According to the data posted to the Board of Elections website, it wasn't even remotely close, with 81% of those who voted electing to keep an at-large system for the election of the four non-Supervisor members of the Huntington Town Board or Town Council.
Given the fact that the Council District proponents were dramatically out-spent -- and that is a gross understatement -- by the builders and lawyers and Huntington politicians and their toadies and sycophants, that result should not be surprising. In this process, I have lost a lot of respect for some people that I once admired, even if I did not agree with them on every issue. But, I would like to have seen them at least be morally offended by the unholy alliance that financed the "NO" campaign.
For my part, I would rather be on the right side of history, than the winning side, particularly when we look at how their victory was achieved. If we had a local press that was actually independent of the political powers behind our current town government, we might hope to see some good investigative journalism of how that spending package was put together. But, good investigative journalism has not been seen in the Town of Huntington for at least the last five years, and it is unlikely to begin now.
Therefore, it is time for all of us -- proponents and opponents -- to move on and to proceed with our normal interaction with a town government that has generally done a decent job, but could have been even better with greater representative democracy.
Jerry Hannon
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Missing: A Partridge in a Pear Tree?
[originally transmitted 12/20/09]
So, let’s tally up; as of 8 PM today, Sunday, December 20th, we have had:
Hundreds of expensive red signs,
Multiple pages of ads in local newspapers,
Five very expensive mailings,
Two robo-calls on this very Sunday,
But no partridge in a pear tree?
The power brokers and money brokers seem intent on buying the votes of Huntington residents at the special referendum on Tuesday, asking us to vote “no” on Council Districts (also known, under New York Law, as a Ward System”) for Huntington.
Recalling that the year 2000 Census indicated that there were 65,917 households in the Town of Huntington, just start adding up what they have been spending, which I am now calculating -- after the fifth mailing, and the multiple pages of ads, and the additional red signs that have been popping up recently -- as between $125,000 and $150,000.
Remember that the builders, and union leaders, and lawyers, and Town Board members, and their Town Hall cronies, and their Huntington Democratic Party bosses, are combining in what I can only call an unholy alliance.
The independent politicians and media who have endorsed the proposal for Council Districts in Huntington include the following: County Executive Steve Levy (Democrat); County Legislator and Majority Leader Jon Cooper (Democrat); Assemblyman Jim Conte (Republican); Huntington Highway Superintendent William Naughton (Democrat).
It should be noted that Mr. Levy, and Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Naughton are known as very independent Democrats, and Mr. Conte’s Republican colleague, Assemblyman Andrew Raia, has indicated that he could not become involved since his mother is the Town Clerk of Huntington, and he must therefore remain impartial on the matter.
The media supporting this proposal includes News 12 Long Island, Newsday, the Times of Huntington, and the Times of Northport, all of which are independent of present or past Town politics, unlike The Long-Islander, The Record, and The Observer of Northport.
What makes it worth spending a small fortune to make sure you vote “no,” instead of having you vote “yes,” for greater representative democracy in Huntington?
Even the distortions from these folks are becoming stretched beyond credibility as they try to frighten us into staying with the cozy and convenient system that these power brokers all love so much.
One of the latest distortions that I have seen tries to make you imagine that there will be some lack of community integrity if we vote “yes,” for a Ward System or Council Districts.
What they don’t tell you is that our community, and others like us, are already served by more than one legislator at the County level and at the State level.
In Elwood, we have County Legislator Steve Stern and County Legislator Lou D’Amaro, and at the State level we have Assemblyman Andy Raia and Assemblyman Jim Conte.
But, whether we have one Council member or two, the important thing is that we have a legislator who knows our community, and knows our people, and knows our school district. The larger the area served by a legislator, whether Town, or County, or State, the less likely it is that this legislator will have that knowledge, or care as much about us.
Besides that, three school districts in the Town of Huntington even have part of their districts in other Long Island towns: Half Hollow Hills has part of the Town of Babylon; Commack has part of the Town of Smithtown; and Cold Spring Harbor has part of the Town of Oyster Bay.
But, my biggest concern is about this attempt at effectively buying an election, and what that means for the powers behind this campaign.
Why is it worth it to them to spend all of that money, hoping that you will vote "no"?
Remember to vote on Tuesday, December 22nd, at your regular State, and County, and Town polling places.
For my part, I will be voting YES, for a Ward System (Council Districts) for Huntington.
Jerry Hannon
So, let’s tally up; as of 8 PM today, Sunday, December 20th, we have had:
Hundreds of expensive red signs,
Multiple pages of ads in local newspapers,
Five very expensive mailings,
Two robo-calls on this very Sunday,
But no partridge in a pear tree?
The power brokers and money brokers seem intent on buying the votes of Huntington residents at the special referendum on Tuesday, asking us to vote “no” on Council Districts (also known, under New York Law, as a Ward System”) for Huntington.
Recalling that the year 2000 Census indicated that there were 65,917 households in the Town of Huntington, just start adding up what they have been spending, which I am now calculating -- after the fifth mailing, and the multiple pages of ads, and the additional red signs that have been popping up recently -- as between $125,000 and $150,000.
Remember that the builders, and union leaders, and lawyers, and Town Board members, and their Town Hall cronies, and their Huntington Democratic Party bosses, are combining in what I can only call an unholy alliance.
The independent politicians and media who have endorsed the proposal for Council Districts in Huntington include the following: County Executive Steve Levy (Democrat); County Legislator and Majority Leader Jon Cooper (Democrat); Assemblyman Jim Conte (Republican); Huntington Highway Superintendent William Naughton (Democrat).
It should be noted that Mr. Levy, and Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Naughton are known as very independent Democrats, and Mr. Conte’s Republican colleague, Assemblyman Andrew Raia, has indicated that he could not become involved since his mother is the Town Clerk of Huntington, and he must therefore remain impartial on the matter.
The media supporting this proposal includes News 12 Long Island, Newsday, the Times of Huntington, and the Times of Northport, all of which are independent of present or past Town politics, unlike The Long-Islander, The Record, and The Observer of Northport.
What makes it worth spending a small fortune to make sure you vote “no,” instead of having you vote “yes,” for greater representative democracy in Huntington?
Even the distortions from these folks are becoming stretched beyond credibility as they try to frighten us into staying with the cozy and convenient system that these power brokers all love so much.
One of the latest distortions that I have seen tries to make you imagine that there will be some lack of community integrity if we vote “yes,” for a Ward System or Council Districts.
What they don’t tell you is that our community, and others like us, are already served by more than one legislator at the County level and at the State level.
In Elwood, we have County Legislator Steve Stern and County Legislator Lou D’Amaro, and at the State level we have Assemblyman Andy Raia and Assemblyman Jim Conte.
But, whether we have one Council member or two, the important thing is that we have a legislator who knows our community, and knows our people, and knows our school district. The larger the area served by a legislator, whether Town, or County, or State, the less likely it is that this legislator will have that knowledge, or care as much about us.
Besides that, three school districts in the Town of Huntington even have part of their districts in other Long Island towns: Half Hollow Hills has part of the Town of Babylon; Commack has part of the Town of Smithtown; and Cold Spring Harbor has part of the Town of Oyster Bay.
But, my biggest concern is about this attempt at effectively buying an election, and what that means for the powers behind this campaign.
Why is it worth it to them to spend all of that money, hoping that you will vote "no"?
Remember to vote on Tuesday, December 22nd, at your regular State, and County, and Town polling places.
For my part, I will be voting YES, for a Ward System (Council Districts) for Huntington.
Jerry Hannon
The Power Brokers Have Been Unleashed
[originally transmitted 12/10/09]
The Power Brokers Have Been Unleashed
WOW!
The money interests, and the power brokers, are really ganging up on the minimally-funded grass roots effort to create council districts, known in official State jargon as a “ward system,” for the Town of Huntington.
Look at the number of signs (think $$$$) around town that use the catchy phrase “Keep Huntington Whole,” which is about as meaningful a phrase as including the word “democratic” in the “Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,” which is the North Korean government’s name for itself.
Look at the mass mailing (think $$$$) which the anti-district forces, or anti-ward forces, recently sent out, making a number of wild and unsubstantiated inferences about what the proposed change would do to Huntington residents.
Look at the core group which is behind the anti-district movement; they are dominated by a bunch of politicians and allies who have historically been major factors in the cozy and in-bred town government which people in Huntington have had for decades and decades.
Many of them are the heart of Huntington’s “Old boy and girl” network, the “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” crowd, the self-perpetuation brigade that simply does not want change in Huntington.
And look at the endorsements behind the movement. You will see the personal muscle bearers of the Dix Hills and Melville communities, as well as a number of chamber of commerce powers, as well as a senior officer of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk County.
And this morning I read an E-mail, sent to me by someone on the distribution list of the Long Island Builders Institute (LIBI), which has them jumping on the bandwagon of anti-district/anti-ward forces.
Look at this key statement which leads one of the paragraphs in the LIBI message: “The ward system is emblematic of why it takes so long for anything to get done on Long Island.”
Oh, now I see. The builders want to prevent a district/ward system in Huntington, so that they can speed their development proposals -- and maybe their over-development proposals -- through the current cozy Town government, which they expect will be more builder-friendly than dealing with Council members who will legislatively represent their own district on the Town Board.
I’m sorry, but I still believe in democracy, and in allowing people to be proportionately represented by a legislator who can advocate for his or her own district within the Town Board. The power brokers will always have their power, but the people should themselves be empowered by a more democratic system -- with better response to smaller communities -- than we have right now.
It’s good enough for our State Government, and it’s good enough for our County Government, so why shouldn’t it be good enough for our Town Government?
Jerry Hannon
The Power Brokers Have Been Unleashed
WOW!
The money interests, and the power brokers, are really ganging up on the minimally-funded grass roots effort to create council districts, known in official State jargon as a “ward system,” for the Town of Huntington.
Look at the number of signs (think $$$$) around town that use the catchy phrase “Keep Huntington Whole,” which is about as meaningful a phrase as including the word “democratic” in the “Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,” which is the North Korean government’s name for itself.
Look at the mass mailing (think $$$$) which the anti-district forces, or anti-ward forces, recently sent out, making a number of wild and unsubstantiated inferences about what the proposed change would do to Huntington residents.
Look at the core group which is behind the anti-district movement; they are dominated by a bunch of politicians and allies who have historically been major factors in the cozy and in-bred town government which people in Huntington have had for decades and decades.
Many of them are the heart of Huntington’s “Old boy and girl” network, the “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” crowd, the self-perpetuation brigade that simply does not want change in Huntington.
And look at the endorsements behind the movement. You will see the personal muscle bearers of the Dix Hills and Melville communities, as well as a number of chamber of commerce powers, as well as a senior officer of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk County.
And this morning I read an E-mail, sent to me by someone on the distribution list of the Long Island Builders Institute (LIBI), which has them jumping on the bandwagon of anti-district/anti-ward forces.
Look at this key statement which leads one of the paragraphs in the LIBI message: “The ward system is emblematic of why it takes so long for anything to get done on Long Island.”
Oh, now I see. The builders want to prevent a district/ward system in Huntington, so that they can speed their development proposals -- and maybe their over-development proposals -- through the current cozy Town government, which they expect will be more builder-friendly than dealing with Council members who will legislatively represent their own district on the Town Board.
I’m sorry, but I still believe in democracy, and in allowing people to be proportionately represented by a legislator who can advocate for his or her own district within the Town Board. The power brokers will always have their power, but the people should themselves be empowered by a more democratic system -- with better response to smaller communities -- than we have right now.
It’s good enough for our State Government, and it’s good enough for our County Government, so why shouldn’t it be good enough for our Town Government?
Jerry Hannon
Yet Another Costly Mailing By Opponents
[originally transmitted 12/14/09]
Yet Another Costly Mailing By Opponents
After receiving another costly mailing (and big money usually means big influence) from the entrenched powers in Huntington who are opposing creation of Council Districts (known in State Law jargon as "Wards"), I contrasted that mailing to Huntington residents with the no-cost E-mail received from Mark Cronin, one of the bipartisan sponsors of the Council District ("Ward" system) movement.
Without commenting in this message on what this group is stating, I have pasted below, for your consideration as a contrast to the mass mailing by opponents, the total message (minus their requests for volunteers to hand out leaflets, or make phone calls, or make donations) which Mr. Cronin sent out on Friday. I suppose, if Mr. Cronin and Concerned Citizens of Huntington can get enough small donations, we may yet see a mailing by the grass-roots forces promoting Council Districts ("Wards").
Toward the end of the pasted text you will see a list of community meetings where you can go to seek dialogue or additional information.
Jerry Hannon
--------------------------------------
[full text of E-mail from Mark Cronin of Concerned Citizens of Huntington, minus final section requesting volunteers or donations]
Vote YES for Council Districts on December 22
Vote Yes for the Ward System on December 22 (Wards = Council Districts)
Council Districts for Huntington has been endorsed by Newsday, News12 Long Island, the Times of Huntington and the Times of Northport, County Executive Steve Levy, County Legislator Jon Cooper, Assemblyman James Conte and thousands of residents who signed petitions to put this issue on the ballot.
More and more residents are supporting Council Districts for Huntington. Why?
· Electing one person who represents you and your community is better than voting for four people who do not represent you and are not accountable to you or your community.
· Electing a Council Person from your district means that you will have a person who will answer your calls and be accountable to you.
· Four Council Districts means that all parts of Town will have a say at Town Hall. All parts of Town will be treated equally: no sections will be ignored while others are treated well. It creates a more fair Town government.
· Council Districts will take the big money out of Town politics. Under the current system the incumbents raised over $220,000 each. They depend on big donors – lawyers, developers and special interests doing business with the Town. With Council Districts, candidates will be elected not because of the money they raise, but because of what they do for the community. Town Council members will care more about the residents in their districts than the big money donors.
· Council Districts will open Town Hall to all residents and all communities. This year the Town Board took 598 votes and all 598 were unanimous. Where’s the debate? Where’s the discussion?
News12 Long Island endorsed Council Districts for Huntington and said, “Similar reforms in Hempstead, North Hempstead and Brookhaven demonstrate that the establishment of council districts brings representation closer to the people, and greater attention to their neighborhoods.” North Hempstead Councilwoman Maria-Christina Poons said, “No doubt about it, Council Districts work better.” Read more endorsements here.
Council Districts do not raise costs. For example, in Brookhaven, there has been no tax increase in the general fund since Council Districts. Hempstead Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby said, “Costs have not risen because of Council Districts. If anything, Council Districts have held down costs because we need to report back to our districts on spending.” Brookhaven Councilman Steve Fiore-Rosenfeld said, “Council Districts have not raised government costs. We have absolutely not raised taxes because of Council Districts. Anyone making that claim is spreading misinformation.”
Vote YES for the Ward System (Wards = Council Districts) on December 22.
Want to learn more, click here for our web site or our blog. Or attend a Community Meeting:
· Tuesday, December 15 at 7 p.m.: South Huntington Public Library.
· Wednesday, December 16 at 7 p.m. Huntington Public Library – Main Branch
· Thursday, December 17 at 7 p.m.: Northport Public Library
· Thursday, December 17 at 7 p.m.: NAACP Forum on Council Districts at the South Huntington Public Library
Yet Another Costly Mailing By Opponents
After receiving another costly mailing (and big money usually means big influence) from the entrenched powers in Huntington who are opposing creation of Council Districts (known in State Law jargon as "Wards"), I contrasted that mailing to Huntington residents with the no-cost E-mail received from Mark Cronin, one of the bipartisan sponsors of the Council District ("Ward" system) movement.
Without commenting in this message on what this group is stating, I have pasted below, for your consideration as a contrast to the mass mailing by opponents, the total message (minus their requests for volunteers to hand out leaflets, or make phone calls, or make donations) which Mr. Cronin sent out on Friday. I suppose, if Mr. Cronin and Concerned Citizens of Huntington can get enough small donations, we may yet see a mailing by the grass-roots forces promoting Council Districts ("Wards").
