|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Feb 13, 2006 17:40:48 GMT -5
Just:
In reviewing some of the proposed state money allocations, it appears as though we are receiving more than last year. Is that true? Did I read that correctly?
Also (if I'm reading this right) it looks like we get a larger percentage than most districts in our surrounding area. I'm sure that must have something to do with the lack of commercial taxes.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Feb 14, 2006 7:57:13 GMT -5
Go Plainedge!
Yes! Compared to last year the expected State Aid (derived from formulas for calculating State Aid) that the School calculated and supplied to Albany, shows that there should be an increase this year over what was given in State Aid last year.[/i]
State Aid, as seen from the Albany point of view, is the total amount they send to a District - i.e.; what comes from both pockets. State Aid, according to some Districts, is only what comes from the above calculations - i.e.; what comes from the right pocket only!
Those Districts often don't include the amount of STAR contributions. When STAR is included, those Districts that have a lot of persons getting STAR have more total Aid supplied by the State.
The amount of residential property (Class 1 property) vs Commercial and government property (Class 2,3 & 4 property) doesn't directly affect State Aid calculations. The indirect way that all classes of property affect State aid is this:
With Districts of equal totals in Property value may have one with all Class 1 property and another with half the property value in Class1 and half the property value in Class 2, 3 or 4. The second group will probably have fewer children in the District - therefore their Property Wealth per pupil will be high that the group of all Class 1 property - unless some of the Commercial property consists of a lot of Condo's and apartments. They will then have a lot of children in the district. So it is the amount of children in the District that more directly affects State Aid.
When it comes time to figure the State Aid the formulas used will give calculated values for State Aid that are lower for the District that has a lot of Class 2, 3 or 4 property. In addition, that District will have fewer applicants eligible for the STAR program, even if the District has a lot of Seniors in apartments or Condos. It is the amount of eligible STAR applicants in the District that more directly affects State Aid.
Therefore Districts with a lot of Commercial and Government property often get hit twice for getting less total State Aid than a District that has all Class 1 property - like Plainedge does.
I hope that sheds some more light on the topic.
Plainedge does get a larger share of the State Aid on a percentage basis (not necessarily in total Dollars) than most surrounding Districts because of it demographics of STAR eligible persons and of Children vs Property wealth in the District.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 1, 2006 10:28:06 GMT -5
Mandated Costs Myths
Along with the ancient "the dog ate my homework" and the modern "the computer rebooted itself just as I finished your report, sir" there are less than creditable excuses people use every day. Among the less creditable Educational excuses are "State Mandated Costs" and "Costs outside our Control"
Lets take a close look at one of the latter used recently in a post on plaintalkonline by Ed P. "in fact, 85% of the school budget is state mandated."
Sounds authoritative doesn't it? It's also a mantra that has been oft repeated at many a BOE meeting. "Costs are outside our control because they are state mandated" Once again, this hapless "don't blame me" cover line, is used to excuse lack of financial performance - and its used so often many don't question its basis.
Well, for once, let's just see how authentic this excuse for lack of financial control is. Ed P. is positive and assertive that 85% State mandated costs make up the School Budget. Do they?
For instance; the Superintendent's salary & benefits - who sets that figure? The state or the BOE? The Administration staff and the Principals/Assistant Principals - does the state or the Administration set their salary and benefits? The Maintenance staff - who sets their salary and benefits" The state or the Administration? The Teachers, Aides and Part timers - who negotiated their salaries and benefits for the next few years - the state or the BOE president, Rich Mallow?
Since just these cost elements alone are not set (or mandated) by the state and they make up about 2/3rds of the total budget - how can one believe that "85% of the school budget is state mandated"? Yes, there are state requirements that attendance reports, safety plans and other tasks are required if the District wants to take advantage of state plans that provide overall funding - not on a task-by-task basis - but on an overall funding basis. But these hardly constitute 85% of the budget.
Clearly, the "Mandated state costs" statement claiming a major impact on the budget is a fiction. An over exaggeration at best, an ineffective myth at worst. Newly implemented state requirements will make for a jump in cost for the new services required and cause a budget to budget increase when they start.
But, as these these plans continue year after year, there are no continued same sized budget "jumps" caused by them! Their only increase is on a slight CPI basis, much like all other costs. We should no longer highlight them; or use them as an excuse! If the plans stop - then there should be an equivalent decrease (jump downward) in the budget. Have you heard of any of those jumps downward in the budget? Or is the amount of money set aside for abandoned plans used to spread out over other plans?
