|
Post by thewildrover on Mar 17, 2006 16:59:06 GMT -5
Go , The business portion of the meeting was un-eventful. During the Q & A session valid pleas were made by members of the community asking for cuts to be restored on the elementary level, followed by other parents asking for cuts to be restored on the middle and high school level. Each speaker with those pleas were passionate and, at least I think, respectful in their comments. All realize there has to be some cuts. The question of cutting full day kindergarten was brought up to offset the cuts, and the board would not look at that as a possiblity. People asked the board how they could help them. There was a few Q’s as to why there were no administrative cuts and that’s were the fun began. Dr. Richman went on a harangue, ripping this message board and those who post here, the monies spent on extra-curricular, out of school activities by parents (mentioned Cooperstown BTW), defended the board vehemently, defended his actions, their actions and making a long harangue short, took great offense to the suggestion of reducing administration. He basically spanked the entire audience. To which great offense was taken. It was explained to him that the very people he was spanking were the people who would have to help him and the board promote this to the good people of P-Town, and for the very most part, would support a “fair and reasonable” budget. (A term he seems to hold in some contempt, and that was pointed out to him too.) A plea was made to have a budget presented that has the cuts spread fairly across the board, reasonably. It was acknowledged that NO-ONE segment was going to be happy due to cuts, and just the same, NO-ONE segment should be any more un-happy than another. A Solomon-like task? That’s why he gets the big money! I know this was a quick summation, but it is St. Patrick’s Day of course!! ITS ABOUT THE KIDS, ITS ABOUT CHANGE, ITS ABOUT TIME!!!!! C.P.R.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 17, 2006 17:29:44 GMT -5
Go , The business portion of the meeting was un-eventful. During the Q & A session valid pleas were made by members of the community asking for cuts to be restored on the elementary level, followed by other parents asking for cuts to be restored on the middle and high school level. Each speaker with those pleas were passionate and, at least I think, respectful in their comments. All realize there has to be some cuts. The question of cutting full day kindergarten was brought up to offset the cuts, and the board would not look at that as a possiblity. People asked the board how they could help them. There was a few Q’s as to why there were no administrative cuts and that’s were the fun began. Dr. Richman went on a harangue, ripping this message board and those who post here, the monies spent on extra-curricular, out of school activities by parents (mentioned Cooperstown BTW), defended the board vehemently, defended his actions, their actions and making a long harangue short, took great offense to the suggestion of reducing administration. He basically spanked the entire audience. To which great offense was taken. It was explained to him that the very people he was spanking were the people who would have to help him and the board promote this to the good people of P-Town, and for the very most part, would support a “fair and reasonable” budget. (A term he seems to hold in some contempt, and that was pointed out to him too.) A plea was made to have a budget presented that has the cuts spread fairly across the board, reasonably. It was acknowledged that NO-ONE segment was going to be happy due to cuts, and just the same, NO-ONE segment should be any more un-happy than another. A Solomon-like task? That’s why he gets the big money! I know this was a quick summation, but it is St. Patrick’s Day of course!! ITS ABOUT THE KIDS, ITS ABOUT CHANGE, ITS ABOUT TIME!!!!! C.P.R. Wild: And here lies the problem. What this (MOD EDIT) (YES RICHMAN YOU ARE AN (MOD EDIT)) and the BOE fail to see is the reality that the continual brow-beating of the members of this community causes resentment. This resentment results in a NO vote. This directly affects the children. That's the sad reality Hey (MOD EDIT) - get a dictionary and look up the meaning of fair and reasonable if you can't figure it out. Perhaps one of the second graders can help you with that process. The community says FU to the BOE and Richman because of their actions. It then becomes the community's fault that this budget failed. Why? This guy has been bad for us since day 1 and the BOE keeps renewing his contract. FRANK PRESUTO - DO NOT RENEW THAT CONTRACT IN MAY! Lets cut our losses and move on with repairing the damage that this idiot has caused. Thank you MK for signing that stupid contract! I believe gopybl said that all corporations cut and tighten belts throughout the company. They don't cut the portion that affects the customers and product. Our customers and products are the kids. Why doesn't anyone see this?!?! Richman, stop walking around with blinders. Look at this message board like the Nielsen Ratings. There may only be 40 members, but each member represents a certain number of households in the community. Any REAL businessman knows that cuts need to come from all departments. He is using the program cuts as his own personal FU to the community and threaten (once again) us into voting YES. The BOE needs to get some balls and throw that budget back in his face and demand realistic cuts - ALL AROUND. I'm done with my bitch session. Sorry, but this idiot has to go. BOE - Don't let us down again. EDITS BY MODERATOR: Try not to let your frustrations make you stoop - MOD