Toward the end of the pasted text you will see a list of community meetings where you can go to seek dialogue or additional information.
Jerry Hannon
--------------------------------------
[full text of E-mail from Mark Cronin of Concerned Citizens of Huntington, minus final section requesting volunteers or donations]
Vote YES for Council Districts on December 22
Vote Yes for the Ward System on December 22 (Wards = Council Districts)
Council Districts for Huntington has been endorsed by Newsday, News12 Long Island, the Times of Huntington and the Times of Northport, County Executive Steve Levy, County Legislator Jon Cooper, Assemblyman James Conte and thousands of residents who signed petitions to put this issue on the ballot.
More and more residents are supporting Council Districts for Huntington. Why?
· Electing one person who represents you and your community is better than voting for four people who do not represent you and are not accountable to you or your community.
· Electing a Council Person from your district means that you will have a person who will answer your calls and be accountable to you.
· Four Council Districts means that all parts of Town will have a say at Town Hall. All parts of Town will be treated equally: no sections will be ignored while others are treated well. It creates a more fair Town government.
· Council Districts will take the big money out of Town politics. Under the current system the incumbents raised over $220,000 each. They depend on big donors – lawyers, developers and special interests doing business with the Town. With Council Districts, candidates will be elected not because of the money they raise, but because of what they do for the community. Town Council members will care more about the residents in their districts than the big money donors.
· Council Districts will open Town Hall to all residents and all communities. This year the Town Board took 598 votes and all 598 were unanimous. Where’s the debate? Where’s the discussion?
News12 Long Island endorsed Council Districts for Huntington and said, “Similar reforms in Hempstead, North Hempstead and Brookhaven demonstrate that the establishment of council districts brings representation closer to the people, and greater attention to their neighborhoods.” North Hempstead Councilwoman Maria-Christina Poons said, “No doubt about it, Council Districts work better.” Read more endorsements here.
Council Districts do not raise costs. For example, in Brookhaven, there has been no tax increase in the general fund since Council Districts. Hempstead Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby said, “Costs have not risen because of Council Districts. If anything, Council Districts have held down costs because we need to report back to our districts on spending.” Brookhaven Councilman Steve Fiore-Rosenfeld said, “Council Districts have not raised government costs. We have absolutely not raised taxes because of Council Districts. Anyone making that claim is spreading misinformation.”
Vote YES for the Ward System (Wards = Council Districts) on December 22.
Want to learn more, click here for our web site or our blog. Or attend a Community Meeting:
· Tuesday, December 15 at 7 p.m.: South Huntington Public Library.
· Wednesday, December 16 at 7 p.m. Huntington Public Library – Main Branch
· Thursday, December 17 at 7 p.m.: Northport Public Library
· Thursday, December 17 at 7 p.m.: NAACP Forum on Council Districts at the South Huntington Public Library
Amazing Barrage of Expensive Mailings By Opponents of Council Districts (Wards)
[originally transmitted 12/16/09]
Amazing Barrage of Expensive Mailings By Opponents of Council Districts (Wards)
Well, I have now received four separate mailings from the powers that are opposing an increase in proportional democratic representation in the way the four members of the Town Board, or Town Council, are selected.
As previously noted, the Supervisor would continue to be elected by all of the people of Huntington, as is appropriate for all Executives, while each Council member would represent about one-fourth of Huntington, in the same way that our County Legislators, and our State Assembly members, and our State Senators, and our National House of Representatives members, are selected and serve us.
So, these builders, and union heads, and lawyers, and present and former Town Board members, and other Town Hall hangers-on and favored insiders, don't want us to enjoy the same proportional representation benefits as we have with legislators at the County, and State, and National levels of government.
Now, think carefully about all of the money that these opponents are spending, on mailings alone, to homes throughout Huntington.
According to the 2000 Census, there were 65,917 households in the Town of Huntington.
The lowest price of a Presort Standard mailing would be 14 cents, and that would mean any mailing to all of the households in Huntington would cost at least $9,228 in postage alone. If you multiply that $9,228 by the four mailings (and perhaps there were one or more that I did not receive) that would mean at least $36,912 in postage alone. That's right, $36,912 in postage alone.
When you add in the cost of printing -- and while I have misplaced the first mailing, the second and third mailings were in glossy color, while the fourth mailing was a less expensive black & white on card stock -- you are probably talking about spending of around $100,000, just for the mailings, ignoring what they have spent on all of those lovely red signs that you see all around town.
Why is it worth it, for the builders, and union heads, and lawyers, and Town Board members and Town insiders, to spend all this money?
Of course, it seems like they are afraid they will lose something now readily accessible to them.
So, do you want to believe those spending all that money, who may be willing to distort facts as much as they are willing to spend big bucks?
I find their tactics troubling and deeply offensive, and their misrepresentations insulting to the intelligence of residents of the Town of Huntington.
On December 22nd, next Tuesday, we will see the following question in the referendum (at your usual polling place for Town, or County, or State, or Federal elections):
“Shall a ward system be established for the election of
councilmen/councilwomen in the Town of Huntington?”
Previous to this fourth expensive mailing by opponents, I had said only privately that I would vote be voting "yes" on the question, although my views were clear to any person carefully reading my analyses and noting my conclusions.
However, these big-money opponents of Council Districts (or Wards) have now struck a raw nerve, and I will now very publicly say that I will vote YES on the question.
I would urge others to think carefully about the opposition's tactics, and very big spending, and also vote YES on December 22nd.
Jerry Hannon
Amazing Barrage of Expensive Mailings By Opponents of Council Districts (Wards)
Well, I have now received four separate mailings from the powers that are opposing an increase in proportional democratic representation in the way the four members of the Town Board, or Town Council, are selected.
As previously noted, the Supervisor would continue to be elected by all of the people of Huntington, as is appropriate for all Executives, while each Council member would represent about one-fourth of Huntington, in the same way that our County Legislators, and our State Assembly members, and our State Senators, and our National House of Representatives members, are selected and serve us.
So, these builders, and union heads, and lawyers, and present and former Town Board members, and other Town Hall hangers-on and favored insiders, don't want us to enjoy the same proportional representation benefits as we have with legislators at the County, and State, and National levels of government.
Now, think carefully about all of the money that these opponents are spending, on mailings alone, to homes throughout Huntington.
According to the 2000 Census, there were 65,917 households in the Town of Huntington.
The lowest price of a Presort Standard mailing would be 14 cents, and that would mean any mailing to all of the households in Huntington would cost at least $9,228 in postage alone. If you multiply that $9,228 by the four mailings (and perhaps there were one or more that I did not receive) that would mean at least $36,912 in postage alone. That's right, $36,912 in postage alone.
When you add in the cost of printing -- and while I have misplaced the first mailing, the second and third mailings were in glossy color, while the fourth mailing was a less expensive black & white on card stock -- you are probably talking about spending of around $100,000, just for the mailings, ignoring what they have spent on all of those lovely red signs that you see all around town.
Why is it worth it, for the builders, and union heads, and lawyers, and Town Board members and Town insiders, to spend all this money?
Of course, it seems like they are afraid they will lose something now readily accessible to them.
So, do you want to believe those spending all that money, who may be willing to distort facts as much as they are willing to spend big bucks?
I find their tactics troubling and deeply offensive, and their misrepresentations insulting to the intelligence of residents of the Town of Huntington.
On December 22nd, next Tuesday, we will see the following question in the referendum (at your usual polling place for Town, or County, or State, or Federal elections):
“Shall a ward system be established for the election of
councilmen/councilwomen in the Town of Huntington?”
Previous to this fourth expensive mailing by opponents, I had said only privately that I would vote be voting "yes" on the question, although my views were clear to any person carefully reading my analyses and noting my conclusions.
However, these big-money opponents of Council Districts (or Wards) have now struck a raw nerve, and I will now very publicly say that I will vote YES on the question.
I would urge others to think carefully about the opposition's tactics, and very big spending, and also vote YES on December 22nd.
Jerry Hannon
December 22nd is an Important Date for Huntington
[originally transmitted 11/24/09]
December 22nd is an Important Date for Huntington
Political life in the Town of Huntington is getting, as Alice of Wonderland fame might say, “curiouser and curiouser.”
Most residents are aware that the Town Board has, for the past several years, been requested -- and finally petitioned -- to place before the voters a referendum to determine whether we should adopt the district system, or councilmanic districts or ward system, of representation on our Town Board (or Town Council), or whether we should instead continue to have At-large seats.
The Town Board persistently stonewalled those groups, claiming it was not in the best interests of all residents, rather than taking the bold and democratic step to let the people decide.
So, finally, the group requesting the referendum collected enough signatures to survive the expected challenges from the Town Board (as the Town Board had been able to successfully challenge enough signatures on a lesser petition drive two or so years ago), and then the Town Board had the gall to suggest the process to be flawed and designed to evade scheduling a vote on Election Day, since the vote would take place in late December, rather than on the normal Election Day in November.
Now, let me get this straight. The Town Board had the power, all along, to schedule a referendum, but didn’t, and now they want to criticize petitioners who took that route after continual Town Board stonewalling of requests by people asking for a referendum, but it is somehow backhanded or cynical on the part of the requesters who became petitioners??????
As an old television personality used to say, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
What makes this even more of a bizarre, but troubling, experience is that it is now obvious that the biggest community in the Town of Huntington, which has had a disproportionate influence over Town Board activities for many years, has now publicly made it clear that they oppose councilmanic districts for the Town of Huntington.
After I was sent a link to a Nov 16th resolution of the Half Hollow Hills (HHH) Board of Education, and read their expressed opposition to a political step (which I personally find a questionable tactic for a BOE), and when I saw how HHH residents were inflamed to attend the meeting in a predisposed mindset fashion, I asked an old friend from HHH who is active in their school district and in their community, what was their rationale?
I was surprised, but gratified by the honesty of this person, to hear so blatant a rationale for the BOE vote that any reasonable person would have to regard it as pure power politics.
In my summary message, forwarding the HHH Board resolution to those concerned with what our own school district might or might not do, on any number of issues in the Town, I noted: “Their fear is that they would be split into two different councilmanic districts (I agree with that assessment, given the size and shape of HHH) and that they would therefore have less impact on the Town Board than they are able to achieve as one voting bloc.”
Now, that was merely one HHH resident’s perspective, but when I read the November 19th edition of The Long-Islander, with three related articles on page A6 with following sections on page A29, it was obvious that this HHH resident’s candor was matched by the content of the articles in The Long-Islander. If you do not have that paper, it should be available at our local library.
So, if you are now a political powerhouse in the Town of Huntington, and since HHH is the largest school district among all eight in the Town that power and influence is irrefutable, even without the candor related to their BOE discussion and vote on Nov 16th, you apparently choose to oppose allowing smaller communities to have more of a voice.
HHH are the largest single voting bloc in the Town, so they have a disproportionate influence over our Town Board with the current At-large system of election. And we, with the second smallest school district (by student population), have the second least influence over the Town Board with the current At-large system.
Now, to be clear about this, the Supervisor would continue to be elected by the entire Town, and that is perfectly appropriate, just as the County Executive is elected by all residents in Suffolk County, and just as the Governor is elected by all residents in the State of New York, and just as the President is elected by all residents of the United States of America.
The County Legislature uses a district system.
The State Assembly uses a district system.
The House of Representatives uses a district system.
Why not have the same kind of system for the four non-Supervisor members of the Town Board of Huntington?
Please circle December 22nd on your calendar, and please exercise your right to vote on this issue.
Jerry Hannon
December 22nd is an Important Date for Huntington
Political life in the Town of Huntington is getting, as Alice of Wonderland fame might say, “curiouser and curiouser.”
Most residents are aware that the Town Board has, for the past several years, been requested -- and finally petitioned -- to place before the voters a referendum to determine whether we should adopt the district system, or councilmanic districts or ward system, of representation on our Town Board (or Town Council), or whether we should instead continue to have At-large seats.
The Town Board persistently stonewalled those groups, claiming it was not in the best interests of all residents, rather than taking the bold and democratic step to let the people decide.
So, finally, the group requesting the referendum collected enough signatures to survive the expected challenges from the Town Board (as the Town Board had been able to successfully challenge enough signatures on a lesser petition drive two or so years ago), and then the Town Board had the gall to suggest the process to be flawed and designed to evade scheduling a vote on Election Day, since the vote would take place in late December, rather than on the normal Election Day in November.
Now, let me get this straight. The Town Board had the power, all along, to schedule a referendum, but didn’t, and now they want to criticize petitioners who took that route after continual Town Board stonewalling of requests by people asking for a referendum, but it is somehow backhanded or cynical on the part of the requesters who became petitioners??????
As an old television personality used to say, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
What makes this even more of a bizarre, but troubling, experience is that it is now obvious that the biggest community in the Town of Huntington, which has had a disproportionate influence over Town Board activities for many years, has now publicly made it clear that they oppose councilmanic districts for the Town of Huntington.
After I was sent a link to a Nov 16th resolution of the Half Hollow Hills (HHH) Board of Education, and read their expressed opposition to a political step (which I personally find a questionable tactic for a BOE), and when I saw how HHH residents were inflamed to attend the meeting in a predisposed mindset fashion, I asked an old friend from HHH who is active in their school district and in their community, what was their rationale?
I was surprised, but gratified by the honesty of this person, to hear so blatant a rationale for the BOE vote that any reasonable person would have to regard it as pure power politics.
In my summary message, forwarding the HHH Board resolution to those concerned with what our own school district might or might not do, on any number of issues in the Town, I noted: “Their fear is that they would be split into two different councilmanic districts (I agree with that assessment, given the size and shape of HHH) and that they would therefore have less impact on the Town Board than they are able to achieve as one voting bloc.”
Now, that was merely one HHH resident’s perspective, but when I read the November 19th edition of The Long-Islander, with three related articles on page A6 with following sections on page A29, it was obvious that this HHH resident’s candor was matched by the content of the articles in The Long-Islander. If you do not have that paper, it should be available at our local library.
So, if you are now a political powerhouse in the Town of Huntington, and since HHH is the largest school district among all eight in the Town that power and influence is irrefutable, even without the candor related to their BOE discussion and vote on Nov 16th, you apparently choose to oppose allowing smaller communities to have more of a voice.
HHH are the largest single voting bloc in the Town, so they have a disproportionate influence over our Town Board with the current At-large system of election. And we, with the second smallest school district (by student population), have the second least influence over the Town Board with the current At-large system.
Now, to be clear about this, the Supervisor would continue to be elected by the entire Town, and that is perfectly appropriate, just as the County Executive is elected by all residents in Suffolk County, and just as the Governor is elected by all residents in the State of New York, and just as the President is elected by all residents of the United States of America.
The County Legislature uses a district system.
The State Assembly uses a district system.
The House of Representatives uses a district system.
Why not have the same kind of system for the four non-Supervisor members of the Town Board of Huntington?
Please circle December 22nd on your calendar, and please exercise your right to vote on this issue.
Jerry Hannon
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
County Executive Will Host Huntington-wide Meeting at Glenn on Oct 14th
Some of you have already seen signs, posted in various parts of the Town of Huntington, announcing a Community Forum to be held at John Glenn HS on Wednesday, October 14th.
Naturally, these signs alone cannot convey any sense of the purpose, or planned agenda, for this forum, but a transmission today by the office of County Executive Steve Levy included a descriptive letter from Mr. Levy, and it is pasted below in its entirety for your information.
There was also a press release by the County about this event, but Mr. Levy's letter seems a bit more definitive. Both are useful.
Jerry Hannon
----------------------------------------
Naturally, these signs alone cannot convey any sense of the purpose, or planned agenda, for this forum, but a transmission today by the office of County Executive Steve Levy included a descriptive letter from Mr. Levy, and it is pasted below in its entirety for your information.
There was also a press release by the County about this event, but Mr. Levy's letter seems a bit more definitive. Both are useful.
