|
Post by rinx on Mar 1, 2006 22:10:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the work Phil. The letters will be sent off tomorrow.
I have to ask you a question. What do you think of the preliminary budget? IMO, it is a horror. Frankly, I'm shocked that this BOE would allow something like this to be released to the Plainedge residents. I for one find it remarkably insulting to tell you the truth. I'd like to hear your take.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 7, 2006 14:03:26 GMT -5
Evaluating the Budget.
There are some that believe throwing more dollars into the Budget means that the Children get a better Education. This has not been proven as a fact.
However, for those that believe that, and and those that don't, here is a chart from the State that reports How much was spent per pupil in some local schools. Sorry about the format not being neat - but this posting editor doesn't seem to allow that. Just look for the name of the District - the Dollars per pupil is the number on the far right.
Plainedge has two listings because the actual money spent that year was more than the Budget - even more than the first rejected Budget!
This year the number for Plainedge would be $17,924 - or there abouts, bringing it to about Glen Cove's and Bethpage's level.
School District 2004/5 Budget Enrollment Dollars/Pupil Island Park $24,758,472 800 $30,948 Jericho $77,557,541 3235 $23,975 Carle Place $33,565,722 1650 $20,343 Uniondale $122,974,000 6376 $19,287 Valley Stream #24 $20,606,873 1099 $18,751 Bellmore $22,996,121 1262 $18,222 Levittown $145,082,285 7993 $18,151 Bethpage $55,356,055 3085 $17,944 Glen Cove $54,301,365 3031 $17,915 Garden City $76,061,612 4277 $17,784 Herricks $72,323,963 4077 $17,740 Westbury $71,184,386 4037 $17,633 Hempstead 120,145,354 7040 $17,066 Valley Stream CHS $75,986,105 4556 $16,678 Hicksville $84,648,982 5234 $16,173 Bellmore-Merrick $94,493,646 5881 $16,068 Roosevelt $50,797,670 3207 $15,840 Freeport $112,772,779 7182 $15,702 Plainedge (Actual) $55,933,372 3616 $15,468 Massapequa $128,884,991 8353 $15,430 Seaford $42,211,493 2739 $15,411 Plainedge (Budget) $55,313,909 3616 $15,297 Merrick $29,397,279 1949 $15,083 North Merrick $19,678,028 1324 $14,863 Wantagh $51,006,666 3682 $13,853 North Bellmore $34,022,490 2463 $13,813 Sewanhaka $118,403,756 8630 $13,720 Averages $68,535,738 4089 $17,376
Remember - the work we're supposed to do before the Budget is put up is about the Children's share!
Let's make sure we have a Budget that gives the Children their fair share![/i]
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 18, 2006 13:04:55 GMT -5
Latest Info in Draft Budget CategoriesHas anyone noticed that the Administration cost center 1240, "The Chief Administrator Office" went up 7.47% between the 2004-5 budget and the Contingency Budget of 2005-6? Guess what's planned under the 2006-7 Budget for this cost center? Save yourself the trouble - it's 7.46% I guess that $23,683 increase is considered "Cost Savings" - returning more to the children! In my book, for the obviously poor performance of last year, I'd make that a $0.00 increase - shifting the $23,683 into more for programs. The same with code 9060 - Health and Dental insurance. We're not dealing with Teacher negotiated contracts here - it's time for the Office Staff to begin picking up a portion of these increases - like in almost every other job that Plainedge residents have. That might release another $30,000 to $40,000 from Administrative costs to Programs for the children. And take a look at the Capital costs. Out of the $1.4 Million of increases there, there's at least $1/4 Million of "adjustments" that can be made - (i.e.; the purging of overstated cost projections) However, it's good to see that the format for the information is beginning to approach what the State says it should be. That's so the public can make better budget decisions. This will help make valid budget comparisons from year to year - providing the figures used for the past years are actually what was shown to the public in those years! Do try to "read" the budget this year - so you an make your own decision about your vote, no just play "follow the leader" as someone else plays a tune for you. Go to the few remaining meetings - And, if the BOE President starts to let the Administrator dominate the meeting - call for the President to restore order to the meeting. After all, half the meetings are for the public to speak - they are not a private forum for the hired hand! Don't passively take it any more. These Budget meetings are for you to ask questions in - and to receive valid answers. They are not there for someone to throw a "hissey-fit" in and to start lecturing you in - often telling YOU how bad you are! That BS should fly no more! Most of all - remember the public is there doing what they do for the children! They are the childrens best shot for getting a fair shake from the coming year's Budget! Breathe fresh life into the BOE! Give it C_P_R!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 20, 2006 18:21:01 GMT -5
The Third DraftIn a prior post I listed some shortcomings of the two previous Draft Budgets. Personally, I rated the First Draft Budget kindly at an F grade. The Second Draft Budget, being incomplete rates a D- at best. I"d like to see a Third Draft Budget that could at least get a C grade, preferably a B!What would make a suitable Third Draft Budget in my opinion? One that is complete with a statement for Revenues, Property Tax, State Aid, Fund Balance to reduce the Property Tax Levy and an estimate of the total tax to be levied on each home. In addition it should have a Salary schedule for those earning over $104,000 and a School District Report Card. That's for starters. Since last year's Administration Salary, Bonus and Benefit increases were $550,000 - while Sports programs costing a similar amount were cut, let the Administrators go wash cars for their Raises, Bonuses and Benefits this year. In other words, the Third Draft Budget should have no Administration Raises, Bonuses or Benefit increases this year. They've had them for several years in a row - these are not entitlements, they must be earned. And they certainly were not earned this past year.