One of the more glaring new "costs outside our control" cited in the proposed Draft Budget is the cost of TANs (Tax Anticipation Notes, money loaned by institutions to School Districts until Property taxes are paid by the Town in December)
The money set aside for this in 2004-5 was $165,000. In 2005-6 it was $283,700. Now the "estimate" says $495,000 is needed. Since TAN Agency documented costs for this last year showed slightly over $210,000 was the cost, well under budget, why would a skilled planner set aside enough money to cover more than twice the amount of what this item cost us this year? Slide an "extra" quarter of a million dollars into an obscure capital account? About half of what the sports programs cost?
If that be a "cost outside our control"; we had better get new people to control our costs![/b]
Does the draft budget truly show "costs outside our control"? Or does it show "costs we failed to control"?
Does this list document poor planning?; A failure to shop for better rates?; Or is it just the same old budgetary "padding" in places most people don't look?
The job of the financial staff, under the control and discretion of the BOE is to control all costs for the school. To shop around, negotiate and get the best deal possible, not just passively accept invoices and increases and say "that's the way it is".
According to the Hevisie report they did a poor job of doing just that in limited Administrative cost areas - and Hevisie found that several cost controls and procedures were in need of correction. I wonder what a Hevisie report would reveal if it was done on all Budgetary items? How about on the Bond issue? I wonder what his report would be on that!
|
|
|
Post by irishman on Mar 12, 2006 10:13:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Mar 12, 2006 20:08:48 GMT -5
Facts, Your recent letter on the other site will only undo what WE are trying so hard to do....which is change the perception of what your intentions are......This comes from a letter posted on the other site, it should be remembered: "However, the perception in the community could very well be that Mr. Dowdells letters are instigating a “anti school board” NO vote as opposed to a “disagreeing with the budget” NO vote. Remember what they say about perception and reality. Ultimately, it’s not Dr. Richman or Mr. Mallow that is hurt when a NO vote is cast just in protest of the Board. The children themselves feel the impact of a NO vote most intensely. It just hurts the kids."
I re-extend the invitation from my last post........ for you to come to the Tuesdays meeting, sit with US..........and let them know that it is WE that are out there in the audience, it's about US and OUR kids........
There are only 30 days till the final budget is adopted by the BOE....WE must be a part of the process...Join US
Tuesday March 14th
ITS ABOUT THE KIDS!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 13, 2006 9:27:17 GMT -5
wildrover
I agree with you that some people have perceptions of what we are doing that aren't always in line with what motivates us to do what we do.
However, in summarizing the situation you have made a statement that I am perceived to be motivated by an anti-school board for a NO vote rather than being motivated by disagreeing with the budget for a NO vote.
In neither case am I ever in favor of a NO vote, or even a YES vote. How one votes is their own business. I will not advocate that anyone vote one way or the other.
Your statement is just not true. In no post have I ever advocated how to vote.
I have however, revealed some actions that the BOE and the Administration have taken with the Budget process and the public's money, that are not in the best interests of the children and of the community. That sometimes other options were available than the ones they chose.
Those revelations may cause some to examine the basis for their vote - one way or the other.
My only intent is to not have "voting in the dark" by being presented with one-sided information, that has often been misleading. I try to offer up another viewpoint.
For instance, in my last post on the other site I believe I clearly brought out the fact that although Contingency Budget money was claimed to be tight, causing the elimination of funds for sports, there was a sufficient and equal money available for raises to the Administration.
What one makes of that information - and how it influences one's vote is their own business.
And a key point - the time to get involved and offer other considerations is before the vote. That is why I am happy to see that more and more of the Plainedge community is working where it should be working - not at the Voting booth but at the BOE meetings that shape the Budget.
This way, an involved voter can ensure that the Children get their fair share of the public's money - that it no longer goes toward Administration raises instead of programs for the children.
Ed
P.S. Just what are the projected Administration Salaries for this coming year? That information is required to be presented along with the Budget plan. Has it been?
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Mar 13, 2006 11:05:23 GMT -5
"Your statement is just not true. In no post have I ever advocated how to vote."
Facts, My statement never was that you posted "a call to vote no" or "Yes" for that matter.
I DID quote a letter from that other site that stated the perception in the community was that you did.
And I also stated there is a group of us out here that are trying to clarify that perception in the hopes that a united front will get us all that we want.
I do not at all disagree that a bit o' heat to the feet is a good motivation tool, but with existing "anti-board" feelings out there, IMHO fanning those flames will just make people not see the forest through the tree's.