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 17, 2006 17:53:03 GMT -5
So where is the $2 Million Cut? There's a persistent use of the terms "cuts" and "cuts last year" in respect to what has to be "made up" this year. *****************************Where was it? Last year we made available a $2.1 Million increase in spending. Taking out last year's expenses this left $1.7 Million in the "check book" at the end of the year. (Known as the Unencumbered Fund Balance) Raises for the Administration were not cut - in fact $0.55 Million was spent on those raises, bonuses and benefits alone. In other words - we'll make all the "cuts" we want - but NOT out of My Pie - only from your pie! The only problem with present methods of handling cuts is that the expenses are "juggled" to end up giving the children the least fair end of the distribution of money![/i] Of the $1.7 Million above expenses, there was $0.6 Million in there for the various sports programs that the BOE decided they would not spend the money on because we made them go on an "austerity budget" Fortunately, many parents and children worked hard to raise that amount as a "gift" to the school so that the sports programs could continue, despite the arbitrary decision of the BOE to cut programs that time proved they did not have to cut. Had the $0.6 Million come from the extra money in the check book at year's end, there would have still been $1.1 Million left in the fund Balance - exactly the amount of the State's 2% Cap Limit on that money. So the the check book balance proves that a $2.1 Million increase was just enough to do the job. Any more was bound to go for expansions and extras that were not essential to getting the job done. Nice to have if you can get them, but not essential - like Administrative raises instead of K-12 programs.*********************************This focus on "cuts" is a ploy, a faulty reasoning, that someone could use to make others believe it was essential to have and must be "made up". The best way to illustrate how this is true is to move to another spending situation - buying a car. Say I go into a Dealer and see a sticker price of $55,000 on a car I like. after many "negotiations" (price adjustments) the Dealer and I come to terms, I'm going to give him $40,000 and he'll give me the car. Question? Did he take a $15,000 "cut" on the price? Must he make that up on the next sale? Would he be justified in asking for $70,000 for the next identical car? Not one of us would ever buy into that argument. His asking price will still be $55,000 to the next customer - who may settle for a sale price of $45,000, or $38,000. **********************************And so goes it the same way with budgeting and budget requests. All Budgets in the past years - read that again - all budgets for the past years, have had only increases in their expenses from the prior budget. None have ever had reductions to "cuts" in their expenses. The only "cuts" have been in the amount of "wish list" money asked for.I can never see that car Dealer saying to his family - "Gee! - I took a $15,000 cut in the car price today so we can't stay on that Island vacation for four weeks, we have to make it two weeks!" Nor can I see the Host at the Island Inn saying " Hey! - the Car Dealer had to cut back his vacation by two weeks - so I have to cut the School Budget!" The Island Inn Host never sees, or even knows about, that $15,000 less that I spent on the car than the "wish list" sticker price showed! And that is the real world way business is done. ********************************The upcoming Budget has a bottom line "Sticker Number" You will be asked to buy an estimate of the operating costs for the coming year. At the pre-budget hearings you have a chance to "negotiate the price" - use that opportunity.[/b] If you don't like the final price you can always walk out of the showroom - some of your fellow voters will stay. If not enough stay the sale is not made. And maybe, just maybe, the sticker price may be reduced like two years ago, as was not done last year. But don't bet on it! True, that may cause a new "sale day" that once again asks you to buy into the new price or not - it will be your choice measured against the choice of a few thousand other Plainedge residents. But in no case - will a "cut" in the first asked for price, or even second asked for price, ever be a valid excuse to tack that money onto next year's "wish list price" To believe that there is any truth to making up amounts taken out of budget requests needed to get to an approved budget amount, is like saying that the "cut" in this Second Draft Budget from the First Draft Budget - (now it's $63,642,040 and it was $65,336,058) - or $1.7 Million has to be "restored" and made up next year!. Let's drop that faulty reasoning so we can make progress towards getting a valid budget passed on the first asking price![/i] One way to help do that is to use C_P_R. CPR the BOE this year - help the children get their fair share! P.S. to GO! Plainedge. Why is it that you are so complimentary to Richman? ;D After all, he is, and has been, at the root of all our divisions and problems. Even if we do come to terms on an approved Budget - he violates it with a haughty air and impunity (See 2004-5 Budget) He is not the professional Plainedge deserves! And - he will dissapear from our fair town - let's hope that it is soon!