Especially not after having $1.7 Million left over in the unencumbered Fund Balance despite making all the Contingency cuts. And the Encumbered Fund balance, at well over $4 Million more! It's a disgrace to even give the label "Budgeting" to what they have been doing in this District![/i] Additionally, no renewal of the Superintendents contract for five more years as has been the habit of the BOE to do each year. A four more year contract is certainly more than this community wants.Last, pull out the obvious pockets of fat and items that don't work well. Instead of spending more on Refreshments and Meals at meetings and increasing the money going into the Superintendent's Coffee Hours (Shades of Roosevelt's Fireside Chats!) put that money back into a proven tool that reaches all of the Community with information - restore the Plaintalk newsletter. The expenses for the other admittedly less effective methods of reaching out to all in the community is now as expensive as Plaintalk ever was. Of course this is not as flattering to some egos, but it certainly reaches every household! Give a budget to the public that is free of these famous "innocent arithmetic errors" that this Administration is so famous for. The Second Draft Budget has the Attorney costs all into Programs, none into Administration as they should be. This is like the time that the Superintendent's salary was put into District meetings. When both Code elements were added up after the "correction" the total was increased over what was there before. Some correction!The same effect was noted by Mr. Chaloupka last year in the differing totals for Sports cuts. He noted in his Appeal to the Commissioner that no two sets of numbers ever came out the same. And one Board candidate has copies of past Budget documents where the figures can't be compared - because the numbers are never the same. Let's have a Third Budget this year that can be certified as accurate! And the Certifier goes out of the District next year if the numbers are not the same! Breathe new life into the BOE! Give it C_P_R ! Make sure that the children get their share - First! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 22, 2006 10:02:51 GMT -5
If we could really negotiate the Budget with the BOE! Some interesting "doodles" with Budget numbers. ***************************************In 2003/4 the approved Budget was $51,641,949. The first 2004/5 Budget request wanted to increase that by $4,103,779. The community rejected that and approved a Budget increase of $3,671,949 to a final Budget of $55,313,898. However, the District ignored the Voter approved Budget limit and spent $4,291,423 more than the year before - an even greater amount than the rejected first Budget request. This is a situation that violates the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.[/b] In 2005/6 the first Budget request was for an increase of $4,635,405, as was the second request when the voters rejected this same Budget of $59,349,303. So the District went on a Contingency budget increase of $2,178,351 to a final spending limit of $57,492,449. The books aren't closed yet to find out if the District kept spending to that limit.
**************************************Now in 2006/7 the first budget request was for an increase of $7,843,609. This was quickly changed to a second increase request for $6,149,591 to a final Budget of $63,642,040. It appears that there may be a third Budget request forthcoming. No information is available as to its requested increase. What if the Community set the spending limit it would approve at the average of all those past increases? All the past overspent, initially requested and finally approved increases averaged $3,776,181. Although this is an arbitrary number, lets see what impact it would have on the latest budget amount. ***********************************Increasing the 2005/6 budget by $3,776,181 would bring the 2006/7 Budget level to $61,268,630. That seems like a good point to start negotiations with the District for a more sane increase than the ones they have presented to date. One could even "settle" with the BOE for a moderate increase to a final vote-able budget of $61,500,000, an increase $4,000,000 more than what was needed to run the District last year. That $4,000,000 increase would make a nice "CAP" that most likely would be approved. Remember, despite protests and punitive actions to the contrary by the Administration - that year that had ample funding to produce an unencumbered Fund Balance of $1.7 Million and gave $550,000 in Raises, Benefits and Bonuses to the Administration.
