|
Post by justfacts on Mar 20, 2006 14:13:57 GMT -5
momma3There are "higher authorities" to go to for problems like we have in Plainedge. However, there are caveats! For replacement of the Board: this can be done by the Commissioner of Education! However it is rarely done - only in the cases of BOE mass fraud or incompetence will the Commissioner appoint a new Board. The Headlines must give very great political PR to the Commissioner before he'll take that step! The reason given for his non-action is that the population has the due recourse of annual elections to replace Board members as their term expires.[/b][/u] As to other issues of Administration and BOE actions. Any aggrieved person, within 30 days of the grievance, can file an Appeal to the Commissioner for relief under Section 310 of the Education Law. Sounds great - but one must look to the results of such actions to find how effective they are. I have all forms and information needed to take such an action - and Decisions by the Commissioner following such Appeals. Any one that desires to go into these details is a welcome guest in my house - or at a local diner. I will show you actual filings and District responses! The subject is too long for this post. The other redress comes from compiling enough information to give to the State Comptroller about malfeasance. In such actions your have the burden of proving your case - as with filing with the Commissioner. There is a less known way to have conditions as bad as they are in Plainedge looked into. That is to go to the Office of Auditing Services (OAS) on the internet. The site is:www.oms.nysed.gov/oas/Report_Fraud_Abuse_and_Waste.htmIts e-mail is: oas@mail.nysed.gov This agency "works behind the scenes", and if you prepare information to them well, they will put quiet, but effective, pressure on the offenders.I hope this information gives you some hope for how we may "clean house" in Plainedge. Breathe new life into the BOE! Give it C_P_R ! Make sure the children get their share! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Mar 20, 2006 18:38:38 GMT -5
Facts and Momma,
There is one more way to affect change, a much more efficient and immediate way, if we stay focused and on topic
That is to vote the scoundrels out and put in place a new team. The CPR team!!!
Facts, We can do this. For all the good the other info about the state Comptroller and the OAS can do, you have to admit, the course of action with the most momentum and the grass root, here and now support, is your call to battle with regards to CHANGE!!!
You said it yourself, a new BOE = a new balance of power = a new superintendent = new budget makers. Competent ones!
That must be our focus.
We, the people on the street, can take that message to our friends, neighbors and family, clearly and concisely.
All the talk about appeals and petitions get lost with the average person.
Please hear me on this.
It will be the average person we speak to on line at the bagel store, ordering a pizza, ones we are talking to on the sidelines or the grocery lines that will make this difference and help us achieve our goal.
That is where our energies would be best spent in the next 57 days.
JMH and experienced O
ITS ABOUT THE KIDS, ITS ABOUT CHANGE, ITS ABOUT TIME!!!!! C.P.R.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 23, 2006 10:41:56 GMT -5
A Task to be done before the BOE approves a 2006-7 Budget. At a Budget hearing - a strong statement should be made to the BOE by the C_P_R team as a unit that the Budget to be put up for vote shall have no built-in raises for the Administration. As stated in a prior post - Raises, Bonuses and Benefit increases are not entitlements, they must be earned. And last year, for this segment of the District to have taken built-in Raise, Bonus and Benefit increases while cutting that amount of funds from the children, is ample evidence that the Administration did not act in the best interest of the children - but in their own self-interest. Therefore they have not earned the right to have increases this year.Additionally, the budget put up this year should be stripped of overstated and highly increased costs in various non-program accounts and the line held on many other accounts not necessary for proper operation of programs, Meals and refreshments at meetings, increased funding for "Coffee hours", etc, are examples of non-essential spending. Therefore the BOE is strongly charged by the C_P_R team to offer a 2006-7 Budget to the public for voting that has no more than a $4 Million increase in Expenses for that year and no funds shall be provided for Administrative salary changes.At least, that's what I'd like to see the C_P_R team do at a Budget hearing meeting!