Jerry Hannon
----------------------------------------
Dear Resident:
It is with great enthusiasm that I write to you to announce that my department heads and I will be bringing the community-oriented “We Work for You Community Forum” to the town of Huntington on October 14, 2009 at John Glenn High School, 478 Elwood Road in East Northport, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
This interactive town hall meeting will focus on the concerns you and other residents in your community face each day. It is open to all residents, school officials, and community and civic leaders, so please feel free to pass this invitation on to whomever else in the town of Huntington you feel may wish to attend. In addition to hearing from me, these forums will provide you with the opportunity to directly discuss topics of your choice with the commissioners and directors of various Suffolk County departments.
Because of the interactive, question-and-answer based nature of this initiative, its success is largely dependent on a large and engaged public turnout. As such, I hope you will join us in this important opportunity and help us spread the word.
I look forward to this community-wide forum and to working more directly with you to further improve the quality of life for all of Suffolk County’s residents. To make certain the needs of all are met, pre-registration for this event is strongly encouraged.
If you should have any further questions, please feel free to contact my Community Relations Unit at 631-853-4235. You can register online for this event here: www.co.suffolk.ny.us.
Thank you again for your anticipated cooperation and involvement with this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Steve Levy
County Executive of Suffolk County
---------------------------
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Excellent Conversation Regarding Effects of Bullying
The NPR Program, "Here and Now," always has interesting and valuable content, but recently there was one discussion, on the impacts of bullying, that should have every parent -- those of the innocent bystander children, as well as those of the victims, and those of the bullies -- paying close attention and pressing to make sure that bullying is aggressively not-even-tolerated in Elwood's Schools.
The program excerpt may be accessed on the "Here and Now" website, at http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/08/rundown-85/
I would not suggest that any parent would be so callous as to encourage bullying, but parents may sometimes not sufficiently care about a problem area as long as their own child is not being (currently) affected by the particular problem.
Whether it is through a PTA unit, or whether it is through more direct parent involvement, we must all care about bullying, and we must make sure that it is not allowed to exist. That means that each of us, and all of us, must insure that the potential problem area receives strong corrective and preventive action, and not merely strong words.
Bullying, as discussed by most experts, is generally student-on-student, but we sometimes read about incidents in some districts where it may come from a trusted adult member of staff. Those of my generation remember the physical abuses which students often suffered (usually with the consent and even gratitude of one's parents), but that is -- thankfully -- a thing of the past. The kind of bullying of more recent generations is generally verbal, but the NPR story will make you realize how dangerous it can be, and how important it is to prevent.
For previous commentaries on the general subject of bullying, you can find them on the blog "Elwood Illuminations," and you will find two of them at the following web citations:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2009/06/pediatrician-provides-
some-excellent.html
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2009/06/understanding-and-
helping-your-young.html
After a dismal July, we are now blessed with more typical summer weather, and it seems surprising that the return to school is now about four weeks away. Where did the time go?
Enjoy the special time that you and your children have left, this summer.
Jerry Hannon
The program excerpt may be accessed on the "Here and Now" website, at http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/08/rundown-85/
I would not suggest that any parent would be so callous as to encourage bullying, but parents may sometimes not sufficiently care about a problem area as long as their own child is not being (currently) affected by the particular problem.
Whether it is through a PTA unit, or whether it is through more direct parent involvement, we must all care about bullying, and we must make sure that it is not allowed to exist. That means that each of us, and all of us, must insure that the potential problem area receives strong corrective and preventive action, and not merely strong words.
Bullying, as discussed by most experts, is generally student-on-student, but we sometimes read about incidents in some districts where it may come from a trusted adult member of staff. Those of my generation remember the physical abuses which students often suffered (usually with the consent and even gratitude of one's parents), but that is -- thankfully -- a thing of the past. The kind of bullying of more recent generations is generally verbal, but the NPR story will make you realize how dangerous it can be, and how important it is to prevent.
For previous commentaries on the general subject of bullying, you can find them on the blog "Elwood Illuminations," and you will find two of them at the following web citations:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2009/06/pediatrician-provides-
some-excellent.html
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2009/06/understanding-and-
helping-your-young.html
After a dismal July, we are now blessed with more typical summer weather, and it seems surprising that the return to school is now about four weeks away. Where did the time go?
Enjoy the special time that you and your children have left, this summer.
Jerry Hannon
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Are We Short-Changing Our High School Students?
In today’s issue of Newsday, on page A37, there is a very useful opinion piece by Philip Cicero, the retired former Superintendent of the Lynbrook School District.
Mr. Cicero points out several examples demonstrating that school districts on Long Island, in general, are failing to properly prepare high school students for their post-secondary academic careers, or for their direct entry into the modern workplace.
I have heard anecdotal evidence, gathered from past graduates of John Glenn High School, of deficiencies in preparation with particular focus upon skills in English composition and research.
Additionally, I have witnessed in my own daughter, who has just completed, very successfully, her four year course of study at a fine college at which, we discovered, she was not properly prepared for the rigors of college and struggled in her first year, and then got better and better with each passing year.
Inspiration should come much earlier than that.
Writing skills should be developed in high school (if not earlier), and merely enhanced during the college experience.
And, beyond the comprehension and composition deficiencies already noted, as a former global finance specialist and a retired military intelligence specialist, I have noted among today’s youth – and this is well beyond a Long Island phenomenon – a deplorable lack of even awareness, much less understanding, of geopolitical issues and cross-cultural factors which impact world commerce, as well as global security strategies.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much willingness among many in the local academic community to attempt, seriously, to improve on these areas of weakness. For my own part, I have tried – twice – to foster understanding and inspire corrective actions. Platitudes about contentions along the lines of “we’re effectively doing that now” just don’t ring true, either on the basis of close observation or analysis of what lay behind such contentions.
It seems more like the old, tired, and dangerous phenomenon of the “good enough” philosophy that seems to encumber much of the K through 12 academic community, these days.
Mr. Cicero provides a helpful basis for deeper, and hopefully more candid, discussion of shortcomings in high schools on Long Island, and some ideas of his own regarding possible ways to improve that.
His page A37 piece is titled “Basic competency just isn’t enough,” and you can also access this piece on the Newsday website, where it has been retitled “High school diplomas don't predict the success they should.”
Mr. Cicero points out several examples demonstrating that school districts on Long Island, in general, are failing to properly prepare high school students for their post-secondary academic careers, or for their direct entry into the modern workplace.
I have heard anecdotal evidence, gathered from past graduates of John Glenn High School, of deficiencies in preparation with particular focus upon skills in English composition and research.
Additionally, I have witnessed in my own daughter, who has just completed, very successfully, her four year course of study at a fine college at which, we discovered, she was not properly prepared for the rigors of college and struggled in her first year, and then got better and better with each passing year.
Inspiration should come much earlier than that.
Writing skills should be developed in high school (if not earlier), and merely enhanced during the college experience.
And, beyond the comprehension and composition deficiencies already noted, as a former global finance specialist and a retired military intelligence specialist, I have noted among today’s youth – and this is well beyond a Long Island phenomenon – a deplorable lack of even awareness, much less understanding, of geopolitical issues and cross-cultural factors which impact world commerce, as well as global security strategies.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much willingness among many in the local academic community to attempt, seriously, to improve on these areas of weakness. For my own part, I have tried – twice – to foster understanding and inspire corrective actions. Platitudes about contentions along the lines of “we’re effectively doing that now” just don’t ring true, either on the basis of close observation or analysis of what lay behind such contentions.
It seems more like the old, tired, and dangerous phenomenon of the “good enough” philosophy that seems to encumber much of the K through 12 academic community, these days.
Mr. Cicero provides a helpful basis for deeper, and hopefully more candid, discussion of shortcomings in high schools on Long Island, and some ideas of his own regarding possible ways to improve that.
His page A37 piece is titled “Basic competency just isn’t enough,” and you can also access this piece on the Newsday website, where it has been retitled “High school diplomas don't predict the success they should.”
Monday, June 15, 2009
Newsday Has Useful Opinion Piece on Teacher Compensation
Not long ago, I suggested that residents read a certain newspaper article in which the dynamics of the article was based upon a study done by a conservative think tank. I took note of the fact that I did not agree with the entire article, but that it did contain some helpful analyses, and, more importantly, it contained some statements of fact that were beyond question.
In similar fashion, I would suggest reading an opinion piece published in the June 14th edition of Sunday Newsday, on page A42, done by Stephen Bongiovi, a retired English teacher. The opinion piece is titled “Teachers do matter,” to which title every rational person would undoubtedly say “Wow! What a revelation.”
But, let's assume that the title was selected by Newsday, and not by Mr. Bongiovi, and focus upon what he has said.
Like many who focus only upon costs to the exclusion of benefits, Mr. Bongiovi takes his positions to the other extreme and uses examples of wonderful teaching moments that he encountered as a student, and later as a teacher, to suggest that people should be prepared to spend whatever they are now spending, if not relatively more, to achieve the best teaching results for their children.
It seems an equivalent extremist view to that of the conservative think tank which is designed to eliminate consequential dialogue, rather than encourage a full and candid discussion and analysis of what could be done better in order to fairly compensate teachers, while preserving the fiscal health and integrity of school districts across New York State.
Think carefully about this paragraph written by Mr. Bongiovi:
“This must be what Long Islanders want. Whatever raises, benefits and pension plans teachers receive have been negotiated and agreed upon with boards of education comprised entirely of elected representatives of the citizens of the community in which they teach.”
Are the words factually correct?
Yes.
Are they misleading?
Oh, yes indeed.
You see, there are several flaws in logic, as well as unstated truths, in Mr. Bongiovi's remarks.
From the logic standpoint, to imply that any board of education in 2009, or 2010, can materially change the financial impact of an expiring existing labor contract, between their district and their local teachers union, is absurd. The structure of the local contract, at best, can be tweaked, from one contract negotiation to the next.
To imply otherwise is to ignore the forces of momentum and inertia; these contracts are like stalactites or stalagmites, which have been accumulating their shape over long periods of time. Once these financial benefits are established, and once a broad spectrum of benefits becomes part of the package, it is very difficult to dislodge them or materially alter their shape.
From the unstated truth standpoint, the structure of the Teachers Retirement System, which is the pension plan for teachers in New York State, is a State creation and not anything that has been created by one or more boards of education in New York State. No board of education can even modify that State pension plan.
In fact, as a statement of the obvious of how the State can make life worse for school districts, former State Comptroller Carl McCall eliminated pension contributions for one class of employees after ten years of payment into the system, thereby making the pension fund less self-funding and less stable in future years, particularly since it indexes these benefits to inflation (unlike most corporate plans today).
So, Mr. Bongiovi's statement is misleading.
In order to truly understand the compensation package for teachers, you would also need to compare, in one comprehensive analysis, every financial benefit which they receive now or will receive in the future. As part of that, you would need to factor in their own contributions toward each of these present and future benefits. Then, for comparability, you would compare similar compensation packages for people in other fields, including their own contributions, so that you could develop an objective analysis of what might be reasonable and fair. Mr. Bongiovi, perhaps understandably for his purposes of advocacy, does not do that.
Now, I want to cite one set of statements by Mr. Bongiovi in which I find myself in partial agreement, yet also find myself in disbelief of some of his suggestions as a consequence of the initial reasonable statements:
“There are good teachers and poor teachers. There are good (pick an occupation) and bad (pick an occupation). Teachers are and should be held accountable.”
Later he states:
“Even with tenure, districts are not handcuffed into retaining bad teachers with no recourse. Programs in professional development, mandated mentoring and even legal processes for removal, though time-consuming and potentially costly, are available options.”
Other than some newly hired teachers who might not return for their second or third years, before tenure was granted, when was the last time that you witnessed a teacher being removed from a school district?
And, did it ever amaze you, or have you never focused upon this, that a superior teacher would be paid no more than an inferior teacher of the same experience and numbers of postgraduate credits achieved?
My children have had some amazing teachers, such as the following: (1) one dynamic teacher who is retiring, who consistently went above and beyond what his contract called for, and who even created E-mail dialogue with parents long before the district provided E-mail addresses for teachers to use; and (2) another, a superior teacher who made a big difference for my disabled son, and who left the district (for a better opportunity, but who also had some frustration with the reluctance of some existing staff to be open to new ideas), and who would call me or my wife, in the evening, even from his home.
I'll bet that many of you could provide examples, of your own, of teachers whom you believe should have received pay differentiation, but were treated no better than those who might have been either resting upon their laurels of past performance, or gliding along simply because they could, with either no benefit for doing better, or with no penalty for failing to be all that they could and should be.
And, you should also think of those situations where the board or district were trying to use the tenure system to make improvements, as it is supposed to allow, only to have either the union or some parents, or both, round up the usual cast of characters to protest the “failure” to provide tenure to a favored colleague or friend. Some might call this an exercise in bullying of the board or district, and others might call this pressure politics, or some such description, but that reality is not addressed in Mr. Bongiovi's opinion article.
In summary, even his sound statements are marred by his ignoring of the reality of these processes, and my belief is that he has chosen his words very carefully to intentionally provide a limited perspective for the average reader.
Nevertheless, you should read his piece in Newsday because it does form part of the balance of what needs to be better dialogue on the issue of costs versus benefits, and form versus function, of education in New York State.
In similar fashion, I would suggest reading an opinion piece published in the June 14th edition of Sunday Newsday, on page A42, done by Stephen Bongiovi, a retired English teacher. The opinion piece is titled “Teachers do matter,” to which title every rational person would undoubtedly say “Wow! What a revelation.”
But, let's assume that the title was selected by Newsday, and not by Mr. Bongiovi, and focus upon what he has said.
Like many who focus only upon costs to the exclusion of benefits, Mr. Bongiovi takes his positions to the other extreme and uses examples of wonderful teaching moments that he encountered as a student, and later as a teacher, to suggest that people should be prepared to spend whatever they are now spending, if not relatively more, to achieve the best teaching results for their children.
It seems an equivalent extremist view to that of the conservative think tank which is designed to eliminate consequential dialogue, rather than encourage a full and candid discussion and analysis of what could be done better in order to fairly compensate teachers, while preserving the fiscal health and integrity of school districts across New York State.
Think carefully about this paragraph written by Mr. Bongiovi:
“This must be what Long Islanders want. Whatever raises, benefits and pension plans teachers receive have been negotiated and agreed upon with boards of education comprised entirely of elected representatives of the citizens of the community in which they teach.”
Are the words factually correct?
Yes.
Are they misleading?
Oh, yes indeed.
You see, there are several flaws in logic, as well as unstated truths, in Mr. Bongiovi's remarks.
From the logic standpoint, to imply that any board of education in 2009, or 2010, can materially change the financial impact of an expiring existing labor contract, between their district and their local teachers union, is absurd. The structure of the local contract, at best, can be tweaked, from one contract negotiation to the next.
To imply otherwise is to ignore the forces of momentum and inertia; these contracts are like stalactites or stalagmites, which have been accumulating their shape over long periods of time. Once these financial benefits are established, and once a broad spectrum of benefits becomes part of the package, it is very difficult to dislodge them or materially alter their shape.
From the unstated truth standpoint, the structure of the Teachers Retirement System, which is the pension plan for teachers in New York State, is a State creation and not anything that has been created by one or more boards of education in New York State. No board of education can even modify that State pension plan.
In fact, as a statement of the obvious of how the State can make life worse for school districts, former State Comptroller Carl McCall eliminated pension contributions for one class of employees after ten years of payment into the system, thereby making the pension fund less self-funding and less stable in future years, particularly since it indexes these benefits to inflation (unlike most corporate plans today).
So, Mr. Bongiovi's statement is misleading.
In order to truly understand the compensation package for teachers, you would also need to compare, in one comprehensive analysis, every financial benefit which they receive now or will receive in the future. As part of that, you would need to factor in their own contributions toward each of these present and future benefits. Then, for comparability, you would compare similar compensation packages for people in other fields, including their own contributions, so that you could develop an objective analysis of what might be reasonable and fair. Mr. Bongiovi, perhaps understandably for his purposes of advocacy, does not do that.