Of course, the new Budget should not have any Administrative Raises, Benefits and Bonuses. To keep those perks in would be the equal of a $630,000 cost increase this year - let them share our pain - keep their increase at zero! That taxpayer money saved should go directly to the children! Breathe new life into the BOE! Give them C_P_R ! Make sure the children get their fair share - First! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by techie on Mar 22, 2006 10:32:28 GMT -5
School board ends superintendent's contract BY KARLA SCHUSTER Newsday Staff Writer
March 22, 2006
Brentwood's longtime superintendent will retire on June 30, closing out his 12-year tenure running Long Island's largest district after the school board opted to end his contract a year early.
School board president Tomas Del Rio said the panel's move to replace Superintendent Les Black signals a desire "to move in a different direction and get fresh ideas" after having the same man running the district for more than a decade.
Brentwood's enrollment is about 16,000 students this year. "He was a great superintendent ... but the time came for us to bring about change," Del Rio said. The board voted last week to end Black's contract, which was to run through June 30 of next year.
The move will cost the district about $150,000 in salary and benefits Black is owed for the remaining year.
Black, 60, has worked in Brentwood schools for 38 years. His retirement comes amid rising tension with the school board, particularly Del Rio, who leveled harsh criticism at Black in January after a state comptroller's audit noted that the district hired relatives of business officials without board knowledge. The audit found no malfeasance, but Del Rio said the hirings showed "poor judgment" and "negligence" on Black's part.
Black responded then by calling Del Rio's criticisms "way off base."
In a prepared statement yesterday, Black called his impending retirement "bittersweet." "While it's difficult leaving a place that's been home for many years," Black wrote, "life has its chapters. I'm looking forward to whatever new challenges await me."
Del Rio said the board expects to hire an interim superintendent within the next few months, then launch a national search for a successor. Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Mar 22, 2006 10:56:50 GMT -5
One more of interest:
Board of Regents plans audits BY JOHN HILDEBRAND Newsday Staff Writer
March 22, 2006
Reacting to recent official misconduct in William Floyd and other school districts, the state's Board of Regents has asked its staff to report back to it later this spring on plans for auditing district finances and dealing with school-board conflicts of interest.
"It's very clear that our school districts need an awakening," said Roger Tilles of Great Neck, who is Long Island's representative on the Regents board and among a Regents group that yesterday asked for the report.
Tilles cited a series of recent Newsday articles that have detailed crimes and irregularities in William Floyd, including the cases of three board members who have served in recent years and have ties to companies that have done millions of dollars in business with the district since their election. All abstained from voting on contracts involving their businesses. William Guiducci and Patrick Nocerino have denied wrongdoing, while Mark Mensch has declined comment.
As an example of efforts to curb conflicts of interest, Tilles pointed to a 1997 decision by Regents to oust the board of trustees at Adelphi University in Garden City, in response to charges that some trustees had provided paid services to the campus and granted its then-president, Peter Diamandopoulos, an exorbitant salary and benefits. Tilles said he didn't know if the same approach could be applied to school boards, but that the disciplinary action had clearly prompted other campuses to watch their step.
Current state law allows school-board members to be removed from their posts for "willful violation or neglect of duty" - misconduct that is sometimes difficult to define. Board representatives say it's best for board trustees to bend over backward to avoid potential conflicts. Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
|
|
|
Post by techie on Mar 22, 2006 10:59:56 GMT -5
Can someone post a copy of Dr. Richman's contract?
It seems that the BOE approved his new contract with conditions giving him palary- (00PPS! Me bad) I meant salary 'till 2008 + benefits & increases. Not too shabby!
It's fitting that we have a "Dr." for our ailing school district. Now,...if a Doctor is convicted of Malpractice he can lose his credentials. No credentials mean no contracts with patients or hospitals. Hmmmmm?
