[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/20]
Now that I have had a chance to locate my records for previous Votes and Elections, it is possible to place this past Tuesday into greater perspective.
I was only able to find data as far back as 2003; in 2002, the first year I kept records, the budget did pass, and, in an election which followed the resignation of one trustee, two seats were contested and one was uncontested. That was also the only time that I ran for the BOE, unsuccessfully, so I do remember the broad results.
Budget Votes:
Year Yes No Total Votes
2011 1,779 (61.2%) 1,129 (38.8%) 2,908
2010 (#2) 1,970 (66.7%) 985 (33.3%) 2,955
2010 (#1) 1,088 (46.9%) 1,204 (53.1%) 2,322
2009 1,068 (69.9%) 460 (30.1%) 1,528
2008 1,160 (63.8%) 659 (36.2%) 1,819
2007 878 (61.8%) 543 (38.2%) 1,421
2006 1,561 (63.1%) 911 (36.9%) 2,472
2005 1,186 (52.4%) 1,079 (47.6%) 2,265
2004 1,217 (51.5%) 1,146 (48,5%) 2,363
2003 1,209 (56.7%) 924 (43.3%) 2,133
BOE Elections:
Year Candidates Votes
2011 A-Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)
A-James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,609
B-Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)
B-Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)
Total Votes 2,488
2010 Uncontested Election
2009 Uncontested Election
2008 A-Mike Kaszubski 967 (80.9%)
A-Jennifer (?) Ilovsky 195 [write-in] (16.3%)
A-James Tomeo 33 [write-in] (2.8%)
Total Votes 1,195
B-Patty Matos 1,024 (59.4%)
B-Alex Resnick 612 (35.5%)
B-James Tomeo 84 [write-in] (4.9%)
B-Jennifer Ilovsky 3 [write-in] (0.2%)
Total Votes 1,723
2007 Uncontested Election
2006 A-Joe Fusaro 1,398 (56.4%)
A-Michael Williams 1,079 (43.6%)
Total Votes 2,477
B-Dan Cicone 1,405 (56.9%)
B-Cheryl Gabrielli 1,064 (43.1%)
Total Votes 2,469
2005 Uncontested Election
2004 A-Julie Badlato 1,249 (53.0%)
A-Bill Cameron 1,106 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,355
2003 A-Joe Fusaro 1,169 (57.4%)
A-Brian Madden 868 (42.6%)
Total Votes 2,037
B-Dan Ciccone 1,042 (53.5%)
B-John Santomauro 904 (46.5%)
Total Votes 1,946
Derivative Commentary:
School Budget
The first thing you should note is that the 2011 total of 2,908 in the School Budget Vote was the second-highest over the past nine years, with only the second 2010 vote (the June re-vote after the original Proposed Budget was rejected in May) higher at 2,955.
But that also means that this was the highest original May vote total on record, which is absolutely amazing, particularly on such a dreary wet day.
I’m not sure what we can make of vote margins over these nine years, as the Budget Increase and the Tax Levy Increase fluctuated considerably over this time, since our District and BOE have historically not tried to pull the wool over the eyes of its residents, as have many districts on Long Island.
Elwood has not secretly over-taxed its residents in one year in order to “magically” pull money out of a hat in another year; therefore, the budget and tax numbers have reflected more candid economics, and they have demonstrated more respect for the integrity of taxpayers.
Of course, in some years, it has been a blessing, and in other years it has been a real burden, particularly when the State gives us the shaft while costs soar into the stratosphere.
But the Total Votes count is certainly real, and the heavy involvement of the past few years has been a testimony to the people of this community.
BOE Election
This is where the size and shape of the budget have generally mattered much less, although it was one of the factors in 2004, and might have been a factor in 2003.
Looking back over the years, and saving 2011 for last, I would note that 2008 was a contested election, but the effective contest was really just with one seat, as Mike Kaszubski did not have an opponent who bothered to submit Nominating Petitions, and his only opposition were write-in candidates.
Patty Matos did have an active opponent on the ballot, but the support for that opponent was primarily in a relatively small, though quite vocal, single focus group of core supporters. Naturally the “usual” antagonists of the District and the current Board (in the sense of Casablanca, where Claude Rains, standing with Humphrey Bogart, instructs his next in command to round up the “usual” group) did tag along, and tried some last minute machinations, but the results made it clear how ineffective that was. The “usual” antagonists learned from that in 2011.
