of Education claimed this to be an "innocent arithmetic error". That "innocent arithmetic error" was never corrected before the second vote this year, although it was brought up at a preceding Budget Hearing board meeting by a member of the public where Jeff agreed it was a wrong total.
However, no record of this appears in the minutes, the correction was not made before the last vote and the public has yet to be advised of the error by this Board. The truth about this "innocent arithmetic error" only appears as a result of the Section 310 Appeal that I filed with the Commissioner.
Will the public ever be alerted by the Board about this error? I leave it up to you to find out.
In any other instance, except as a matter before this Board, a $600,000 error would result in heads rolling, and immediate corrective actions applied. Including a public acknowledgment of this error with public funds.
To judge the impact of this $600,000 error, and/or the overcharging of Property taxes for last year by at least $1.251 million in the estimate and $1.8 million in the actual, figure out how many car washes each amounts to.
Then ask yourself: Is this Board a reliable source of truthful and accurate information? Or does this Board's carelessness with guarding the public's interest and money make it an unreliable source of information?
The significance of these "innocent arithmetic errors", like so many others in the recent past:
a) "the computer can't calculate over 100%";
b) "the Superintendent's salary was added in the District Meetings column by mistake";
c) "the $390,000 Packard Fund money doesn't appear anywhere in this Draft Budget";
d) etc.,
became the reason for this Unofficial Plainedge School District Message Board 's existence.
Warning!: This post does not contain misinformation! It contains verifiable information from documents and records supplied by the School District to the Plainedge residents and to State Agencies. Some information in quotes was obtained verbally from the Board during Budget hearing meetings and can only be verified by residents in attendance at those meetings.
==============================
jdavola, New Member, member is offline
Re: Newsday Article - Seaford Schools
« Reply #17 on Sept 4, 2005, 10:57am »
You Go rsacamano!!!! go ahead and meet with the horse....but wear some big boots....you'll be steppin' in it the whole time. Go to the source, don't listen to a talking horse. Go to a board meeting get the real facts.
Remember...pray for the victims. Peace out.
love y'all,
J.D.
=============================
rsacamano, Guest
Re: Newsday Article - Seaford Schools
« Reply #18 on Sept 4, 2005, 3:01pm »
dear justfacts;
Thank you for the offer to meet. I really don't know who you are so I don't think meeting at a diner would be a good idea. Better we meet at a board meeting and get information first hand?
=============================
Is going to a board meeting the best way to go? Or is there a better way? This Post will give you some facts with which you can make up your own mind.
Last year's budget released by the Board, and discussed at meetings, and mailed to your homes showed an expected Revenue from the State of $12,652,535. That's what the board told the community in April at budget meetings. However, just 3 months before in January, on the 20th, they told the State in an official report that they expected $13,903,535 in State aid! I have a copy of that report, and actual Budget Summary mailings which don't reproduce here.
If you want to see them, come to a diner with me and anyone you like and check them out for yourself! Call to set it up. 516-249-9308
Now then, what did the Board actually get in State aid? $14,638,059! Got to the site:
www.nysed.gov/stateaid/dist/gov05/280518.html to see what was filed with the State.
Look at the recent Budget and the flyer they mailed to your home. They also showed this last amount, like the $12,652,535 amount never existed!
That means, they claimed less State aid on the budget to cause the Property tax levy to be $1.251 million higher than their estimate! This is a "trick" accounting procedure to "accelerate cash flow", as it is known in the trade.
However, the actual money from the State turned out to be $1,985,525 higher than what was put in the Budget!.
This bounty goes into a "Fund Balance" as an excess of Revenues over Expenses. From there it is up to the Board to decide how it is to be spent. We have yet to be shown a full disclosure about what is in the general Fund Balance, both encumbered and unencumbered funds. It's required to be disclosed to the public with the Budget information.
Compare the understated State income the Board told us in the Budget information for last year with what they estimated to the State just 3 months before. Will you get true information from the Board or not?
But this is not all!
For a second and "Worse Yet" incident, if you go to your copy of this last proposed Budget, you'll find that they told you in a big bold number on the Budget Summary, that Revenues were $56,539,922. They were not!
Add the numbers for yourself.You'll get a Revenue total that's $600,000 higher! That means there's $600,000 more money going into the Fund Balance for future spending.
That's a total of $1,826,024 more in actual Revenues than Expenses that happened last year. The reason that this actual amount is less than the estimated amount above, is that "Other" revenues came to $705,500, not the $865,000 the Board originally estimated.
That is also $1.8 million more in Property taxes last year than was actually needed.
Why? Who knows, who follows up?
Jeff Burns, in an affidavit filed with the Commissioner of Education claimed this to be an "innocent arithmetic error". That "innocent arithmetic error" was never corrected before the second vote this year, although it was brought up at a preceding Budget Hearing board meeting by a member of the public where Jeff agreed it was a wrong total.
However, no record of this appears in the minutes, the correction was not made before the last vote and the public has yet to be advised of the error by this Board. The truth about this "innocent arithmetic error" only appears as a result of the Section 310 Appeal that I filed with the Commissioner.
Will the public ever be alerted by the Board about this error? I leave it up to you to find out.
In any other instance, except as a matter before this Board, a $600,000 error would result in heads rolling, and immediate corrective actions applied. Including a public acknowledgment of this error with public funds.
To judge the impact of this $600,000 error, and/or the overcharging of Property taxes for last year by at least $1.251 million in the estimate and $1.8 million in the actual, figure out how many car washes each amounts to.
Then ask yourself: Is this Board a reliable source of truthful and accurate information? Or does this Board's carelessness with guarding the public's interest and money make it an unreliable source of information?
The significance of these "innocent arithmetic errors", like so many others in the recent past:
a) "the computer can't calculate over 100%";
b) "the Superintendent's salary was added in the District Meetings column by mistake";
c) "the $390,000 Packard Fund money doesn't appear anywhere in this Draft Budget";
d) etc.,
became the reason for this Unofficial Plainedge School District Message Board 's existence.
Warning!: This post does not contain misinformation! It contains verifiable information from documents and records supplied by the School District to the Plainedge residents and to State Agencies. Some information in quotes was obtained verbally from the Board during Budget hearing meetings and can only be verified by residents in attendance at those meetings.
with consecutive mailings or reports. Numbers vague with no explanation and then when it was explained, it sounded so ridiculous I wasn't sure 
if the individual was all that stupid or thought I was.