Many things can be grounds for breaking contracts.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 22, 2006 13:54:53 GMT -5
Techie & wildrover. Great Posts! They stimulate some ideas. If a Superintendent of a 16,000 Student District can be bought out for $150,000, I wonder what it would take to buy out a Superintendent of a 3,700 student District? Better yet, the new Board could treat him much like he's treated the Secretaries - Hey!, Your contract ended, we don't owe you a dime, take me to Court! Stretched out over the same time frame as the Secretaries case, and by the use of many appeals, the case might go on for a decade or more. Will he? Especially if its backed up by charges of collusion between very close BOE members who gave him Raises and Bonuses and extended his contract - and the played "pals" with him! (Great comment Techie - PALARY Award!) They might even add to the dismissal charge that certain reworking of home domicile rumors are true! Charge that! And let it be disproved in a court of law - over the next decade! Playing Hardball via the Courts is at least a two player game!Good Grief Robin! That could start to happen this year!As to his contract. I have a copy of his first and second. They are long and difficult to format for posting on this Chat site. If anyone wants a copy I can make both available in PDF format and send them as e-mail attachments. A casual review by an attorney evoked this response: "That's not a valid labor contract. It violates certain laws and can be easily broken." That is particularly true with the annual renewal for a four year period of the contract by the BOE. Since it was last renewed in the May 2005 meeting - the BOE thinks it is good until June 30, 2008. That's some additional information for you Techie. Breathe new life into the BOE! Give it C_P_R ! Make sure the children get their fair share - First! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 22, 2006 15:17:53 GMT -5
I thought it was up for review every May. Is that not the case anymore? Do I have an older version?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 22, 2006 16:37:22 GMT -5
Go Plainedge! and all others;To wit & forsooth: Quote: 1. Term of Employment (a) The SUPERINTENDENT'S term of employment pursuant to this Agreement shall be from July, 1 2001 to June 30, 2004. (b) No later than May 2002, and each May thereafter, the BOARD shall meet to consider extending the term of the SUPERINTENDENT's employment for an additional one (1) year period. At such time a motion to extend the term of that Agreement for an additional one (1) year period will be moved, seconded and voted upon by the BOARD. It shall be the responsibility of the SUPERINTENDENT to give the BOARD one month's prior written notice of the date in May that the extension of this agreement shall appear on the BOARD's agenda. Failure of the BOARD to act upon the agenda item shall result in a one year extension of the SUPERINTENDENTs contract. (c) An extension of the term of the SUPERINTENDENT's employment shall be in the form of an amendment to this Agreement: shall begin the same terms and conditions as herein set forth unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parities; and it shall not be considered that the BOARD and the SUPERINTENDENT have entered into a new agreement, unless expressly stated in writing signed by both parties hereto. End Quote. This says it all! A four year term extended each year for an additional year. Voted upon at some date in May, to extend the term from July 1 to June 30 of the next year. The last vote was held in May of 2005.
As all can see, the Contract is wordy and too extensive to be included here except in parts.
You should be able to obtain your own copy of the contract from the District via the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) It will cost you a few bucks for the reproduction process, a letter request to the District for the information and a few weeks waiting. Breathe new life into the BOE! C_P_R it! Make sure the Children get their fair share! - First! Ed.
|
|
|
Post by devilsrus on Mar 22, 2006 18:08:45 GMT -5
a Carefully Planned Response Can Pressure & Revitalize a Community of Plainedge Residents.we the Cooperating Plainedge Residents Can Pressure Rascals. Can the Plainedge Rover Continue to Preach Reasonable and fair?
Can the salaties of administrators be frozen at any level? Can we bring in people who will be happy with a salary of $85,000? There must be some people looking to make a mark in their careers, that are willing to take the next step, do we really need adminstrators that continue to slash programs that will hurt this community for years to come? Teachers make what teachers make.....no argument there. But there has been a major re-structing of the economy. There must to be professional managers looking for oppurtunities; can we at least search for them? It can't always be about killing the programs that make a school a school. VOTE YES FOR CHANGE! VOTE YES FOR THE KIDS! VOTE YES FOR THE FUTURE! NO SMILIES! NO HAPPY TALK! JUST HAPPY KIDS LOOKING FORWARD TO A SCHOOL THAT WAS PROMISED! TO A SCHOOL THAT PROVIDES THE CHALLENGES AND REWARDS OF A NORMAL YEAR!
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Mar 22, 2006 18:58:09 GMT -5
From the 10/20-2005 business meeting....
RESOLVED, that the Plainedge Board of Education approve a salary increase and an extension of the Superintendent’s contract for an additional year, said contract will expire on June 30, 2008.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Mar 22, 2006 19:55:22 GMT -5
OK..... I knew about the 2008 extension. I thought there was a NEW extension for 2009.
Let's hope that our BOE decides it's time for a change. Change is good. Change makes the complacent nervous and more diligent. Change helps us learn from the past. Change helps us grow.
It's about time!
|
|
|
Post by gopybl on Mar 23, 2006 6:51:51 GMT -5
What if we started a letter Writing Campaign to each of the Board of Education members letting them know your feelings regarding this contract. If the response were overwhelming, you would THINK they would have to listen...Let me know your thoughts.
|
|