Now, I want to cite one set of statements by Mr. Bongiovi in which I find myself in partial agreement, yet also find myself in disbelief of some of his suggestions as a consequence of the initial reasonable statements:
“There are good teachers and poor teachers. There are good (pick an occupation) and bad (pick an occupation). Teachers are and should be held accountable.”
Later he states:
“Even with tenure, districts are not handcuffed into retaining bad teachers with no recourse. Programs in professional development, mandated mentoring and even legal processes for removal, though time-consuming and potentially costly, are available options.”
Other than some newly hired teachers who might not return for their second or third years, before tenure was granted, when was the last time that you witnessed a teacher being removed from a school district?
And, did it ever amaze you, or have you never focused upon this, that a superior teacher would be paid no more than an inferior teacher of the same experience and numbers of postgraduate credits achieved?
My children have had some amazing teachers, such as the following: (1) one dynamic teacher who is retiring, who consistently went above and beyond what his contract called for, and who even created E-mail dialogue with parents long before the district provided E-mail addresses for teachers to use; and (2) another, a superior teacher who made a big difference for my disabled son, and who left the district (for a better opportunity, but who also had some frustration with the reluctance of some existing staff to be open to new ideas), and who would call me or my wife, in the evening, even from his home.
I'll bet that many of you could provide examples, of your own, of teachers whom you believe should have received pay differentiation, but were treated no better than those who might have been either resting upon their laurels of past performance, or gliding along simply because they could, with either no benefit for doing better, or with no penalty for failing to be all that they could and should be.
And, you should also think of those situations where the board or district were trying to use the tenure system to make improvements, as it is supposed to allow, only to have either the union or some parents, or both, round up the usual cast of characters to protest the “failure” to provide tenure to a favored colleague or friend. Some might call this an exercise in bullying of the board or district, and others might call this pressure politics, or some such description, but that reality is not addressed in Mr. Bongiovi's opinion article.
In summary, even his sound statements are marred by his ignoring of the reality of these processes, and my belief is that he has chosen his words very carefully to intentionally provide a limited perspective for the average reader.
Nevertheless, you should read his piece in Newsday because it does form part of the balance of what needs to be better dialogue on the issue of costs versus benefits, and form versus function, of education in New York State.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Pediatrician Provides Some Excellent Advice
In today's NY Times Dr. Perri Klass, a pediatrician, authored an article with some excellent advice on the subject of bullying, and how pediatricians can help parents and schools to recognize problems, and to more effectively combat this problem.
Dr. Klass notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics will publish an updated policy on the pediatrician's role in preventing bullying, and she wrote that the policy will now have a section on bullying including a recommendation that schools adopt a prevention model developed by a research professor of psychology at Norway's University of Bergen.
One of the lead authors of the new policy states, in this article, that the prevention model cited focuses upon the largest group of children in bullying situations, the bystanders, and the second lead author added that one-fourth of all children report that they have been involved in bullying, either as victims or as bullies.
In one of the more revealing statements by Dr. Klass, or perhaps affirming statements (for those parents whose children or whose nieces or nephews or grandchildren have themselves been victims), she notes:
“By definition, bullying involves repetition; a child is repeatedly the target of taunts or physical attacks - or, in the case of so-called indirect bullying (more common among girls), rumors and social exclusion. For a successful anti-bullying program, the school needs to survey the children and find out the details - where it happens, when it happens.”
To take advantage of the insight of Dr. Klass, and the American Academy of Pediatrics' new policy guidelines, and the model developed by the University of Bergen, it will require each school district to be open to new ideas, and to recognize that it can always improve if it does not act as if it is already the source of all wisdom.
This seems another example of the need to be open to a Best Practices philosophy.
Dr. Klass' article, on page D5 of Tuesday's Times, or available on the NY Times website [“At Last, Facing Down Bullies (and their Enablers)], is worth your consideration.
Dr. Klass notes that the American Academy of Pediatrics will publish an updated policy on the pediatrician's role in preventing bullying, and she wrote that the policy will now have a section on bullying including a recommendation that schools adopt a prevention model developed by a research professor of psychology at Norway's University of Bergen.
One of the lead authors of the new policy states, in this article, that the prevention model cited focuses upon the largest group of children in bullying situations, the bystanders, and the second lead author added that one-fourth of all children report that they have been involved in bullying, either as victims or as bullies.
In one of the more revealing statements by Dr. Klass, or perhaps affirming statements (for those parents whose children or whose nieces or nephews or grandchildren have themselves been victims), she notes:
“By definition, bullying involves repetition; a child is repeatedly the target of taunts or physical attacks - or, in the case of so-called indirect bullying (more common among girls), rumors and social exclusion. For a successful anti-bullying program, the school needs to survey the children and find out the details - where it happens, when it happens.”
To take advantage of the insight of Dr. Klass, and the American Academy of Pediatrics' new policy guidelines, and the model developed by the University of Bergen, it will require each school district to be open to new ideas, and to recognize that it can always improve if it does not act as if it is already the source of all wisdom.
This seems another example of the need to be open to a Best Practices philosophy.
Dr. Klass' article, on page D5 of Tuesday's Times, or available on the NY Times website [“At Last, Facing Down Bullies (and their Enablers)], is worth your consideration.
Sit Down Before You Read This Newsday Article
Sunday's Newsday, on pages A6 and A7 had an interesting -- if fiscally disturbing -- article, titled "Pension costs rise, taxes next?", on the growing costs of the NY State Teachers Retirement System.
For those who no longer have the paper, it can be accessed on Newsday's website, where it was retitled "Jumbo pensions' spark state funding debate."
I have some concern about the representational fairness of some statements; for example, when comparing one single school year with another, there is the possibility for overstatement of the trend line of the pension fund increase (as there were a few years when school districts, and their taxpayers, were contributing close to zero, since the dramatic rise in the stock market temporarily masked the real costs).
There also may be too much of a focus upon the "Royalty" among the retirees," the superintendents earning absurd amounts in retirement, as most people do not earn anything close to those amounts.
But, you can also use Newsday's website to use their search function to research the retirement pay of any one of the over 131,000 retirees under the Teachers Retirement System. And, yes, some of those amounts, being paid in retirement, and being annually increased by an index to inflation, is far beyond what many residents may have earned during their working career.
Nevertheless, the overall impact of the article, with some facts that are well beyond refutation by any honest person, is powerful, and troubling.
Lest you imagine that the cause is any particular union, or any particular school district, or even any particualr county, there is a damning statement in the article:
"Unlike most private retirees, New York public workers contribute to their pensions for only their first 10 years of employment. In addition, they receive cost-of-living increases and lifetime health insurance, pay no state or local taxes on their pensions and do not have to deduct an offset for for Social Security.
Several of those pension sweeteners were approved by the 2000 state Legislature, and they have dramatically driven up costs, according to local budget officials."
It is that last sentence that makes it clear that our problems can only be solved by the State Assembly and the State Senate and the Governor of New York.
But, although the power rests with the legislators and the governor, the pressure potential to change, for good, or the pressure potential to resist change and plummet this State and its taxpayers into fiscal perdition, rests with the New York State United Teachers and local teachers unions such as our own.
If they do not become part of the solution, then they will indeed become the anchor which drags us all beneath the water, and ultimately destroys education in New York State.
This article in Newsday is well worth your time and consideration.
For those who no longer have the paper, it can be accessed on Newsday's website, where it was retitled "Jumbo pensions' spark state funding debate."
I have some concern about the representational fairness of some statements; for example, when comparing one single school year with another, there is the possibility for overstatement of the trend line of the pension fund increase (as there were a few years when school districts, and their taxpayers, were contributing close to zero, since the dramatic rise in the stock market temporarily masked the real costs).
There also may be too much of a focus upon the "Royalty" among the retirees," the superintendents earning absurd amounts in retirement, as most people do not earn anything close to those amounts.
But, you can also use Newsday's website to use their search function to research the retirement pay of any one of the over 131,000 retirees under the Teachers Retirement System. And, yes, some of those amounts, being paid in retirement, and being annually increased by an index to inflation, is far beyond what many residents may have earned during their working career.
Nevertheless, the overall impact of the article, with some facts that are well beyond refutation by any honest person, is powerful, and troubling.
Lest you imagine that the cause is any particular union, or any particular school district, or even any particualr county, there is a damning statement in the article:
"Unlike most private retirees, New York public workers contribute to their pensions for only their first 10 years of employment. In addition, they receive cost-of-living increases and lifetime health insurance, pay no state or local taxes on their pensions and do not have to deduct an offset for for Social Security.
Several of those pension sweeteners were approved by the 2000 state Legislature, and they have dramatically driven up costs, according to local budget officials."
It is that last sentence that makes it clear that our problems can only be solved by the State Assembly and the State Senate and the Governor of New York.
But, although the power rests with the legislators and the governor, the pressure potential to change, for good, or the pressure potential to resist change and plummet this State and its taxpayers into fiscal perdition, rests with the New York State United Teachers and local teachers unions such as our own.
If they do not become part of the solution, then they will indeed become the anchor which drags us all beneath the water, and ultimately destroys education in New York State.
This article in Newsday is well worth your time and consideration.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Understanding, and Helping, Your Young Teens
As many of you may have read on Friday, the St. Petersburg Times did an excellent article on the general subject of bullying during the early teenage years. Titled Walker Middle rape case represents every parent's nightmare, the story was triggered by a particularly shocking incident at a middle school near Tampa, but they covered a variety of issues and focused upon the tendency of students at that age to withhold information, even at their peril.
In today’s St. Petersburg Times, there is a powerful follow-up article, titled Middle school locker room: a lawless frontier, which narrows the focus to boys in their early teenage years. For any parent of boys in or approaching their teenage years, this is a worthwhile read.
Our own district has taken a number of steps to sensitize students to the problem of bullying, but it is obvious from these two articles that some things may be kept secret by some teens, and that others may not be sensitive to the fact that what some call “high jinks” may only be a short step from engaging in bullying.
On the theory that not every student embraces important messages from any school district, and that every parent wants to protect their child from possible harm rather than punish a future potential bully who might harm their child, you may want to understand all of these issues, and be a proactive parent in communicating with your own children.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
When Did Elwood Become Eden?
PANGLOSS:
“Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!”
STUDENTS:
“Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!”
No, this is not an essay on musical theatre, but I find a number of parallels between some themes of Leonard Bernstein's Candide, roughly based on Voltaire's Candide, and this community of Elwood.
One of my frustrations is the failure of many, though certainly not our Board of Education and not some of our teachers and some of our administrators and not most parents, but many, to embrace a Best Practices approach in improving the educational experience for the children of the Elwood community.
There is this disturbing and periodic obsession about a mythical Elwood of ten or twenty years ago, as if it was Camelot (whether the Camelot of King Arthur or of JFK), or as if it was some blessed kingdom of the educational fairies, and there is certainly a revulsion by some against engaging in honest and candid dialogue about how we might do better.
Pangloss, who is both philosopher and teacher and mentor to Candide, continues in that song about the best of all possible worlds:
ALL:
“Now onto conjugations!”
PANGLOSS:
“Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!”
STUDENTS:
“Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!”
PANGLOSS:
“Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses [blows a kiss]
The best of all possible worlds!”
STUDENTS:
“Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses [blows a kiss]
The best of all possible worlds!”
Does any of that seem familiar to you?
I have witnessed far too many parallels, over the past nine years, after I was finally able to take part in the educational experience of my children, and after I was finally free in July of 2000 to work on something other than my responsibilities at Chase, and my responsibilities in the Navy.
My own attempt to bring a Best Practices approach to the Elwood School District, which began in 2001, was based upon what I learned from some of my Chase clients, along with the very successful Japanese auto industry concept of Kaizen, which means “continuous improvement.”
I kept visiting other school districts to attend their Board of Education meetings, and I kept looking at their websites to glean useful information, and I would periodically bring that to the attention of our own Board and whomever was Superintendent at the time.
Later, after our Board created the myriad of committees and subcommittees which we now have (to channel the experience and intellectual curiosity of Elwood residents into helping the Board to improve their own performance), I brought those Best Practices and Kaizen applications to committees on which I was serving.
To be succinct, “good enough” is not an acceptable attitude, whether that is in industry, or in the military, or in government, or in education.
In the Finale of Bernstein's Candide, there is a beautiful and poignant song, begun as a duet and ending as a triumphal recitation by the cast, in which they identify a key element of life, which is to do all that you can, and to be honest about it.
Candide starts the song, and in the middle of the first verse, he pleads:
“And let us try,
Before we die,
To make some sense of life.
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.”
My friends, what so often saddens me is the attitude of complacency in parts of the Elwood educational bureaucracy and even among some parents.
We see the denial, by some, that other school districts do a number of things better than Elwood.
We see the disdain, by many, for even caring about trying to do better.
We see the preference, by most, that we keep our metaphorical pinkies in the right position when metaphorically drinking tea, and that artificial propriety is preferred to having an honest and free dialogue about getting better, and doing better.
For those folks in Elwood, the last line of Candide which I cited would have to be rewritten:
“We'll do the least we know.”
When are we going to get serious about getting better and doing better?
When are we going to acknowledge that while some districts do things not as well as Elwood, it is also true that some do things better than Elwood, and that we can indeed learn from them?
But, like trying to overcome an addiction, the first step of any twelve-step program is to acknowledge the problem.
And, like any intervention, it is essential that there be honest and free dialogue.
This is not the best of all possible worlds.
“Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!”
STUDENTS:
“Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!”
No, this is not an essay on musical theatre, but I find a number of parallels between some themes of Leonard Bernstein's Candide, roughly based on Voltaire's Candide, and this community of Elwood.
One of my frustrations is the failure of many, though certainly not our Board of Education and not some of our teachers and some of our administrators and not most parents, but many, to embrace a Best Practices approach in improving the educational experience for the children of the Elwood community.
There is this disturbing and periodic obsession about a mythical Elwood of ten or twenty years ago, as if it was Camelot (whether the Camelot of King Arthur or of JFK), or as if it was some blessed kingdom of the educational fairies, and there is certainly a revulsion by some against engaging in honest and candid dialogue about how we might do better.
Pangloss, who is both philosopher and teacher and mentor to Candide, continues in that song about the best of all possible worlds:
ALL:
“Now onto conjugations!”
PANGLOSS:
“Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!”
STUDENTS:
“Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!”
PANGLOSS:
“Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses [blows a kiss]
The best of all possible worlds!”
STUDENTS:
“Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses [blows a kiss]
The best of all possible worlds!”
Does any of that seem familiar to you?
I have witnessed far too many parallels, over the past nine years, after I was finally able to take part in the educational experience of my children, and after I was finally free in July of 2000 to work on something other than my responsibilities at Chase, and my responsibilities in the Navy.
My own attempt to bring a Best Practices approach to the Elwood School District, which began in 2001, was based upon what I learned from some of my Chase clients, along with the very successful Japanese auto industry concept of Kaizen, which means “continuous improvement.”
I kept visiting other school districts to attend their Board of Education meetings, and I kept looking at their websites to glean useful information, and I would periodically bring that to the attention of our own Board and whomever was Superintendent at the time.
Later, after our Board created the myriad of committees and subcommittees which we now have (to channel the experience and intellectual curiosity of Elwood residents into helping the Board to improve their own performance), I brought those Best Practices and Kaizen applications to committees on which I was serving.
To be succinct, “good enough” is not an acceptable attitude, whether that is in industry, or in the military, or in government, or in education.
In the Finale of Bernstein's Candide, there is a beautiful and poignant song, begun as a duet and ending as a triumphal recitation by the cast, in which they identify a key element of life, which is to do all that you can, and to be honest about it.
Candide starts the song, and in the middle of the first verse, he pleads:
“And let us try,
Before we die,
To make some sense of life.
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.”
My friends, what so often saddens me is the attitude of complacency in parts of the Elwood educational bureaucracy and even among some parents.
We see the denial, by some, that other school districts do a number of things better than Elwood.
We see the disdain, by many, for even caring about trying to do better.