I know it's a tough task to do and is asking a lot from two sitting members of the Board and the new candiate - but it would show a unity of purpose and give an idea of what is to come when a BOE takes charge of an Administration![/i] Breathe new life into the BOE! C_P_R it! Make sure the children get their fair share - First! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 23, 2006 15:21:48 GMT -5
And to the other BOE members, The C_P_R team may be challenged to take up a cause for the new 2006-7 Budget to not to have money set aside for Administration Raises, Bonuses and Benefit increases, but what about the others on the BOE?At least the two new members had little to do about setting up the sad fact that the Administration set aside money for their own benefit, while cutting out that same amount of money from last year's budget for the children. I've heard the Pat has good character and she and Cathy are strongly involved with PTA matters for the children - so I'm sure that neither one would have supported taking money from the children for padding the Administrator's pockets. I think both would have been outraged at the thought.And Douglas was new - so the fact that in his first term that the Administration not only overspent the amount approved in the Second Budget vote of 2004-5 , but it even exceeded its spending beyond the amount of the First Rejected Budget can be excused by his newness to the task.But - I know, having given him a copy of the Budget Handbook myself, that he is now aware that the Administration did a bad job in controlling the Budget that year - and did make cuts last year when other and better options were available. They are undeserving of Raises, Bonuses or Benefit increases. Now that his prime mentor will no longer be on the BOE, it's time for him to stand up and support the desires of the community, telling the Administration what the Budget will be - rather than the other way around!Its time for this BOE to set the standard that the Administration must perform to - demand that the Administration comply with the community's wishes. Breathe new life into the BOE! C_P_R it! Make sure the children get their fair share! - First!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 23, 2006 16:55:47 GMT -5
How to evaluate the AdministrationIn writing the last two posts to C_P_R & the other BOE members, there springs forth a clear statement about just how good the Administration has been in financial matters these past few years.The 2004-5 modified and approved budget was managed during the 12 months of that year in spending. The most that was approved for spending was the amount the Voters said YES to. The Administration spent more than $619,000 above that amount - only showing that fact to the public buried in a Draft Budget statement. This was done after distributing audit filings and reports that said they were within the Budget. On February 28th this year they quietly changed the amount reported to the State to say that they exceeded what they were allowed to spend by that $619,000. Where did that money come from?[/b] Last year they set aside in a Contingency Budget over $550,000 for their own Bonus, Salary and Benefit packaged increases. Then they cut out money for $575,000 from the children's programs. When these "financial performance facts" for the past two years are looked at in isolation - the glaring failure of the Administration to properly manage District Finances is undeniable.[/i] Breathe new life into the BOE! C_P_R it! Make sure the children get their fair share - First! Ed
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 23, 2006 23:03:27 GMT -5
Where did that money come from?
Last year they set aside in a Contingency Budget over $550,000 for their own Bonus, Salary and Benefit packaged increases. Then they cut out money for $575,000 from the children's programs.
When these "financial performance facts" for the past two years are looked at in isolation - the glaring failure of the Administration to properly manage District Finances is undeniable. I think this is one of the most important pieces of information people need to consider while reviewing the budget. The community and many dedicated kids and parents were forced to wash cars, beg for money in traffic and produce various fundraisers to obtain the goal of $575K. However, the administration felt it was OK to give themselves $500k worth of raises and bonuses. This sends a loud and clear message to the community. Now it's time for the community to communicate our message back to the administration that we're not going for it this year. Give the money to the KIDS and take your hands out of the cookie jar. Please make sure you communicate to any and all Board of Ed members that enough is enough. Programs are now in the INNER CIRCLE.
|
|
|
Post by techie on Mar 24, 2006 6:36:33 GMT -5
Court orders state to boost city school funds BY JENNIFER SMITH STAFF WRITER; Staff writers Bryan Virasami and Melissa Mansfield contributed to this report.
March 24, 2006
ALBANY - In a decision that had both sides claiming victory, a state appeals court in Manhattan yesterday directed Gov. George Pataki and the legislature to include up to $5.6 billion in additional funds for New York City schools over four years.
In the latest ruling on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity's ongoing challenge to how the state funds city schools, the court said the state must include some of that aid in this year's state budget. However, the court left it to the governor and legislature to determine the exact sum of additional funds.
"The state, in enacting a budget for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2006, must appropriate the constitutionally required funding for the New York City schools," the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled.
The 3-2 decision set a range of between $4.7 billion and $5.6 billion in additional annual operating funds to be phased in during the next four years, with an additional $9.2 billion for a capital improvement plan during the next five years.
CFE supporters, including city and state teachers' unions, hailed the decision as a triumph.
"This is a road map for solving the CFE case," Joseph Wayland, an attorney for the public schools advocacy group that filed the lawsuit, said at a press conference in Manhattan yesterday afternoon.
"It's over for those who don't want to fund a decent education for children in the city of New York," said Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers.
A spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg said his office was reviewing the decision.
While noting that the state had previously failed to appropriate money to meet its educational mandate for city schools, "It is not for the courts to make education policy," Justice John T. Buckley wrote in the majority opinion. "In the final analysis, it is for the governor and the Legislature to make the determination as to the constitutionally mandated amount of funding ... and how the funding shall be allocated between the state and city."