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Mar 17, 2006 19:03:36 GMT -5
Bingo! Go Plainedge. You've hit the nail on the head regarding where the problem with the division in the community originated. R - I - C - H - M - A - N. Least I forget honorable mention to his cohorts Mallow and Dick. A pox on your houses to the former BOE for hiring this buttmunch to begin with. We will not forget who gets the raises while the kids get shafted. To any BOE member reading these forums.... Do not under any circumstances align yourselves with Richman regarding screwing our children. Richman doesn't live here, he doesn't give a rats ass about what programs for the kids gets cut. As long as he gets to keep cashing his rising paychecks he's happy. Afterall, according to this BOE it's more important to keep Richman happy than it is to make the kids and the rest of their neighbors happy.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 17, 2006 19:42:30 GMT -5
Just:
Lets take your car analogy one step further:
You start negotiating with a dealer for a car. He says the car will have
P/W P/L Auto Air DVD CD GPS Leather Etc.
The price is $50,000. You tell him"no", you have to do better than that.
He then returns and says the car will have
P/W P/L Auto Air DVD CD GPS Leather Etc.
The price is now $50,000. Do you buy the car?
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on Mar 17, 2006 20:36:57 GMT -5
Here's an idea, why doesn't everyone grow up? This childish name calling is not doing anything constructive. Whoever you people are, get off the computer and get involved! Take a stand, show your face, and put your name on something.
As for the board members, you see the frustration. It is time you listen to the community. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meetings last week, but you need to take a long/hard look at the administrative costs this year. You need to see what functions can be divided and make cuts accordingly. The community is calling for it. Also, you need to state immediately what your intentions are for the fund balance money. That is OUR money you are holding, if there is any chance that using that money will secure a possible passed budget, you need to unveil that plan
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 17, 2006 22:15:50 GMT -5
Hey mod
I was venting from frustration, but, you're right. This guy has been doing this to the community for a long time now. I won't let him drag me down with him.
Let's stay focused on our tasks.
ITS ABOUT THE KIDS, ITS ABOUT CHANGE, ITS ABOUT TIME!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Mar 18, 2006 8:18:17 GMT -5
Ed stated:
There is no denying that several BOE actions were tightly controlled by a smaller group of chummy persons within the Board - and that with Dick gone and Mallow an inlikely returnee in an unwinnable position, the balance of power will be more openly distributed on the new board.