We see the preference, by most, that we keep our metaphorical pinkies in the right position when metaphorically drinking tea, and that artificial propriety is preferred to having an honest and free dialogue about getting better, and doing better.
For those folks in Elwood, the last line of Candide which I cited would have to be rewritten:
“We'll do the least we know.”
When are we going to get serious about getting better and doing better?
When are we going to acknowledge that while some districts do things not as well as Elwood, it is also true that some do things better than Elwood, and that we can indeed learn from them?
But, like trying to overcome an addiction, the first step of any twelve-step program is to acknowledge the problem.
And, like any intervention, it is essential that there be honest and free dialogue.
This is not the best of all possible worlds.
Newsday Makes Some Great Points About School Costs
Having been away for several days, I am still catching up on what the local and national media said during that time.
For anyone who has not been living inside a glass bubble for the past few years, or for anyone who has been living in the real world and not been in deep denial about reality, the subject of escalating school costs and its impact on the affordability of living on Long Island is something that we know is critical for all of us.
On Sunday, May 17th, Newsday had its lead editorial titled "A coming crisis in school costs," which appeared on page A40, and which is found on their website, in an updated and slightly modified version, titled "There's a crisis coming for school costs." If this link does not work, you can paste into your browser the following:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpschl1712766398may18,0,1629189.story
The entire Newsday editorial is worth your reading and consideration, but I would like to highlight a few sections of particular importance.
The Newsday paragraph that will probably have the various teachers unions up in arms, since an enlightened public is a more likely challenge to the covert and intentionally complicated structure of contracts negotiated by those unions, is as follows:
"Voters would also be better able to exercise local control if they were given more information about teachers' contracts. Salary structures could be posted online, giving a fuller picture of the step raises, educational credits and other boosts to salaries. Parents seeking an excellent district might certainly be willing to pay higher taxes for better performance, but taxpayers should know the details of the planned wage increase as well as the hidden escalators."
Now, to that very point about hidden escalators, on May 21st of 2007 I published a piece, titled "What About That "Elephant in the Room?", that dealt with the intricacies of contracts which allow unions and some complicit boards of education and superintendents to play down the full cost of the teaching staff of a school district. You may read that original commentary on this blog as it has been posted, immediately prior to this posting, for convenient reference.
Earlier in the Newsday editorial, the important point is made that Long Islanders should keep in mind "...that a couple of budget-busters are heading our way in two years, and school districts should begin planning for them now. Federal stimulus money is expected to disappear by 2011. And the teachers' retirement fund has lost so much money in the market crash that schools' pension contributions will soon soar."
At the end of the editorial, Newsday sums up with a plea to all, including the teachers unions:
"School spending, which accounts for 65 to 70 percent of property taxes in Long Island communities, needs to slow down so we can all afford to live here together - teachers included. We shouldn't wait two years for a crisis before taking action."
As I said, the entire Newsday editorial is worth reading, and after you have read it, please consider how you can get involved to prevent the implosion of our school systems on Long Island if rapid, and even radical, change is not made to protect the education of your children, and to preserve your home values from the destruction of unaffordable tax increases.
Jerry Hannon
For anyone who has not been living inside a glass bubble for the past few years, or for anyone who has been living in the real world and not been in deep denial about reality, the subject of escalating school costs and its impact on the affordability of living on Long Island is something that we know is critical for all of us.
On Sunday, May 17th, Newsday had its lead editorial titled "A coming crisis in school costs," which appeared on page A40, and which is found on their website, in an updated and slightly modified version, titled "There's a crisis coming for school costs." If this link does not work, you can paste into your browser the following:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpschl1712766398may18,0,1629189.story
The entire Newsday editorial is worth your reading and consideration, but I would like to highlight a few sections of particular importance.
The Newsday paragraph that will probably have the various teachers unions up in arms, since an enlightened public is a more likely challenge to the covert and intentionally complicated structure of contracts negotiated by those unions, is as follows:
"Voters would also be better able to exercise local control if they were given more information about teachers' contracts. Salary structures could be posted online, giving a fuller picture of the step raises, educational credits and other boosts to salaries. Parents seeking an excellent district might certainly be willing to pay higher taxes for better performance, but taxpayers should know the details of the planned wage increase as well as the hidden escalators."
Now, to that very point about hidden escalators, on May 21st of 2007 I published a piece, titled "What About That "Elephant in the Room?", that dealt with the intricacies of contracts which allow unions and some complicit boards of education and superintendents to play down the full cost of the teaching staff of a school district. You may read that original commentary on this blog as it has been posted, immediately prior to this posting, for convenient reference.
Earlier in the Newsday editorial, the important point is made that Long Islanders should keep in mind "...that a couple of budget-busters are heading our way in two years, and school districts should begin planning for them now. Federal stimulus money is expected to disappear by 2011. And the teachers' retirement fund has lost so much money in the market crash that schools' pension contributions will soon soar."
At the end of the editorial, Newsday sums up with a plea to all, including the teachers unions:
"School spending, which accounts for 65 to 70 percent of property taxes in Long Island communities, needs to slow down so we can all afford to live here together - teachers included. We shouldn't wait two years for a crisis before taking action."
As I said, the entire Newsday editorial is worth reading, and after you have read it, please consider how you can get involved to prevent the implosion of our school systems on Long Island if rapid, and even radical, change is not made to protect the education of your children, and to preserve your home values from the destruction of unaffordable tax increases.
Jerry Hannon
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What About That “Elephant in the Room?”
[originally created and distributed to E-mail networks on 5/21/07, but still relevant]
In its May 13th edition, on page A46, Newsday published a full page editorial on the important topic of the costs of running school districts on Long Island, and its resultant impact upon property taxes.
One of the things that the editorial highlighted was our need to address the reality - versus the practice of obscurity that seems to be preferred by most district superintendents and most boards of education - of the cost of salaries and benefits, primarily for teachers and secondarily for administrators and other staff.
The Newsday editorial's most important paragraphs on this point were the following:
-------------------------------
"Teachers' pets
But the biggest chunk of any school's budget is the salaries and benefits paid to teachers, administrators and other staff. And that's where school boards have fallen short. Even when a district announces a contract agreement that holds raises to the level of the inflation-induced cost-of-living increase, the reality is that district employees - especially teachers - will receive double that.
What's often not understood by taxpayers is the impact of automatic "step increases" for longevity or academic credits earned. Even if a district won a "zero" - no annual increase - the payroll could rise by several percentage points. And benefits, particularly health care, by even more."
-------------------------------
Newsday has basically validated the analysis that I first did last December, after three of the five members of our Board of Education, following the recommendation of our Superintendent, voted to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for a new contract with the teachers union, fully six and one half months before the existing contract was even due to expire.
Anyone at the December 14th BOE meeting heard that agreement described as basically a “3% raise, plus Step,” and my December 20th community commentary pointed out the lack of candor in any such description.
I went on to provide an analysis using the existing contract and demonstrated how, at one particular Column level of 4 (corresponding to a Masters Degree of one hypothetical teacher), and at Step 5, such a teacher would actually receive 4.15% more just for being in place one additional year, i.e. Step 6, without any increase in the contract which had just been agreed by the BOE.
That does not mean that all Step/Column increases would be so generous, since the Step increases vary significantly among the Columns, and even among the particular Steps. But it did demonstrate that if an administrator or a trustee was merely speaking of 3% increases to the contract, i.e. by the new Memorandum of Agreement, he/she was not really speaking about true annual costs to the District and its taxpayers.
In April, Northport's local newspaper, The Observer, published my letter to the editor which noted, among other things, the following:
----------------------------------
“…we have to watch out for administrators or trustees, of any school districts, who refer to contract settlements that provide for a hypothetical increase of, say, 3% per annum, when the reality is that employees are actually receiving salary increases of more like 5% to 6% per annum.
How is that possible?
Most teachers' union contracts have automatic salary escalators that
provide an increase to an employee merely by being in the same job for one more year. There is no performance review for the employee, and whether someone is a superior teacher, or average, or deficient, all employees at that particular level (in Elwood's contract these are called “Steps”) would receive the same increase, aside from any increases negotiated for a new contract.
Wouldn't we all like to have that?
There are also increases built into most contracts that are provided when a teacher accumulates a certain number of additional postgraduate credits, or an additional degree. In private industry, or in the military, these do not result in another automatic salary increase, although they could be a factor in one's performance review.
So, when any BOE or Superintendent speaks only about an increase of 3% or 3.25%, they may be technically correct (i.e., more honest than Bush's “weapons of mass destruction,” or Clinton's “depends upon what the definition of 'is' is” ), but they are not being candid with their residents about the true compensation packages which are awarded to teachers.”
-------------------------------------
In any event, the days of ignoring the “Elephant in the Room,” the cost of teachers' contracts, which have been accelerating faster than in private industry (or even in our overstretched military, for that matter), are over.
Even Newsday has finally acknowledged that this often unrecognized, and unbalanced, one-way economic street is not sustainable.
The next step should be a published candid analysis, by our District, and indeed by every district on Long Island, of the total cost - and total benefit to the teachers - of the compensation packages for teachers unions (including their salaries, plus their healthcare benefits, plus their pension benefits). We will then need a healthy dose of realism on the part of teachers unions, and their individual members, which must result in their willingness to accept their own fair share of the burden of escalating costs that has, until now, been primarily borne by the taxpayers, as well as by the students who sometime have to sacrifice courses, or clubs, or athletics, or arts programs, in their own schools.
Fairness, all around, is a very reasonable concept.
Jerry Hannon
In its May 13th edition, on page A46, Newsday published a full page editorial on the important topic of the costs of running school districts on Long Island, and its resultant impact upon property taxes.
One of the things that the editorial highlighted was our need to address the reality - versus the practice of obscurity that seems to be preferred by most district superintendents and most boards of education - of the cost of salaries and benefits, primarily for teachers and secondarily for administrators and other staff.
The Newsday editorial's most important paragraphs on this point were the following:
-------------------------------
"Teachers' pets
But the biggest chunk of any school's budget is the salaries and benefits paid to teachers, administrators and other staff. And that's where school boards have fallen short. Even when a district announces a contract agreement that holds raises to the level of the inflation-induced cost-of-living increase, the reality is that district employees - especially teachers - will receive double that.
What's often not understood by taxpayers is the impact of automatic "step increases" for longevity or academic credits earned. Even if a district won a "zero" - no annual increase - the payroll could rise by several percentage points. And benefits, particularly health care, by even more."
-------------------------------
Newsday has basically validated the analysis that I first did last December, after three of the five members of our Board of Education, following the recommendation of our Superintendent, voted to approve the Memorandum of Agreement for a new contract with the teachers union, fully six and one half months before the existing contract was even due to expire.
Anyone at the December 14th BOE meeting heard that agreement described as basically a “3% raise, plus Step,” and my December 20th community commentary pointed out the lack of candor in any such description.
I went on to provide an analysis using the existing contract and demonstrated how, at one particular Column level of 4 (corresponding to a Masters Degree of one hypothetical teacher), and at Step 5, such a teacher would actually receive 4.15% more just for being in place one additional year, i.e. Step 6, without any increase in the contract which had just been agreed by the BOE.
That does not mean that all Step/Column increases would be so generous, since the Step increases vary significantly among the Columns, and even among the particular Steps. But it did demonstrate that if an administrator or a trustee was merely speaking of 3% increases to the contract, i.e. by the new Memorandum of Agreement, he/she was not really speaking about true annual costs to the District and its taxpayers.
In April, Northport's local newspaper, The Observer, published my letter to the editor which noted, among other things, the following:
----------------------------------
“…we have to watch out for administrators or trustees, of any school districts, who refer to contract settlements that provide for a hypothetical increase of, say, 3% per annum, when the reality is that employees are actually receiving salary increases of more like 5% to 6% per annum.
How is that possible?
Most teachers' union contracts have automatic salary escalators that
provide an increase to an employee merely by being in the same job for one more year. There is no performance review for the employee, and whether someone is a superior teacher, or average, or deficient, all employees at that particular level (in Elwood's contract these are called “Steps”) would receive the same increase, aside from any increases negotiated for a new contract.
Wouldn't we all like to have that?
There are also increases built into most contracts that are provided when a teacher accumulates a certain number of additional postgraduate credits, or an additional degree. In private industry, or in the military, these do not result in another automatic salary increase, although they could be a factor in one's performance review.
So, when any BOE or Superintendent speaks only about an increase of 3% or 3.25%, they may be technically correct (i.e., more honest than Bush's “weapons of mass destruction,” or Clinton's “depends upon what the definition of 'is' is” ), but they are not being candid with their residents about the true compensation packages which are awarded to teachers.”
-------------------------------------
In any event, the days of ignoring the “Elephant in the Room,” the cost of teachers' contracts, which have been accelerating faster than in private industry (or even in our overstretched military, for that matter), are over.
Even Newsday has finally acknowledged that this often unrecognized, and unbalanced, one-way economic street is not sustainable.
The next step should be a published candid analysis, by our District, and indeed by every district on Long Island, of the total cost - and total benefit to the teachers - of the compensation packages for teachers unions (including their salaries, plus their healthcare benefits, plus their pension benefits). We will then need a healthy dose of realism on the part of teachers unions, and their individual members, which must result in their willingness to accept their own fair share of the burden of escalating costs that has, until now, been primarily borne by the taxpayers, as well as by the students who sometime have to sacrifice courses, or clubs, or athletics, or arts programs, in their own schools.
Fairness, all around, is a very reasonable concept.
Jerry Hannon
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
What Can Be Done About Teenager Dangerous Driving?
Having read a recent request, from Elwood resident Susan Katz, for community organization and individual support for a grant application to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Safe Kids Suffolk, I wanted to look further into the issue of parent involvement in teen driver safety.
Susan is a registered nurse at Stony Brook University Hospital and an active leader in Safe Kids Suffolk, which is part of Safe Kids USA. The organization focuses upon injury prevention among children, of all ages, and Susan has been a strong advocate for this for at least as long as I have known her.
On behalf of the board of directors of our local civic association, I was pleased to join other community organizations in supporting their grant application, which would be used "to build a program that focuses on parental enforcement of house driving rules for teen drivers." The request letter from Safe Kids Suffolk also noted that "parental involvement is at a peak at licensure, but declines rapidly through the first 12 months of teen driving."
Having read their request, and being enlightened a bit about these risks and possible steps to reduce these risks, I did a bit more research and found an interesting article which was recently in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussing a new thirty second ad campaign which seems quite powerful.
The story was titled "Teen drivers: Ad campaign targets risky road behavior," and it noted that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 19-year-olds in U.S. That is a frightening statistic for any parent, so you have to wonder what you can do to help.
Safe Kids Suffolk is trying to be a partner with you, and you can E-mail them at suffolksafekids@yahoo.com to get further information about this, or other programs designed to reduce injuries for all of our children.
Susan is a registered nurse at Stony Brook University Hospital and an active leader in Safe Kids Suffolk, which is part of Safe Kids USA. The organization focuses upon injury prevention among children, of all ages, and Susan has been a strong advocate for this for at least as long as I have known her.
On behalf of the board of directors of our local civic association, I was pleased to join other community organizations in supporting their grant application, which would be used "to build a program that focuses on parental enforcement of house driving rules for teen drivers." The request letter from Safe Kids Suffolk also noted that "parental involvement is at a peak at licensure, but declines rapidly through the first 12 months of teen driving."
Having read their request, and being enlightened a bit about these risks and possible steps to reduce these risks, I did a bit more research and found an interesting article which was recently in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussing a new thirty second ad campaign which seems quite powerful.
The story was titled "Teen drivers: Ad campaign targets risky road behavior," and it noted that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 19-year-olds in U.S. That is a frightening statistic for any parent, so you have to wonder what you can do to help.
Safe Kids Suffolk is trying to be a partner with you, and you can E-mail them at suffolksafekids@yahoo.com to get further information about this, or other programs designed to reduce injuries for all of our children.