The range established for operating aid allows the state latitude to decide between the $4.7 billion figure Pataki outlined in his 2004 education plan and the $5.6 billion that a previous ruling had ordered the state to spend.
In a statement, Pataki said the ruling "made clear that budgetary decisions must be made by the governor and Legislature, not the courts."
It is also unclear what effect the ruling would have on current budget talks between the Senate and the Assembly, whose allocation to settle the CFE challenge was more generous and more specific than the Senate's.
"It gives the legislature direction that it better address this this year," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said yesterday when asked about the decision after a general budget conference. But Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno countered that statement, saying "the legislative process is what will dictate school aid in this state; the courts have indicated that."
Staff writers Bryan Virasami and Melissa Mansfield contributed to this report. Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
They already get more per student, and WE PAY for it. If you work in the city you get taxed again, we pay HIGH transportation and toll costs. WHY do THEY get the benefits of our money AND THEN get more relief on top of that?
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Mar 24, 2006 8:38:02 GMT -5
I agree techie. It maybe high time that long island ceceeds from NY and becomes a state. If things keep going as they have been, I wouldn't think this would be to far off.
|
|
|
Post by plainedge13 on Mar 24, 2006 9:08:20 GMT -5
I agree techie. It maybe high time that long island ceceeds from NY and becomes a state. If things keep going as they have been, I wouldn't think this would be to far off. This is was seriously discussed in the 70s, the 80s, and just a few years ago. Still hasn't happened.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Apr 20, 2006 1:11:58 GMT -5
From a recent Massapequa Post article"What are the Costs?" July 5th Edition. Administration Cost Comparisons per pupil among Local schools: Plainedge ~ ~ ~ $211.76 ~ ~ ~ 100% Amityville ~ ~ ~ $153.30 ~ ~ ~ 72.4% Massapequa ~ ~ $139.87 ~ ~ ~ 66.1% Farmingdale ~ ~ $112.47 ~ ~ ~ 53.1%This is another way of saying that not all the Plainedge Budget dollars are going towards the benefit of the children - as compared to our neighboring schools.The State Education Department numbers for 2004/05 were used for this comparison chart by the Massapequa Post. Ed The task is to make sure that the Children get their fair share - First!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Apr 24, 2006 14:32:13 GMT -5
This revitalized Plainedge community is amazing.
There has been much to be proud about that sector of the community that rolled up their sleeves and went to work washing cars, seeking donations and contributing cash of their own to create and donate the funds required by the BOE action of cutting out Sports funding in this year's Contingency Budget.
There is much to be proud of that they didn't run the present Administration out of town on a rail when we all found out later that there was $1.7 Million "left in the check-book" - proving it was not necessary to have cut out those funds. If a qualified and professional budget had been prepared, the excess funds would have been known long before the cuts were made and a better informed public and BOE would not have allowed the cuts in the first place!
There also was much to be proud of when it was discovered that the Administration had taken their own raises and bonuses about equal to the sports cuts money, and their was no retributions action taken on the Administration when they later showed up at sports and other events for Photo Shoot opportunities.
Now there is much to be proud of when the budget bottom line of $63,555,795 is the only number put forth about the approved Budget on the Plaintalkoinline site (there's no Budget info on the School District site) and many in the community are backing a yes vote on this Budget.
That's the Budget approved two weeks ago on April 11th without the details of the District Report card in it, with no list of positions paid over $104,000 per year and with no details of the charges - such as where the Legal charges reside (in the Administration or the Programs part of the Budget?) This charge has vacillated between both places in prior "Drafts". It is also without much of the other required information that should be in a budget according to the Department of Education requirements.
The Administration seems quite able to make detailed lists of "Cuts" - but falls short of the mark of giving the required budget details! [/i] It is only our relief about the improvements in the BOE actions - now representing the community - and our belief in the dedication and competency of the community members who pressured the Board and Administration during Budget workshop hearings, that has lead many of us to back their views. Despite the lack of a complete Budget document by the Administration. BUT - it is about time that the Administration present, in a widely distributed manner, a thorough and complete 2006/7 Budget to the people of Plainedge. In fact, it is well past the time! Get off your duff and get the Budget out there - not just lost in some office somewhere!