I remember being told that a majority of the people just read the headlines of most of the newspaper articles that they look at. That is a fear of mine, Facts. That with all the informative, knowledgeable "stuff" placed in all your posts, folks just see Richmans salary, get pissed and vote solely based on that and not all your factual "stuff". (sorry, at a little lost for words this A.M. and just felt "stuff" fit)
Now with that being said, thank you for the info, hope that clarified MY thoughts and statements, and continue to plead with all those you come in contact with to get involved with the process. Less than 30 days now till the budget is adopted and technically, just one more chance to speak publicly prior to that!
March 14th!
ITS ABOUT THE KIDS!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 13, 2006 11:19:21 GMT -5
wildrover
At least one thing is clear - we both are walking to the same goal - even if on different paths.
Let's hope we reach the same goal - a budget that puts the most of what's available into programs for the children!
And to hell with the anti-this and anti-that factions. Many such factions never modify their behaviour - they just grab at what they can to support their already made up minds.
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on Mar 13, 2006 12:13:24 GMT -5
Dear Plainedge Resident WE are being heard ! We have received much feed back from our government officials stating that they are receiving our letters. Keep it up ! If you have not received a reply, write again. If you have received a reply.. write again !!! If you haven't written we are counting on you to do so! We have 800+ names on petitions that were signed at school events and at some senior community centers. We are sending a set of them to each of 51 county and state officials how have input into the State Aid process. Below is the cover letter we used.
************************************************************************** March 2006
Governor George Pataki Executive Chamber, The State Capitol Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Pataki:
The Plainedge community has organized to express our concerns over the state education funding formulas and to request that Plainedge School District receive an increase in state aid. The Plainedge community is made up of voters from Massapequa, Bethpage, Seaford, Farmingdale and Levittown in Nassau County.
The Plainedge Tax Relief Association (PTRA) has been formed by concerned residents of Plainedge to advocate for additional school funding and tax relief for the Plainedge School District in the State Senate, State Assembly and the Governor’s Office. Residents have been sending letters to our representatives in Albany, as well as signing petitions. We have attached copies of petitions for your consideration as well as the basic letters being sent by residents to our representatives. We are sending this package to all Education Committee members in the Senate and Assembly. We request your action on Bill A.7702 which would allow for a regional cost of living adjustment to be applied to the education aid formula. Nassau County school districts only receive 17% of their school funding from the state, while other areas of New York State receive an average of 37%. Please be aware of the following facts about the Plainedge School District:: • Plainedge has no commercial property so we, the residents, have to pay 85% of the school taxes. • The state aid to Plainedge for operating costs has decreased every year in the past 6 years – from 25.9% to 18.24% of our school budget. • Plainedge has the lowest per pupil expenditure in Nassau County (K-12). • New York State School Board Association rated Plainedge “highly efficient” as compared to other comparable schools. • The Plainedge School budget failed in 2005 and the school is now on austerity. • The Plainedge community formed a grassroots organization and was successful in raising monies to restore high school sports. We request that you provide a special appropriation, or modify the formula to take into account districts such as Plainedge that predominantly depend on residential property tax who have limited or no commercial property. Please remember the children of Plainedge and Long Island when the State Budget is voted upon. Thank you for your help in this endeavor. We look forward to hearing from you soon to tell us what you are doing on this important issue.
Sincerely, Plainedge Tax Relief Association ***************************************************************************
Nassau County officials are using us as an example ! They are rallying all Nassau County School Districts to combine their efforts and put pressure on Albany. They will be starting a County letter writing effort! WE ARE EMPOWERED !!!! HOW ? OUR VOICES and OUR VOTES !!!! Keep up the great work and thank you !!!!! The Plainedge Tax Relief Association Phil
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 15, 2006 13:54:11 GMT -5
Read between the Lines - to find what this means.
Back a few years ago one of the threats behind our "punishment" if we didn't pass the Budget was that School Band Uniforms for 30 children would not be bought! This was suppossed to save $35,000 from the budget.
Do your own math to find out if that's a reasonable price for a School Band Uniform. Shop e-bay or the internet to find that uniforms start at $125.
Ask yourself why the difference - or who sells what to who.
From today's Newsday: **************************************
-------------------- Charged in bid-tampering at school --------------------
BY ALFONSO A. CASTILLO STAFF WRITER; Staff writer John Hildebrand contributed to this report. March 15, 2006
A former athletic director for the North Babylon school district has been indicted on charges that he illegally steered contracts for sports team uniforms to a particular vendor.