May 19th School Budget Vote and Trustee Election
On Tuesday, May 19th, you have an opportunity to vote on the Proposed 2009/10 School Budget, as well as to vote for two Trustee positions on the Board of Education.
Budget:
At this point, everyone should have received the May edition of Elwood Highlights, which has a great deal of information on the proposed budget, as well as comparative data for your consideration.
Normally a great deal more time is spent in preparing each May's edition of Elwood Highlights, which is always the "Special Budget Edition," but this year we had some beyond-last-minute negotiations between the teachers union and the Board of Education (BOE). The good news, indeed the very good news, is that the teachers have agreed to eliminate the 3% increase which was scheduled in their contract for the 2009/10 school year, and this has resulted in $500,000 savings for the district and district taxpayers. If it were not for that delay, with its wonderful results, a bit more care could have gone into preparing the body of the Special Budget Edition, but the essential information is there for you to consider.
For those on the two distribution lists for Elwood community commentaries, and who save some of these, there are three pertinent commentaries which you might want to reread: (1) on 4/29, "Proposed Budget Approved - Synopsis"; (2) on 5/3, "Proposed Budget and the FDK Mystery"; and, (3) on 5/8, "How Do You Spell Myopia?"
For the convenience of readers of this blog who might not be on the two distribution lists for those community commentaries, they are reprinted here in original date order.
In the most recent cited commentary, "How Do You Spell Myopia?", I indicate why I am supporting this proposed budget, and why I will vote for it, despite the actions of some people who actually were urging Elwood residents to vote "no" last year, simply because they were not satisfied that the 2008/09 budget did not provide for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
Unlike them, I am not willing to punish Grades 1 through 12 because of the deplorable tactics which they employed. This is a K through 12 district, and this budget, despite what I perceive as the failures thus far of the District Administration to give sufficient attention to the needs of the later grades, is good for the district overall.
Let's get this done, and pass this budget, and then focus upon any possible weaknesses yet to be remedied.
The fact remains that our BOE, and our District Administration, were very conscious about the current economic and fiscal crisis, and were diligent in holding down expenses. The 2.33% increase in budget, at a time of escalating energy costs, and escalating health care costs, and escalating transportation costs, is as low as I have ever seen it.
Unfortunately, even though the State restored the cuts that they had originally scheduled, they have not kept up with the increases which had been promised about two years ago, and that means property taxpayers will need to pick up a larger share of the budget increase. But, with a projected tax levy increase of 3.66%, partially enabled by the teachers gracious concession, it is at least a somewhat manageable tax increase.
Trustees:
Now, on to the two Trustees who are running for reelection, Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro; the fact that nobody filed petitions to oppose Dan and Joe, is understandable. Aside from the fact that both Dan and Joe significantly increased their victory margin in 2006 from 2003, when they were first elected, we must also keep in mind that the Board and District reforms which have blessed this community over the past six years were enabled when Dan and Joe combined with Mike Kaszubski in 2003 to form a reform-minded majority. Subsequently other Trustees joined the Board to strengthen this democratizing coalition.
Just think of this; since 2003 we have witnessed the following improvements:
(1) Creation of a Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (actually one of Dan's 2003 campaign platform proposals) to provide the BOE with the benefit of advice from finance and accounting professionals, as they examine various financial aspects, including the formative proposed budget and, expected in 2009/10, a strategic financial plan for the district;
(2) Creation of a Financial Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC), before the State ever required school districts to have Audit Committees, to provide better protection for the taxpayers of this district, in light of problems that became known in such school districts as Roslyn, William Floyd, and Three Village; the FOAC was subsequently converted to become the district's Audit Committee, after the state finally caught up and effectively agreed with Elwood's BOE.
(3) Creation of five Subcommittees of the BOE, to take advantage of the professional talents and the personal interests of residents, covering the following areas: Curriculum and Technology; Facilities; Personnel; Policy; and Public Relations.
(4) Creation of three Roundtable forums, one with Staff, one with Parents, and one with Other Residents and community organizations, to engage in dialogue on what had been taking place, and what might be considered, in the Elwood School District.
(5) Creation of a second Residents Remarks period at BOE Regular Meetings, thereby increasing the dialogue between Board and residents, and allowing residents to speak with more immediate impact than the previous structure by which comments on the meeting would have to wait until the next BOE meeting.
(6) Creation, for the first time, of a monthly BOE Work Session where residents could listen to detailed discussions by BOE members about various subjects to be covered at future Regular Meetings.
(7) Creation, subsequently, and also for the first time, of a Residents Remarks period at the new BOE Work Sessions, so residents could present questions or comments pertaining to discussion items.
(8) Creation, for the first time, of a BOE collective E-mail address; until then, residents could only send E-mails to Board Trustees if they happened to know a Trustee's personal E-mail address.
(9) Creation, for the first time, of three “Board Books,” containing the detailed action items which the BOE sees, but which were previously unknown to Residents, and those Books are placed at the back of the auditorium before every BOE Regular Meeting for review by any resident.
Three words come to mind: (1) openness; (2) candor; and (3) accountability.
And, as if that were not enough, Dan and Joe have helped this Board push for numerous educational initiatives including the innovative virtual high school (shorthand VHS), which is so useful in a small school district like ours (as we can link with other small districts to provide a greater variety of course offerings for high school students), health and nutrition improvements, and a personal finance elective.
Also, the BOE and former Superintendent Bill Swart joined to create the District Strategic Planning Council, to create the first concrete strategic plan for this district as well as a process for periodically updating the plan, so that Elwood would operate more on the basis of well-conceived and long range plans for our students and staff.
So, don't just take it for granted that Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro will win reelection; come to the Middle School next Tuesday, and vote for both of them to thank them for their great contributions towards promoting democracy and accountability and creativity in Elwood. It is a grueling job, with no compensation other than knowing they are appreciated, by you, for trying to make things better for Elwood's students and its taxpayers.
Budget:
At this point, everyone should have received the May edition of Elwood Highlights, which has a great deal of information on the proposed budget, as well as comparative data for your consideration.
Normally a great deal more time is spent in preparing each May's edition of Elwood Highlights, which is always the "Special Budget Edition," but this year we had some beyond-last-minute negotiations between the teachers union and the Board of Education (BOE). The good news, indeed the very good news, is that the teachers have agreed to eliminate the 3% increase which was scheduled in their contract for the 2009/10 school year, and this has resulted in $500,000 savings for the district and district taxpayers. If it were not for that delay, with its wonderful results, a bit more care could have gone into preparing the body of the Special Budget Edition, but the essential information is there for you to consider.
For those on the two distribution lists for Elwood community commentaries, and who save some of these, there are three pertinent commentaries which you might want to reread: (1) on 4/29, "Proposed Budget Approved - Synopsis"; (2) on 5/3, "Proposed Budget and the FDK Mystery"; and, (3) on 5/8, "How Do You Spell Myopia?"
For the convenience of readers of this blog who might not be on the two distribution lists for those community commentaries, they are reprinted here in original date order.
In the most recent cited commentary, "How Do You Spell Myopia?", I indicate why I am supporting this proposed budget, and why I will vote for it, despite the actions of some people who actually were urging Elwood residents to vote "no" last year, simply because they were not satisfied that the 2008/09 budget did not provide for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
Unlike them, I am not willing to punish Grades 1 through 12 because of the deplorable tactics which they employed. This is a K through 12 district, and this budget, despite what I perceive as the failures thus far of the District Administration to give sufficient attention to the needs of the later grades, is good for the district overall.
Let's get this done, and pass this budget, and then focus upon any possible weaknesses yet to be remedied.
The fact remains that our BOE, and our District Administration, were very conscious about the current economic and fiscal crisis, and were diligent in holding down expenses. The 2.33% increase in budget, at a time of escalating energy costs, and escalating health care costs, and escalating transportation costs, is as low as I have ever seen it.
Unfortunately, even though the State restored the cuts that they had originally scheduled, they have not kept up with the increases which had been promised about two years ago, and that means property taxpayers will need to pick up a larger share of the budget increase. But, with a projected tax levy increase of 3.66%, partially enabled by the teachers gracious concession, it is at least a somewhat manageable tax increase.
Trustees:
Now, on to the two Trustees who are running for reelection, Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro; the fact that nobody filed petitions to oppose Dan and Joe, is understandable. Aside from the fact that both Dan and Joe significantly increased their victory margin in 2006 from 2003, when they were first elected, we must also keep in mind that the Board and District reforms which have blessed this community over the past six years were enabled when Dan and Joe combined with Mike Kaszubski in 2003 to form a reform-minded majority. Subsequently other Trustees joined the Board to strengthen this democratizing coalition.
Just think of this; since 2003 we have witnessed the following improvements:
(1) Creation of a Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (actually one of Dan's 2003 campaign platform proposals) to provide the BOE with the benefit of advice from finance and accounting professionals, as they examine various financial aspects, including the formative proposed budget and, expected in 2009/10, a strategic financial plan for the district;
(2) Creation of a Financial Oversight Advisory Committee (FOAC), before the State ever required school districts to have Audit Committees, to provide better protection for the taxpayers of this district, in light of problems that became known in such school districts as Roslyn, William Floyd, and Three Village; the FOAC was subsequently converted to become the district's Audit Committee, after the state finally caught up and effectively agreed with Elwood's BOE.
(3) Creation of five Subcommittees of the BOE, to take advantage of the professional talents and the personal interests of residents, covering the following areas: Curriculum and Technology; Facilities; Personnel; Policy; and Public Relations.
(4) Creation of three Roundtable forums, one with Staff, one with Parents, and one with Other Residents and community organizations, to engage in dialogue on what had been taking place, and what might be considered, in the Elwood School District.
(5) Creation of a second Residents Remarks period at BOE Regular Meetings, thereby increasing the dialogue between Board and residents, and allowing residents to speak with more immediate impact than the previous structure by which comments on the meeting would have to wait until the next BOE meeting.
(6) Creation, for the first time, of a monthly BOE Work Session where residents could listen to detailed discussions by BOE members about various subjects to be covered at future Regular Meetings.
(7) Creation, subsequently, and also for the first time, of a Residents Remarks period at the new BOE Work Sessions, so residents could present questions or comments pertaining to discussion items.
(8) Creation, for the first time, of a BOE collective E-mail address; until then, residents could only send E-mails to Board Trustees if they happened to know a Trustee's personal E-mail address.
(9) Creation, for the first time, of three “Board Books,” containing the detailed action items which the BOE sees, but which were previously unknown to Residents, and those Books are placed at the back of the auditorium before every BOE Regular Meeting for review by any resident.
Three words come to mind: (1) openness; (2) candor; and (3) accountability.
And, as if that were not enough, Dan and Joe have helped this Board push for numerous educational initiatives including the innovative virtual high school (shorthand VHS), which is so useful in a small school district like ours (as we can link with other small districts to provide a greater variety of course offerings for high school students), health and nutrition improvements, and a personal finance elective.
Also, the BOE and former Superintendent Bill Swart joined to create the District Strategic Planning Council, to create the first concrete strategic plan for this district as well as a process for periodically updating the plan, so that Elwood would operate more on the basis of well-conceived and long range plans for our students and staff.
So, don't just take it for granted that Dan Ciccone and Joe Fusaro will win reelection; come to the Middle School next Tuesday, and vote for both of them to thank them for their great contributions towards promoting democracy and accountability and creativity in Elwood. It is a grueling job, with no compensation other than knowing they are appreciated, by you, for trying to make things better for Elwood's students and its taxpayers.
How Do You Spell Myopia?
[distribution date - 5/8/09]
Last night there was a combined BOE Work Session and Budget Hearing for the Proposed 2009/10 School Budget which was approved by the Board of Education on April 23rd, at a Special Meeting called for that purpose because of some remaining open issues from the April 16th Regular Meeting of the Board.
But the audience at this Work Session/Budget Hearing was far from the normal assemblage of Elwood residents, and the dialogue, such as it was, seemed like it belonged as a new act in Waiting for Godot.
By that I mean that there were some comments, and some questions, which suggested that the people either did not know that the Board had already approved the Proposed Budget on April 23rd, or that they did not know that this was a Work Session, and that no Board of Education can take an official vote during a Work Session.
During Work Sessions the BOE can discuss issues, and they can speak about reaching consensus, and they can plan for future official Meetings, but all official votes must take place during either Regular Meetings or during Special Meetings of the Board.
The second aspect that seemed bizarre was related to some of the people who were speaking most adamantly, last night, about making sure that this Proposed Budget, with its provision for the initiation of a Full Day Kindergarten program in Elwood, will be approved by the voters.
The reason for my sensation that this could have been from an episode of The Twilight Zone is that a number of these uber-advocates for FDK had themselves urged people to vote “NO” on the Proposed Budget for 2008/09, on the basis that the May 2008 proposal did not include provisions for an FDK program. Yet, here they were, not worrying (or at least not publicly worrying) about the needs of students in Grades 1 through 12, but trying to make sure that nothing could stand in the way of their personal focus upon FDK.
I wonder if I would need to provide a definition of “myopia,” to get some of these folks to understand that this is a K through 12 district, and that we are all in this together?
I wonder if there should be a course on moral responsibility that everyone in Elwood should be required to take, so that we all understand the needs of all of the segments of Elwood society, and not just our own pockets of special interests?
I wonder if there should be a course on critical thinking, and honest intellectual engagement, and candor and clarity of communication, so that we all focus upon the real world rather than some intellectual fairyland?
Despite what I regard as an over-the-top approach to hyper advocacy for single-issue politics, I am on record as supporting the Proposed Budget for 2009/10.
I support the Proposed Budget for 2009/10 not because of the comments of some people who urged last year that the Proposed Budget for 2008/09 be defeated, but despite their comments last night.
I support it because it will help to restore some of the reserve funds that this District will need in these very uncertain financial times, and because it will preserve the integrity of programs for Grades K through 12 as well as valued after-school activities, and because it will protect class size for Elwood's students, and because it will continue our modernization of this District from its former technological wasteland condition to a leading edge District in these rapidly advancing technology times.
I will rise above special interest advocacy and focus upon addressing the needs of all Grades in Elwood's schools, and with a conscious and empathetic focus upon the economic well-being of all families in the community of Elwood.
I urge you to do the same.
Last night there was a combined BOE Work Session and Budget Hearing for the Proposed 2009/10 School Budget which was approved by the Board of Education on April 23rd, at a Special Meeting called for that purpose because of some remaining open issues from the April 16th Regular Meeting of the Board.
But the audience at this Work Session/Budget Hearing was far from the normal assemblage of Elwood residents, and the dialogue, such as it was, seemed like it belonged as a new act in Waiting for Godot.
By that I mean that there were some comments, and some questions, which suggested that the people either did not know that the Board had already approved the Proposed Budget on April 23rd, or that they did not know that this was a Work Session, and that no Board of Education can take an official vote during a Work Session.
During Work Sessions the BOE can discuss issues, and they can speak about reaching consensus, and they can plan for future official Meetings, but all official votes must take place during either Regular Meetings or during Special Meetings of the Board.
The second aspect that seemed bizarre was related to some of the people who were speaking most adamantly, last night, about making sure that this Proposed Budget, with its provision for the initiation of a Full Day Kindergarten program in Elwood, will be approved by the voters.
The reason for my sensation that this could have been from an episode of The Twilight Zone is that a number of these uber-advocates for FDK had themselves urged people to vote “NO” on the Proposed Budget for 2008/09, on the basis that the May 2008 proposal did not include provisions for an FDK program. Yet, here they were, not worrying (or at least not publicly worrying) about the needs of students in Grades 1 through 12, but trying to make sure that nothing could stand in the way of their personal focus upon FDK.
I wonder if I would need to provide a definition of “myopia,” to get some of these folks to understand that this is a K through 12 district, and that we are all in this together?
I wonder if there should be a course on moral responsibility that everyone in Elwood should be required to take, so that we all understand the needs of all of the segments of Elwood society, and not just our own pockets of special interests?
I wonder if there should be a course on critical thinking, and honest intellectual engagement, and candor and clarity of communication, so that we all focus upon the real world rather than some intellectual fairyland?