First of all, as a corporate body the BOE's method of making decisions is by majority vote - minimum of 4 out of 7, so a smaller group would be a minority, not the "controlling group." In this method of decision making, there will ALWAYS be a majority vs. minority for EVERY VOTE TAKEN, (except in the case of a unanimous vote), and any of the seven members could be in either category at any time. Secondly, you've said you have copies of official BOE meeting minutes which show Board member's voting records, so please cite specific instances (including dates) where there was a significant split of the BOE on educational, budgetary, contractual or other issues which substantiates your claim that a certain "group" controlled these decisions, i.e.: how many BOE members voted in favor of putting up the final budget to the voters each year, how many voted in favor of putting in or taking out particular educational programs, curriculum, courses, services, etc., and how many BOE members out of 7approved employee contracts - teachers, administrators, bus drivers, custodians, etc. Lastly, please explain how the "balance of power" (whatever that means) will be more openly distributed on the "new Board" when two of the three people you wish to be elected as a "new Board" are ALREADY ON the current Board, one of whom has been a BOE member for 5 years and will be running for election for the fourth time. The best thing for this community will be to elect people to the Board of Education who are about KIDS and EDUCATION - not about POWER AND CONTROL.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 18, 2006 10:20:19 GMT -5
elphaba65You'll find most of your answers on the "BOE Getting Divorced" thread, especially on pages two and three. And the present Board thru its Leadership, has let the unofficial BOE member grab control - the Superintendent. This is verified by a careful reading of the report about the last meeting on this thread. One can easily notice that the BOE President did not reign Richman in - Mallow failed to use his power to control an irrational outbreak - thus unbalancing the meeting and making it a Richman "sound-off" platform.And - for any further details - why don't you address BOEbuster - who can give you much more authoritative information about "chumminess" among BOE and Administration members than I ever can. Information details that a lot of us would like to hear - but have yet to ask. Want to continue on this "chumminess" topic? I'd like to bring more of this into the open and know more about it, as would others. But what we've seen and do know now is that a clique has predetermined and supported certain BOE actions consistent with the Superintendent's desires before meetings were ever held. And the BOE clique lets him dominate meetings when the BOE president wants him to do so. Be "righteous and informative" all you want to, or put your head in the sand or up your butt! But this adult Plainedge community can see, hear and observe the actual performance and power control within BOE meetings for themselves - and have not been wrong in their conclusion - this BOE is rigged in favor of the Administration and does not fairly represent the community.With Mallow and Dick gone, an existing BOE member who has been a "thorn in one BOE member's side", and the Dick replacement - can open up and shake loose the remaining BOE members of their being dominated by the few Richman collaborartors who bullied the BOE of the past few years. Certainly, they'll be joined by Doug who won't have Mallow's wing to run under anymore. The one remaining clique member will find a different "balance of power" - can they last under the non- Richman dominated BOE? Can Richman last? Breathe new life into the BOE - - - C_P_R it!
|
|
|
Post by gopybl on Mar 18, 2006 17:15:07 GMT -5
Wild - Thanks for the synopsis...Much appreciated.
It's amazing how Dr. Richman would be offended by the money parents spend on their children in extra-curricular activities. Isn't that what parents are supposed to do with their children? Invest in their life experiences? Isn't this exactly what we are looking to see done in our school budget? Investing in our children?
Lets identify cost savings in areas which don't involve programs or the children's life experiences. Lets identify costs savings in areas other than cultural and educational experinces. As managers in business we are challenged with customers seeking ways for us to provide the EXACT SAME services cheaper, better, faster.
Facts- I understand your reasoning and questions regarding the $2 mill. However, the way I am perceiving the math here is as follows:
1) $2 mill in cuts had to be made from the proposed budget last year which failed to the austerity budget. I believe the cuts consisted of all the programs and services which are not being received this year. For instance, all Middle School Sports Also, the $570K which was gifted to the school district by the PPAC which was a one shot deal.
2) Lets use the car example: 2006 Mercedes G500 fully loaded for $85,000 as the customer you reject the deal because we do not have the money for it. We have only $50,000. The Salesperson sells us the ML500 fully loaded for $50,000 in 2006.
Now, in 2007 we want to by the 2007 Mercedes G500 fully loaded does it still cost $85,000....maybe not. Material prices rise....labor costs rise...so maybe the cost is $90,000. In order to afford the G500 do we need to make up the money we didn't spend in 2006 plus the extra cost increases due to the CPI increasing. Before you can afford the 90 you must have the extra money you didn't spend the year before. Otherwise you can't have that product fully loaded.