Jeffrey Cordell, 58, of Greenport, pleaded not guilty yesterday in Riverhead to five counts of first-degree offering a false instrument for filing and five counts of official misconduct. Suffolk County Court Judge Barbara Kahn released him without bail. The indictment was handed up by the special grand jury investigating fiscal wrongdoing in schools. If convicted, Cordell faces 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison on each felony count.
The Suffolk prosecutors say Cordell, who retired in 2005, submitted false price quotes for uniforms from vendors from 2000 to 2003 so the district would give contracts to R and R Athletic Apparel, of Ronkonkoma.
Robert Clifford, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota, said he was not aware of any connection between Cordell and R and R. Spota said Cordell "denied North Babylon taxpayers the benefit of cost-savings provided by competitive bidding." R and R officials could not be reached for comment.
William Harrigan, school board president, said in a statement the district was "grateful" to Spota's "aggressive prosecution on this matter." Cordell's attorney, Martin Julius of Mineola, said he was "confident" his client would be exonerated.
Copyright (c) 2006, Newsday, Inc.
*************************************
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 17, 2006 7:32:55 GMT -5
First Reaction to Second Budget
My First reaction was $6 Million increase! No way!
Last year was a $2.1 Million increase plus a $0.6 Million "gift" making a total of $2.7 Million - and we got by!
But for budgeting comfort call that $3 Million - and we increased our Fund Balance and still gave gave out $0.5 Million in Administration raises on top of that!
So about a $3 Million increase per year is not a bad target. That's about twice what the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is.
$6 Million??? Four times the CPI again, upon again, upon again? How can it be justified?
On second thought - let's do just that! Since we will be reforming the power clique of the BOE, we could raise the extra Dollars this year and put them into a fund to have the new BOE buy Richman out of his contract!
It'd take about $1.5 Million to $2 Million to get him out of Plainedge forever. So that would leave about $4 Million of the increase for the operating fund the first year - enough for the new Superintendent costs, plus a little left over for the higher costs in a "changeover" operation.
In the following years we'd get back to "normal" budget increases of $3 Million to $4 Million a year and stay away from the Richman " Rich-man" plague forever!
In three or four years we'd have paid off the $6 Million cost to get rid of this blight on Plainedge for once and for all! So maybe one year at $6 Million might be worth it!
|
|
|
Post by irishman on Mar 17, 2006 10:09:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Mar 17, 2006 10:35:38 GMT -5
Irish,
Do us all a favor, work with us and try to find solutions (like the long term one that Facts prescribes) or a logical suggestion, or something constructive instead of just a bunch of BLARNEY!!!
OR
Just vótáil nach and go about your gnó.
(“Just Vote No and go about your business” for you non-Gael’s)
Facts,
It's sounds like a plan, sometimes you have to slow done to go faster, sometimes you have to spend some to save some.
Good for you for looking for solutions!
ITS ABOUT THE KIDS, ITS ABOUT CHANGE, ITS ABOUT TIME!!!!! C.P.R.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 17, 2006 11:50:59 GMT -5
Just:
Am I to understand that a revised draft, proposed, suggested, budget/wish list was released?
If this is true, can someone post the information please?
|
|
|
Post by gopybl on Mar 17, 2006 13:41:10 GMT -5
FACTS - I think a good portion of the $6 mill number is because of the failed budget from last year. I think because we are on Austerity we are starting this year in the whole by more than $2 Mill before we do anything else. Thats just to bring back the services which were eliminated last year. That being said, they aren't that far off from the $3 to $4 mill per year increase. Unfortunately, in order to bring back the services we are gonna have to eventually bite the bullet on the $2 Mill eventually. If we don't next year that number will increase to over $4 mill and we will never get out from that abyss.
Wild - I agree with you 100%. Be part of the Solution....We have enough people pointing out the problems. We know we have problems. Lets work together to fix them.
Go Pedge - Yes a new draft budget was distributed at the Tuesday BOE Meeting. I will try to post the figures as soon as I can.
My main issue is with the unwillingness of the BOE to reduce administration. Also, why would we be investing in technological upgrades or software migrations when we are trying to get out of a $2 million dollar deficit from last year.
During this time period when major corporations are changing the way in which they conduct business....They are re-structuring management....They are eliminating non critical management positions....Why wouldn't our BOE re-evaluate the entire admin structure of the school district? Is there not one person in the Admin who could be eliminated? Is there not one job function or responsibility which could be re-assigned to someone else to save money? I think this is the reason why so many of the residents get upset. How many of us know people who have had to take pay cuts to keep there jobs? Why is this never mentioned as a cost saving solution?
Did anyone attend last night's meeting? If so, can you share some insights from that meeting? Thanks.
|
|