Despite what I regard as an over-the-top approach to hyper advocacy for single-issue politics, I am on record as supporting the Proposed Budget for 2009/10.
I support the Proposed Budget for 2009/10 not because of the comments of some people who urged last year that the Proposed Budget for 2008/09 be defeated, but despite their comments last night.
I support it because it will help to restore some of the reserve funds that this District will need in these very uncertain financial times, and because it will preserve the integrity of programs for Grades K through 12 as well as valued after-school activities, and because it will protect class size for Elwood's students, and because it will continue our modernization of this District from its former technological wasteland condition to a leading edge District in these rapidly advancing technology times.
I will rise above special interest advocacy and focus upon addressing the needs of all Grades in Elwood's schools, and with a conscious and empathetic focus upon the economic well-being of all families in the community of Elwood.
I urge you to do the same.
Proposed Budget and the FDK Mystery
[distribution date - 5/3/09]
This constitutes Part Two of my summary and commentary regarding the 2009/10 Proposed Budget, which was approved by the Board of Education (BOE) on April 23rd for submission to the voters on May 19th. Part One was the synopsis of the budget approval discussion, and Part Two will focus upon the steps which have brought Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) to Elwood starting September of 2009.
First of all, let’s get one bit of distortion about FDK proponents and opponents purged from our collective minds.
While many people tend to focus upon (1) the minority who have adamantly insisted upon immediate implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, or (2) the minority who have opposed implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, most people in this community were neutral, and that includes each of the five members of our BOE, and numerous residents have called for an objective analysis in the context of all of the needs of this district.
The great majority of residents were open to the concept of FDK implementation, if a complete analysis proved that it was (a) fiscally responsible, and (b) done within the priority schedule of all needs of this K through 12 district, and (c) done without harm to current students in Grades 1 through 12.
I attended nearly all of the BOE’s budget work sessions, and discussions of the budget at regular meetings and at general work sessions, and also attended nearly all meetings of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC), having been a member of that body since its creation over five years ago.
Anyone who attended these various BOE sessions had heard, repeatedly, calls by various trustees, particularly by the Board President, for more definitive information which should include a comprehensive analysis of the 2008 proposal by the Superintendent to implement FDK in 2009/10.
At the April 23rd meeting, after various trustees had made comments about disappointment (I’m using a mild word, considering the reality) in the lack of clarity of the information which they received from the District Administration, there was one somewhat visceral reaction by Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft, during Trustee Ciccone’s remarks, that seemed directed to the wrong person, since Dr. Cancroft had been providing her input to the Superintendent, Mr. Cenerelli, and Mr. Cenerelli was providing his response, and his analysis, to the Board President and to the BOE.
Dr. Cancroft obviously feels that she provided all necessary information to justify the BOE agreeing that FDK should now come to Elwood, yet it was not her responsibility, but that of the Superintendent, to provide the comprehensive analysis which the BOE, quite properly, required.
Moreover, we do not know, since Dr. Cancroft provided her input to Mr. Cenerelli, whether the original work done at Harley was a true comprehensive analysis (multiyear financial projections, financial risk, building operations impact, personnel impact, transportation impact, possible Grades 1 through 12 impact, etc.), or whether it was a series of disjointed topic descriptions that were only comprehensible to someone reading between the lines of the compendium.
But, whatever Dr. Cancroft provided to Mr. Cenerelli, it was clear that the Board President, as well as several members of the BOE, felt that they had not received the information which they had instructed the Superintendent to provide.
In the end, several Trustees did decide to vote to approve the Proposed Budget, including the incorporation of an FDK program for Elwood, but they seemed to do so primarily because they were placing their faith in Dr. Cancroft, and not because of what they had received from Mr. Cenerelli.
In the case of Trustee Kaplan and Trustee Matos, each of them seemed to have some satisfaction from material that they had been able to develop outside the direct channel of the Superintendent-to-BOE President providing to the BOE what he had been instructed to provide, perhaps allowing that to be used as a refining supplement to information which they received from the Superintendent. But they, along with other trustees, seemed far from satisfied with the information received to date.
Mr. Ciccone was the one approving trustee who made very clear that there were remaining concerns about FDK structural integrity and minimal impact on other grades, and who also made very clear that the BOE is not only relying upon upon Dr. Cancroft to make this program successful, but to make it succeed without anyone asking the BOE for additional financial support for FDK in future years.
It was also noted by Mr. Ciccone that there were open questions about how the FDK plan will require adjusting the school day hours at the Middle School, as well as at Harley, and that there were open questions about the impact on AIS instruction.
Mr. Ciccone also made note of the fact that there has never been a true analysis of the alternative FDK model which he had proposed, involving 3 full Harley days and two reduced Harley days, in contrast to the proposed model of five 5 1/2 hour FDK days, which includes 25 instruction hours.
There have been some misguided remarks from the District Administration about the SED not permitting an arrangement such as Mr. Ciccone had proposed, when anyone who reads the actual SED regulation (as I did) clearly sees the language which would permit Mr. Ciccone’s concept, which also has 25 hours of instruction each week, as long as the SED approves it in advance.
The per-annum cost to taxpayers, by the way, after some very diligent work by the BOE, and by the District Administration in response to the BOE, was reduced to only $25,000 in Year One, and $25,000 in Year Two, and about $40,000 in Year Three. Mr. Ciccone believes that his alternative structure could lower the costs further, but that has yet to be demonstrated.
Therefore, for less than $100,000 of net additional costs over the next three years, the Elwood community will have a new and attractive program that could bring other families, with very young children, to consider purchasing a home in Elwood instead of in some of the surrounding communities. That could have some positive implications for the pricing of home resale's in the Elwood community, although some real estate professionals discount that factor.
In any event we are going forward on an FDK program for Elwood with the following predications and provisos:
(1) The viability of Elwood’s FDK program will depend upon Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft making the program work, as she believes that she has demonstrated that viability to the Superintendent of Schools;
(2) Neither Dr. Cancroft, nor the District Administration, should request additional funding for FDK from the BOE and Elwood’s taxpayers;
(3) Any adjustments for unanticipated costs of FDK, therefore, will have to come from within the FDK program itself, rather than from other District resources;
(4) Dr. Cancroft and the District Administration will be expected to minimize any impact upon Grades 1 through 12 as a result of the implementation of the FDK program.
This entire process has provided more evidence, as if it were needed after last year’s FDK proposal debacle, that Elwood’s District Administration, in future years, will be held to higher standards of due diligence, and full compliance with all governance requirements as indicated under State laws and SED regulations.
Surely, we can do better than we have done with this FDK proposal.
This constitutes Part Two of my summary and commentary regarding the 2009/10 Proposed Budget, which was approved by the Board of Education (BOE) on April 23rd for submission to the voters on May 19th. Part One was the synopsis of the budget approval discussion, and Part Two will focus upon the steps which have brought Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) to Elwood starting September of 2009.
First of all, let’s get one bit of distortion about FDK proponents and opponents purged from our collective minds.
While many people tend to focus upon (1) the minority who have adamantly insisted upon immediate implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, or (2) the minority who have opposed implementation of FDK, regardless of objective considerations, most people in this community were neutral, and that includes each of the five members of our BOE, and numerous residents have called for an objective analysis in the context of all of the needs of this district.
The great majority of residents were open to the concept of FDK implementation, if a complete analysis proved that it was (a) fiscally responsible, and (b) done within the priority schedule of all needs of this K through 12 district, and (c) done without harm to current students in Grades 1 through 12.
I attended nearly all of the BOE’s budget work sessions, and discussions of the budget at regular meetings and at general work sessions, and also attended nearly all meetings of the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC), having been a member of that body since its creation over five years ago.
Anyone who attended these various BOE sessions had heard, repeatedly, calls by various trustees, particularly by the Board President, for more definitive information which should include a comprehensive analysis of the 2008 proposal by the Superintendent to implement FDK in 2009/10.
At the April 23rd meeting, after various trustees had made comments about disappointment (I’m using a mild word, considering the reality) in the lack of clarity of the information which they received from the District Administration, there was one somewhat visceral reaction by Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft, during Trustee Ciccone’s remarks, that seemed directed to the wrong person, since Dr. Cancroft had been providing her input to the Superintendent, Mr. Cenerelli, and Mr. Cenerelli was providing his response, and his analysis, to the Board President and to the BOE.
Dr. Cancroft obviously feels that she provided all necessary information to justify the BOE agreeing that FDK should now come to Elwood, yet it was not her responsibility, but that of the Superintendent, to provide the comprehensive analysis which the BOE, quite properly, required.
Moreover, we do not know, since Dr. Cancroft provided her input to Mr. Cenerelli, whether the original work done at Harley was a true comprehensive analysis (multiyear financial projections, financial risk, building operations impact, personnel impact, transportation impact, possible Grades 1 through 12 impact, etc.), or whether it was a series of disjointed topic descriptions that were only comprehensible to someone reading between the lines of the compendium.
But, whatever Dr. Cancroft provided to Mr. Cenerelli, it was clear that the Board President, as well as several members of the BOE, felt that they had not received the information which they had instructed the Superintendent to provide.
In the end, several Trustees did decide to vote to approve the Proposed Budget, including the incorporation of an FDK program for Elwood, but they seemed to do so primarily because they were placing their faith in Dr. Cancroft, and not because of what they had received from Mr. Cenerelli.
In the case of Trustee Kaplan and Trustee Matos, each of them seemed to have some satisfaction from material that they had been able to develop outside the direct channel of the Superintendent-to-BOE President providing to the BOE what he had been instructed to provide, perhaps allowing that to be used as a refining supplement to information which they received from the Superintendent. But they, along with other trustees, seemed far from satisfied with the information received to date.
Mr. Ciccone was the one approving trustee who made very clear that there were remaining concerns about FDK structural integrity and minimal impact on other grades, and who also made very clear that the BOE is not only relying upon upon Dr. Cancroft to make this program successful, but to make it succeed without anyone asking the BOE for additional financial support for FDK in future years.
It was also noted by Mr. Ciccone that there were open questions about how the FDK plan will require adjusting the school day hours at the Middle School, as well as at Harley, and that there were open questions about the impact on AIS instruction.
Mr. Ciccone also made note of the fact that there has never been a true analysis of the alternative FDK model which he had proposed, involving 3 full Harley days and two reduced Harley days, in contrast to the proposed model of five 5 1/2 hour FDK days, which includes 25 instruction hours.
There have been some misguided remarks from the District Administration about the SED not permitting an arrangement such as Mr. Ciccone had proposed, when anyone who reads the actual SED regulation (as I did) clearly sees the language which would permit Mr. Ciccone’s concept, which also has 25 hours of instruction each week, as long as the SED approves it in advance.
The per-annum cost to taxpayers, by the way, after some very diligent work by the BOE, and by the District Administration in response to the BOE, was reduced to only $25,000 in Year One, and $25,000 in Year Two, and about $40,000 in Year Three. Mr. Ciccone believes that his alternative structure could lower the costs further, but that has yet to be demonstrated.
Therefore, for less than $100,000 of net additional costs over the next three years, the Elwood community will have a new and attractive program that could bring other families, with very young children, to consider purchasing a home in Elwood instead of in some of the surrounding communities. That could have some positive implications for the pricing of home resale's in the Elwood community, although some real estate professionals discount that factor.
In any event we are going forward on an FDK program for Elwood with the following predications and provisos:
(1) The viability of Elwood’s FDK program will depend upon Harley Principal Dr. Cancroft making the program work, as she believes that she has demonstrated that viability to the Superintendent of Schools;
(2) Neither Dr. Cancroft, nor the District Administration, should request additional funding for FDK from the BOE and Elwood’s taxpayers;
(3) Any adjustments for unanticipated costs of FDK, therefore, will have to come from within the FDK program itself, rather than from other District resources;
(4) Dr. Cancroft and the District Administration will be expected to minimize any impact upon Grades 1 through 12 as a result of the implementation of the FDK program.
This entire process has provided more evidence, as if it were needed after last year’s FDK proposal debacle, that Elwood’s District Administration, in future years, will be held to higher standards of due diligence, and full compliance with all governance requirements as indicated under State laws and SED regulations.
Surely, we can do better than we have done with this FDK proposal.
Proposed Budget Approved - Synopsis
[distribution date - 4/29/09]
There are very few benefits to enduring a ten hour drive, which is what it takes to get to my daughter's college in western NY State. But, the morning following last Thursday night's special Board of Education meeting, at which some major steps were taken regarding the 2009/10 proposed budget, we were underway to Fredonia, and it gave me a chance to reflect upon what was said and done at that meeting.
For the sake of greater clarity, I am going to break my summary and my analysis into two parts, with this first part providing a general synopsis, and a subsequent second part providing some very specific information and comments relating to the subject of Full Day Kindergarten.
Of a somewhat general nature, dialogue among trustees is much better when it is free of ancillary considerations or contrivances. Therefore, I am going to ignore the somewhat treacly comments of one trustee, and the somewhat self-promoting comments of another trustee, and focus upon the substance of what took place.
First of all, the start of the meeting was delayed by a previously unscheduled Executive Session, at which the Board and cognizant Administrators were joined by Lorelei Stephens, who is the President of Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is our local teachers union.
The wonderful news is that the teachers union agreed to forego the scheduled 3% increase in their contract for 2009/10, which had been in effect since their three year contract was signed as of July of 2007.
That is real money, folks, and we should be grateful to the teachers union that their members will be surrendering approximately $500,000 of expense which was otherwise scheduled to be paid in 2009/10. They responded to calls all over Long Island that employees of school districts share in the sacrifice which most families have had to make since the severe economic recession began.
Now, for anyone who understands the structure of typical teachers contracts, this does not mean that every Elwood teacher will see no increase in their compensation, since it really depends upon where a particular teacher fits into the matrix of steps based upon longevity, and additional credits taken or degrees earned.
But some teachers will indeed have no increase in compensation, and all teachers will be sacrificing the 3% raise which they were otherwise due to receive.
This is a blessing for Elwood’s residents, and it will benefit Elwood’s students and the fiscal health of our district, as I will subsequently outline.
It would have been nice if we had also seen some evidence of sacrifice from administrators in the District, both from the central office and from the buildings, but I must admit that I don't know what compensation increase, if any, they were scheduled to receive in 2009/10. For now, all we know about is the significant sacrifice by our teachers.
Once that agreement had been reached in the Executive Session, it was then necessary for the Board to deliberate on how the $500,000 in savings should be applied, and this was far from a simple matter.
The first consideration was how to reduce the projected increase in the tax levy for 2009/10, which had been left at 3.99% as of the April 16th Board meeting, with a budget spending increase of only 3.37%.
As most of you are aware, even though the State was able, through the special assistance of the Obama Administration and Congress, to restore the aid to Elwood that had been scheduled for elimination, NY State is not keeping pace with increases in costs to school districts, and has not been doing so for years. We have generally had to fund more and more of our expenses through local property tax hikes made necessarily higher than historical ratios demonstrated.
The second consideration was how to restore the fiscal integrity of the Elwood School District, by building up our fund balance (think of the word “reserves” when you hear fund balance) which provides a cushion against future unanticipated fiscal burdens, such as the approximately $200,000 NY State took back from Elwood in 2008 as a recaptured overpayment of aid from prior years.
Elwood’s fund balance had dropped to $325,000, while the district would have been permitted, under State Education Department regulations, to have as high a level as 4% (this permitted level was increased by the State two years ago from 2%) of our annual budget. With a 2008/09 budget of $47.8 million, Elwood would have been permitted to maintain fund balance of about $1,912,000, and without that change we would have been permitted to maintain a fund balance of about $956,000.
Now, do not imagine that fund balance has no cost to you, since it does require a pre-funding, and that pre-funding comes from your taxes. But, the most prudent family does maintain a “rainy day fund”, and the trick is finding the balance between sufficiency and excess. If you are over the age of 40, you might recall the famed ad campaign for California Prunes, where the tag line was “Are three enough; are six too many?” Finding the right fiscal reserve may be as arcane as that ad campaign suggested, and there really is no absolutely right answer.