Put it on all the sites like this as well as the District site, in the library, at Papalardo's and all the other places that have been involved by community activists who have help you get a budget that may pass this year. Don't complain about the added cost - it'll be cheaper than having a second vote![/i]
Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Apr 24, 2006 21:11:06 GMT -5
Boy! Oh Boy! Oh Boy! Talk about putting out information quickly in response to a taxpayer request!Just look what the Administration put on the School District site just after my post at 3:30pm today said there was no Budget info on the School District Site! Did they ever respond! It went up so quickly! One link is: (all on one line) troutman.plainedgeschools.org/district/modules.php?name=Budget&func=view&pageid=1The other link is: troutman.plainedgeschools.org/district/docs/budget/2006BudgetPresentationweb.htmThere's TON's of info - of course there still is no Budget Info as defined by the State Education Department - but they call what's up there BUDGET INFORMATION anyhow! That's what matters to them - they can say the Budget information has been on the District site for a while. There's a lot of slides in a "Presentation Style" format - so somebody has been working a while on the promotional side of the budget - it's just too bad the effort and cost wasn't first put into what the public NEEDS to know about a budget![/i] Too bad that labor is lost without a budget that is a budget.Ed. Hey! A thought! Just how much of that paycheck time didn't go into doing something for the children?
|
|
|
Post by momma3 on Apr 25, 2006 7:18:51 GMT -5
Question re: how much will this budget cost us pass or fail. I have read the average house assessed for $422,000 will cost aprox. 88 cents a day. Who's house is assessed at $422,000. I understand this is not fair market value but assessed value. I live in an average home in Plainedge. My assessment this year was for $419,000.00. In 2007/2008 the assessment letter we all got a few months ago assessed my home at a value of $549,000. (I did nothing to change the value)I know that is not even the fair market value of my home it would be less. Has anyone else seen their assessment level rise out of control? I know this is a personal question and does not effect everyone but I was just wondering if anyone els had this problem. It is also irrelevant to my voting decision. I live here, my kids go to school and will be raised here so its a no brainer!!!!!!! Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Apr 25, 2006 8:18:53 GMT -5
Plainedge Public Schools
Proposed Budget 2006 - 2007
Budget – A budget is a spending plan that balances expenditures and revenues. A budget supports the programs and services that an organization will be able to provide for the next year. In other words, it defines what an organization will be able to do and not do during the next fiscal year. This web site has been constructed with one goal in mind: to provide the voters of the Plainedge community with accurate budget information.
Please feel free to browse this site. If you have any other questions, please call the Budget Hotline: 992-7465.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE: PLAINEDGE HIGH SCHOOL Tuesday, May 16th 6:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M.
So can someone tell me why they were able to spend more than the allotted budget?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Apr 25, 2006 8:20:08 GMT -5
momma3There is no, repeat NO, house assessed at $422,000 in Plainedge! [/b] The assessed value is 1/4% of the MARKET VALUE of the house. To be assessed at $422,000 a house would have to have a MARKET VALUE of 400 times $422,000, or be worth $168.8 Million in the Market place!Whoever posted or gave your the statement about an "average house assessed at $422,000" is - to put it politely - "full of beans"Quite frequently, I find this info comes from too casual a calculation of what the tax impact will be for the new Budget levels. The district often mixes the terms "Assessed Value with "Market Value" and also mixes "Tax Rate" up with "Tax LEVY" Their data is often flawed.This is almost the subject of a new thread on this site - Assessed Value vs Market Value vs Property Tax. It has been complicated recently by the addition of a "CAP" on how much your property's Market Value can be allowed to increase each year - 6%.It now takes more than a casual reading of the Assessor's statement to know where you're at. For an overview of how you "stack up" compared to surrounding houses I recommend you get familiar with going to this site: www.mynassauproperty.comThis will allow you to not only see your own Market Value and assessment - but also the Market Value and assessment of similar and next-door houses where you live. **************************************************FYI: My Market Value last year was $394,400. The house was Assessed at 1/4% of that or $986. The new Market Value, $490,500 is capped at a 6% change from the old Market Value. That makes it have "only" a Market Value of $418,000. The Assessed value is again at 1/4% of the Market Value or $1,045. To find what the "Average House" cost will be you can divide the new Class 1 Property TAX estimate by the 6242 houses in this District. That will be the tax on the "average house". If your tax was 10% more than that "average house" last year - it's a good bet that your tax will be 10% more than today's "average house" (or whatever value more or less it was last year) **************************************************I hope that info gets you started in the right direction! If you have more questions, call at (516) 249-9308 - I'll answer them. The offer is open to anyone.Ed. It's all over but the celebration - Now to the real task at hand - getting most of the Budget dollars into the Children's Programs!
|
|