If I am not accurate in my example I apologize. This is the perception I currently have regarding the budget process.
I can already smell the fresh air being breathed into Plainedge.......Thanks to C_P_R
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 19, 2006 11:43:05 GMT -5
Ah - The Spin Doctoring continues at a BOE meetings. Truly, one must go there to get one's fill of truth warping!From: "March 14, 2006: The Public Work Session Agenda: It was also noted that two frivolous lawsuits brought on by community members Joseph Chaloupka and Edward Dowdell, resulted in legal expenses of $ 5,500 and $ 500. respectively."Now the unspun portion of this information is that the District has an account code for Attorney fees that show up on every Budget. The code is " 1420 Attorney Fees". It is supposed to shown up as a split cost between the Administration and the Program portion of the Budget. In last year's draft it all was in Administration at $110,000. Then in the Final Budget it showed up as $60,500 in Administration and $49,500 in Programs - for a total of $110,000. This year's second Draft Budget shows it as $137,500 - - - all of which is in Programs! So tell me, did the $500 the District claims it spend on a "frivolous lawsuit" because of me come from that $110,000 amount? Or, was the $500 in addition to the amount already spent by the District? What an impact on legal costs I made!And - the legal fees are now Budgeted at $137,500?[/b] What other "frivolous lawsuits? are pending? The re-opening the Secretaries' shafting on vacation pay? The Continental Casualty "denial of obligation for illegal loans" again? A lawsuit to collect decade old expense charges from former Board members? Why so much that doesn't go to the Children? Now to that "frivolous lawsuit" claim. The real problem with this statement is - it was not a lawsuit! No judges were involved! No Courts were involved! I simply wrote an Appeal to the Commissioner of Education. Cost? - A $25 filing fee and my time. Result? - The District took the cut in the Administration part of the Contingency Budget it was required to do. Up to that time they planned to take all Contingency Budget cuts from the Program part of the Budget. What was the benefit? Take a look for yourself - the Administration part of the Contingency Budget shown on the second Draft Budget shows the amount to be $5,641.700. The "old unchallenged plan" showed this was going to be $5,987,798 (from last year's draft Budget). That final difference of $346,098 now went to the Program part of the Budget (to the children) because of my Appeal letter. It showed the Commissioner that what they planned to do was illegal! And they pulled in their horns and made the change! The District can call it a "frivolous lawsuit" all they want, as long as they acknowledge that it caused more money to go to the Children - and less to Administration! And this was done before the second vote last year!By the way - the District is showing that they plan to "take back" $69,500 of that transfer to the Children in their projections for spending during the rest of the year. That would make them go over the legal requirements of what the Administration spending can be. Anyone else in the Community have the gumption to file an Appeal? Or raise the dickens with the Administration?Anyone else able to stand up and do something? It might result in some "spin doctoring" by the Administration as to your character and worthiness to the community. But - hell! come on in - - - the water's fine in the "hot-tub" they try to put you in! The light of TRUTH makes all that spin doctoring a whisper in the dark! Breathe new life into the BOE! Give them C_P_R ! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 19, 2006 12:29:36 GMT -5
Just in Case! Just in case I was too wordy in the last post and lost a few readers - let this clear one-topic post highlight an important fact about our "Budgeting Information" supplied by the District!The Code 1420 Legal Fees listed this year are all in the Programs part of the Draft Budget.That makes the Administration part look smaller. It is not! From past history the Administration part is largest - 55% of the bill.That means this budget is "hiding" $75,625 of the Administration's Legal expenses in the Programs part of the Budget - This is true until they prove otherwise! Breathe new life into the BOE! Give it C_P_R ! Ed. Join me! Come on in - the water's fine - and the children may get more!
|
|
|
Post by elphaba65 on Mar 19, 2006 15:48:34 GMT -5
Just Facts:
Be "righteous and informative" all you want to, or put your head in the sand or up your butt
My, my, my, what an intelligent response. For someone who is so "factual" let me share with you that your suggestion is physically impossible.