The third consideration was to examine some of the things that were carved out of the formative budget as it was being prepared by the District Administration and submitted to the Board. Included in that discussion were things like certain textbooks or supplementary material, as well as the proposed sharing of our Asset Sup't for Human Resources with the Harborfields School District.
I would be remiss if I failed to applaud the quality of the discussion among the five Trustees of our Board, who did not agree on every point, but who took principled and reasoned stands on various matters before them.
But I want to provide special praise for the integrity of two Trustees, Board President Mike Kaszubski and Board Vice President Joe Fusaro, each of whom had the courage to vote their convictions against approval of the Proposed Budget, as modified, which was ultimately approved by the Board of Education by a 3 to 2 margin. I am praising these two Trustees who voted “no,” even though I personally support this budget despite my great disappointment in the quality of supporting information which the Superintendent authorized for release, and in the lack of candor from the Superintendent about the Full Day Kindergarten consideration process.
With the reduced expense for the teachers, as a result of their bold action, partially offset by the increased expense for the Ass't Sup't for Human Resources, who would no longer be shared with Harborfields, and partially offset by increased spending for supplementary educational materials, and partially offset by the $300,000 increase to fund balance (think “reserves”), the new Budget to Budget increase was reduced to 2.33%, and the new projected tax levy increase was reduced to 3.66%.
Mr. Fusaro had consistently maintained that more of the teachers concession should be applied to reduce the tax levy further, since people in Elwood were already undergoing economic pain, and that is why he voted no.
Mr. Kaszubski had clearly and consistently and publicly, and he did this throughout the course of the past several months of budget work-up, called for Mr. Cenerelli to provide greater detail, hopefully in the form of a comprehensive analysis, of the Superintendent's proposal for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
This focus upon clarity should also have been no surprise to anyone since Mr. Kaszubski, as well as Mr. Fusaro, and Mr. Ciccone, and Mr. Kaplan, had made clear during the 2007/08 school year, that they did not oppose Full Day Kindergarten, per se, when it was proposed by the previous Superintendent, Dr. Swart. However, they opposed the
badly structured and ill-conceived and risky proposal, as it was launched with great surprise by Dr. Swart in early 2007. Ultimately Dr. Swart, himself, withdrew the proposal and provided sound reasoning to district residents for doing so.
The superintendent of schools of any school district reports, under State law and State Education Department regulations, to the president of the board of education of that school district. When Mr. Cenerelli failed to produce what the Board President had consistently called for, Mr. Kaszubski’s only possible response, in order to maintain the integrity of the office of president of the board of education, and in order to fulfill his fiduciary responsibility to district residents, was to vote against adoption of the proposed budget.
Mr. Kaszubski knew, as did most of the residents in that room paying attention to the dialogue, that the proposed budget would be approved by a majority of the Trustees of the Board of Education, but he was making an important statement about integrity and responsibility.
I will save further comments about Full Day Kindergarten for Part Two of my summary and analysis, which will basically be devoted to that topic, and to the process for its further recommendation in 2008 for our 2009/10 school year.
There are very few benefits to enduring a ten hour drive, which is what it takes to get to my daughter's college in western NY State. But, the morning following last Thursday night's special Board of Education meeting, at which some major steps were taken regarding the 2009/10 proposed budget, we were underway to Fredonia, and it gave me a chance to reflect upon what was said and done at that meeting.
For the sake of greater clarity, I am going to break my summary and my analysis into two parts, with this first part providing a general synopsis, and a subsequent second part providing some very specific information and comments relating to the subject of Full Day Kindergarten.
Of a somewhat general nature, dialogue among trustees is much better when it is free of ancillary considerations or contrivances. Therefore, I am going to ignore the somewhat treacly comments of one trustee, and the somewhat self-promoting comments of another trustee, and focus upon the substance of what took place.
First of all, the start of the meeting was delayed by a previously unscheduled Executive Session, at which the Board and cognizant Administrators were joined by Lorelei Stephens, who is the President of Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is our local teachers union.
The wonderful news is that the teachers union agreed to forego the scheduled 3% increase in their contract for 2009/10, which had been in effect since their three year contract was signed as of July of 2007.
That is real money, folks, and we should be grateful to the teachers union that their members will be surrendering approximately $500,000 of expense which was otherwise scheduled to be paid in 2009/10. They responded to calls all over Long Island that employees of school districts share in the sacrifice which most families have had to make since the severe economic recession began.
Now, for anyone who understands the structure of typical teachers contracts, this does not mean that every Elwood teacher will see no increase in their compensation, since it really depends upon where a particular teacher fits into the matrix of steps based upon longevity, and additional credits taken or degrees earned.
But some teachers will indeed have no increase in compensation, and all teachers will be sacrificing the 3% raise which they were otherwise due to receive.
This is a blessing for Elwood’s residents, and it will benefit Elwood’s students and the fiscal health of our district, as I will subsequently outline.
It would have been nice if we had also seen some evidence of sacrifice from administrators in the District, both from the central office and from the buildings, but I must admit that I don't know what compensation increase, if any, they were scheduled to receive in 2009/10. For now, all we know about is the significant sacrifice by our teachers.
Once that agreement had been reached in the Executive Session, it was then necessary for the Board to deliberate on how the $500,000 in savings should be applied, and this was far from a simple matter.
The first consideration was how to reduce the projected increase in the tax levy for 2009/10, which had been left at 3.99% as of the April 16th Board meeting, with a budget spending increase of only 3.37%.
As most of you are aware, even though the State was able, through the special assistance of the Obama Administration and Congress, to restore the aid to Elwood that had been scheduled for elimination, NY State is not keeping pace with increases in costs to school districts, and has not been doing so for years. We have generally had to fund more and more of our expenses through local property tax hikes made necessarily higher than historical ratios demonstrated.
The second consideration was how to restore the fiscal integrity of the Elwood School District, by building up our fund balance (think of the word “reserves” when you hear fund balance) which provides a cushion against future unanticipated fiscal burdens, such as the approximately $200,000 NY State took back from Elwood in 2008 as a recaptured overpayment of aid from prior years.
Elwood’s fund balance had dropped to $325,000, while the district would have been permitted, under State Education Department regulations, to have as high a level as 4% (this permitted level was increased by the State two years ago from 2%) of our annual budget. With a 2008/09 budget of $47.8 million, Elwood would have been permitted to maintain fund balance of about $1,912,000, and without that change we would have been permitted to maintain a fund balance of about $956,000.
Now, do not imagine that fund balance has no cost to you, since it does require a pre-funding, and that pre-funding comes from your taxes. But, the most prudent family does maintain a “rainy day fund”, and the trick is finding the balance between sufficiency and excess. If you are over the age of 40, you might recall the famed ad campaign for California Prunes, where the tag line was “Are three enough; are six too many?” Finding the right fiscal reserve may be as arcane as that ad campaign suggested, and there really is no absolutely right answer.
The third consideration was to examine some of the things that were carved out of the formative budget as it was being prepared by the District Administration and submitted to the Board. Included in that discussion were things like certain textbooks or supplementary material, as well as the proposed sharing of our Asset Sup't for Human Resources with the Harborfields School District.
I would be remiss if I failed to applaud the quality of the discussion among the five Trustees of our Board, who did not agree on every point, but who took principled and reasoned stands on various matters before them.
But I want to provide special praise for the integrity of two Trustees, Board President Mike Kaszubski and Board Vice President Joe Fusaro, each of whom had the courage to vote their convictions against approval of the Proposed Budget, as modified, which was ultimately approved by the Board of Education by a 3 to 2 margin. I am praising these two Trustees who voted “no,” even though I personally support this budget despite my great disappointment in the quality of supporting information which the Superintendent authorized for release, and in the lack of candor from the Superintendent about the Full Day Kindergarten consideration process.
With the reduced expense for the teachers, as a result of their bold action, partially offset by the increased expense for the Ass't Sup't for Human Resources, who would no longer be shared with Harborfields, and partially offset by increased spending for supplementary educational materials, and partially offset by the $300,000 increase to fund balance (think “reserves”), the new Budget to Budget increase was reduced to 2.33%, and the new projected tax levy increase was reduced to 3.66%.
Mr. Fusaro had consistently maintained that more of the teachers concession should be applied to reduce the tax levy further, since people in Elwood were already undergoing economic pain, and that is why he voted no.
Mr. Kaszubski had clearly and consistently and publicly, and he did this throughout the course of the past several months of budget work-up, called for Mr. Cenerelli to provide greater detail, hopefully in the form of a comprehensive analysis, of the Superintendent's proposal for Full Day Kindergarten for Elwood.
This focus upon clarity should also have been no surprise to anyone since Mr. Kaszubski, as well as Mr. Fusaro, and Mr. Ciccone, and Mr. Kaplan, had made clear during the 2007/08 school year, that they did not oppose Full Day Kindergarten, per se, when it was proposed by the previous Superintendent, Dr. Swart. However, they opposed the
badly structured and ill-conceived and risky proposal, as it was launched with great surprise by Dr. Swart in early 2007. Ultimately Dr. Swart, himself, withdrew the proposal and provided sound reasoning to district residents for doing so.
The superintendent of schools of any school district reports, under State law and State Education Department regulations, to the president of the board of education of that school district. When Mr. Cenerelli failed to produce what the Board President had consistently called for, Mr. Kaszubski’s only possible response, in order to maintain the integrity of the office of president of the board of education, and in order to fulfill his fiduciary responsibility to district residents, was to vote against adoption of the proposed budget.
Mr. Kaszubski knew, as did most of the residents in that room paying attention to the dialogue, that the proposed budget would be approved by a majority of the Trustees of the Board of Education, but he was making an important statement about integrity and responsibility.
I will save further comments about Full Day Kindergarten for Part Two of my summary and analysis, which will basically be devoted to that topic, and to the process for its further recommendation in 2008 for our 2009/10 school year.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Open Meetings Law Really Means “Open”
In an editorial on Thursday, May 7th, Newsday made some excellent points regarding needed changes to make the Open Meetings Law more meaningful to New York citizens. You may read the entire Newsday editorial, entitled “Bill will put more muscle behind open meetings law.”
To get a good contrast in non-compliance vs compliance with the letter, and spirit, of the NY Open Meetings Law, simply attend a few meetings of the Huntington Town Board, and then contrast that by attending School Board meetings of either the Elwood School District or the Northport-East Northport School District.
You will be amazed at Huntington Town Board meetings, because there is almost no discussion, not even a fig leaf of pretension, as they cast their votes on dozens and dozens of resolutions. Yes, some of those are perfunctory resolutions, but many are substantive, and yet you will not hear a discussion, much less a free and open debate, on those items.
But, do you really believe that there has been no discussion among the five members of the Huntington Town Board? Or, has there instead been a discussion behind closed doors, out of the public’s eyes (and the public’s ears), and has the discussion preserved whatever secrecy that any of the five Town Board members preferred?
In contrast, attend a Work Session of the Elwood School Board, which is typically held each 1st Thursday, and then attend a Regular Meeting of the Board, which is typically held each 2nd Thursday. At the Work Session there is a full discussion of issues before the Board, and while a consensus may be achieved, there is no official vote until the next Regular Meeting of the Board. And, even at the Regular Meeting, given the tendency of some of our Board members to speak and re-define their positions, you will again hear a free and open discussion, and sometimes even a debate. Votes come with openness, as the Open Meetings Law intends.
Similarly, the Northport/East Northport School Board, which typically meets every other Monday, has very open discussions among the Board members, since they have a series of Regular Meetings, rather than the Work Session/Regular Meeting structure employed in Elwood. The dialogue in Northport is open, and sometimes quite candid, and those people attending their meetings are also witnessing an excellent application of the Open Meetings Law.
The Town of Huntington, and its five Town Board members, certainly needs to be “encouraged” by the kind of enhancement to New York’s Open Meetings Law which has now been promoted by the editorial board of Newsday.
To get a good contrast in non-compliance vs compliance with the letter, and spirit, of the NY Open Meetings Law, simply attend a few meetings of the Huntington Town Board, and then contrast that by attending School Board meetings of either the Elwood School District or the Northport-East Northport School District.
You will be amazed at Huntington Town Board meetings, because there is almost no discussion, not even a fig leaf of pretension, as they cast their votes on dozens and dozens of resolutions. Yes, some of those are perfunctory resolutions, but many are substantive, and yet you will not hear a discussion, much less a free and open debate, on those items.
But, do you really believe that there has been no discussion among the five members of the Huntington Town Board? Or, has there instead been a discussion behind closed doors, out of the public’s eyes (and the public’s ears), and has the discussion preserved whatever secrecy that any of the five Town Board members preferred?
In contrast, attend a Work Session of the Elwood School Board, which is typically held each 1st Thursday, and then attend a Regular Meeting of the Board, which is typically held each 2nd Thursday. At the Work Session there is a full discussion of issues before the Board, and while a consensus may be achieved, there is no official vote until the next Regular Meeting of the Board. And, even at the Regular Meeting, given the tendency of some of our Board members to speak and re-define their positions, you will again hear a free and open discussion, and sometimes even a debate. Votes come with openness, as the Open Meetings Law intends.
Similarly, the Northport/East Northport School Board, which typically meets every other Monday, has very open discussions among the Board members, since they have a series of Regular Meetings, rather than the Work Session/Regular Meeting structure employed in Elwood. The dialogue in Northport is open, and sometimes quite candid, and those people attending their meetings are also witnessing an excellent application of the Open Meetings Law.
The Town of Huntington, and its five Town Board members, certainly needs to be “encouraged” by the kind of enhancement to New York’s Open Meetings Law which has now been promoted by the editorial board of Newsday.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Student Injuries Happen But School Administrators' Errors Shouldn't
The safety of children in school should be one of the highest priorities in any community, and some organizations, such as schoolnurse.com, provide a helpful overview for the topic of injuries at school.
We had a recent example of “how not to do it” in Elwood. At the April 16th Regular Meeting of the Elwood Board of Education, one parent addressed the Board during the Residents Remarks period.
She was bringing to the attention of the Board two incidents, one relating to her own child and one to the child of another parent, where the school district’s own polices and procedures were not followed by district staff.
The incident affecting her child was a fractured wrist, while the injury to the other child involved a concussion, stemming from a head injury in gym, which occurred while the instructor was apparently out of the room. The broken wrist was obvious, while the head injury was less obvious, but both should have been handled by a school nurse and the parent immediately called.
It sounded as if there were mistakes at multiple stages of the process, since the district’s own policy is clearly stated on the third page of the information section of the District Calendar.
Moreover, that policy is reflected in Local Policy EBBA, as follows:
--------------------------------------
FIRST AID
In case of an accident, first aid will be given by the nurse, and the parent will be contacted.
In the event of a severe accident when neither a member of the family nor family physician is available, the nearest doctor will be called to give emergency treatment and to advise the school as to the best procedure to be followed while awaiting the parent’s arrival.
If hospitalization is indicated, a parent’s consent will be sought before action is taken, if possible.
School personnel are authorized by State law to give first aid only. First aid is the immediate and temporary care following an injury or sudden illness, until the child can be placed under parental or professional care.
---------------------------------------
The child with the head injury remained at school, and was sent home on the afternoon bus, and vomited on the way home. When the child’s mother subsequently took him/her to the hospital, a concussion was diagnosed.
It is sad that parents have to raise such issues with the Board of Education, instead of being able to have them properly responded to, and promptly resolved, by District administrators.
The safety of our children has to be placed first, before other considerations, and the District Administration should be concerned about making sure children receive proper medical care and should follow-up with parents, promptly, after children have been injured on school property or at school-sponsored events.
Parent inquiries or complaints must be given appropriate priority by the District Administration before any attempt to avoid acknowledging staff errors. Delays, or avoidance, creates the need for parents to seek intervention by the Board.
Finally, the District Administration must learn from such mistakes, to insure that other children, and their parents, will receive proper care and consideration going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