My observation over the past several years by ATTENDING Board meetings is that the votes regarding programs, contracts and budgets are usually unanimous, I guess that explains your reply.
As far as BOE BUSTER you are correct- my "righteous" self would not read such trash and gossip. This is not the first time a BOE member has gotten divorced and I'm sure it won't be the last.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 20, 2006 10:06:11 GMT -5
Reading the Budget. This is not an easy task to do. Few of us have access to the requirements, books and planning documents that tell where the District has been and what are its new intended directions. They are among the few things needed to make Budget estimates for tomorrow's needs.However, we do have access to the Documents provided last year and the years before, along with today's documents which purport to show what last year's documents gave us in the way of information.They provide significant information as to just how reliable yesterday's, or today's, information is. One would like to believe that a list of the Budget numbers for 2004/5 that was put in front of us by the BOE in that year's budget, would be the same as the numbers for that year that is listed in this year's Budget. Reading both Budgets shows that some are - and some are NOT![/b] If the BOE can't put out the same set of numbers this year for the same expenses they showed us in 2004/5, what are the true numbers?As an example - Workman's Compensation, Code 9040, was listed in the 2004/5 Budget as $87,500. In this year's list for the 2004/5 Budget it shows up as $24,500. The "actuals" column lists it as $21,047. Now "Riddle me this Batman" was the number provided in 2004/5 Budget a $63,000 "padded" number? Or is this just one more of the BOE's "innocent arithmetic errors" Why, since "Actuals" are provided right next to what's claimed to be the Budget number for 2004/5, doesn't the current listing for 2004/5 show what was actually listed in 2004/5 Budget?These are but a few of the discrepancies contained in the Second Budget document recently given to us. If the Budget doesn't have accurate numbers for what was published in the past, what hope is there that the numbers now given for the future are anywhere near accurate?What other easily checked mistakes are in this Document?That's why when I look in detail at this Second draft, with its misplaced charges for Attorney Fees, and its overstated costs for Ban/Tan costs, its increases in Administrative salaries, its 333% increase in expenses for "Fireside Chats" by the Superintendent (code 1480), its jump in Administration unemployment insurance ( $21,724 from $3,500) and other such items - I feel that a third cut at a Draft Copy of the 2006/7, one that is certified to be true, is needed to put before the public - before this paper is ever called a Budget Document! Additionally, where is the list of salaries for those making over $104,000 as is required to be presented with each Budget? Where is the list of Revenues expected? After all, the District has filed with the State in January what its expected State Aid will be this year! And the District does know how much there is in the Unencumbered Fund Balance that is to be transferred to Revenues to "Reduce the Tax LEVY". The only thing lacking is their estimate of what the projected Property Tax Levy will be. Are they just to lazy to do a complete Budget job? Or is there something else hidden in the woodpile? And how about that District Report card that 's supposed to be part of each Budget? So Batman, while you are at it, "Riddle me this" - When is the community going to have a complete 2006/7 Budget Document put in front of it for the first time? Breathe new life into the BOE! Give it C_P_R ! Make sure the children get their share! Ed
|
|
|
Post by momma3 on Mar 20, 2006 11:46:55 GMT -5
Please excuse me if this comes across very naive but my head is spinning right now as I try to understand all of the previous posts on this board. I have very young children and I am getting quite an education from this website so you all should be praised for the information! Anyway, my question, why is there no higher authority than the BOE or Dr.Richman that the people of Plainedge can get help from to to rectify this situation. Obviously we have been lied to in the past and it appears looking from the outside in we must fully clean house to go forward. I am just confused as to why we have to keep Dr. Richman around as well as the BOE. Obviously, it is not just a black and white issue and again I am not educated on the entire process but seeing all of the "for sale" signs in my neighborhood is quite concerning. Again, thanks to everyone who posts for those of us who are just starting to learn!!!!!!!!!
|
|