The previous contested campaign was in 2006, and that was the dirtiest and nastiest election that I can remember in my eleven years since taking early retirement gave me time to get involved. A smear campaign really began at a few BOE meetings (I’ve kept my notes from those meetings, and even obtained under FOIL an official transcript of the BOE dialogue on the worst night), and some campaigners, or campaign workers, tried to impugn the integrity of one of the successful candidates with the same male bovine manure.
Captain Louis Renault would not have been surprised by the suspects.
In 2004, we had a contested election in which a trustee with superior intellectual skills, but abysmal inter-personal skills (he would even tick off his friends), lost an election partially for reasons of sometimes being insensitively arrogant, and partially for being on the BOE at a challenging time, but also -- and given the margin, and the timing, I believe primarily -- because a former trustee, who had been rejected by the voters after only a one year term on the BOE, issued a letter that arrived on the Saturday before the Tuesday election, making a number of distorted and mathematically inaccurate statements that seemed designed to confuse and frighten voters, and then asked people to support the incumbent’s opponent.
And finally, in 2003 we had what now seems like the cleanest election in memory, yet it was a hotly contested election that was at least based upon honest intellectual disagreements between candidates. I don’t recall any dirty tricks, or maligning of the personal integrity of the candidates, and it would be nice if we could return to a time when distortions were not the primary tool of opponents, and when appeals were to intellect rather than to emotion or popularity contests, and when all candidates focused upon what was good for the students and the taxpayers of the community.
In 2011 we had way too much in the way of personal popularity appeals, including the soliciting of some voters who seemed to know nothing about the issues, or of the problems of school districts on Long Island or in New York State in general, and who were not even told the whole truth, by some candidates, about the nature and economic reality of theoretical concessions by a union.
Greed will no longer do.
Selflessness is desperately needed, and selfishness must be rejected.
Personal resentment by some former employees, and a focus upon union interests by other former employees, do not belong in BOE elections, and some electioneering activities were, quite simply, unseemly.
Our problems, and the problems of other school districts, are by no means over, and it would be helpful for the good of the students and for the good of the community and for the good of the taxpayers, and, yes, for the good of the younger generation of teachers and other staff, if everyone would convert their energy and efforts into a positive approach that recognizes that we are indeed, all of us, in this together.
Shared sacrifice, by all parties, is desperately needed.
Finally, we need a cathartic effect in Albany, so that the unfunded mandates, and the absurd pension system, and the strangling and constricting restrictions on personnel management, are finally corrected.
But, it must start here with us, now, and we can no longer afford the effects of the negativity of the usual antagonists and their allies.
Let’s make 2011/12 a much better year for Elwood.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Budget Passes and Rationality Prevails With BOE
[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/18]
This will be a very quick synopsis, for the sake of timeliness; a detailed commentary will (I hope) be produced on Wednesday.
Budget Vote
Despite the very large proposed tax increase that would be required by a modest proposed increase in the school budget for 2011/12, the voters of Elwood, in overwhelming numbers, passed the budget by 1,779 YES votes (61.2%) to 1,129 NO votes (38.8%).
The total votes on the Budget were 2,908.
A hotly contested BOE Trustee election always brings a large voter turnout, and today, despite the generally miserable weather, was no exception. We can attribute the large YES tally to the fact that all four candidates, while approaching the Trustee election from very different standpoints, as well as the nature of the candidates' appeals, each expressed support of the budget (although each one of them, at the Candidates Debate, also expressed reservations -- of varying degrees and substance -- about the budget).
Therefore, we undoubtedly saw a majority of each candidate's electoral support also supporting the budget, and that led to a materially higher YES vote than one would have expected from such a high tax levy perspective.
BOE Election
The winners of the two seats, one vacated by the retiring Mike Kaszubski and the other vacated by the retiring Patty Matos, were Bill Gutekunst and Mike LaMena, respectively.
Each winner had a very comfortable margin over his competitor.
Kaszubski seat:
Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)
James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,609
Matos seat:
Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)
Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)
Total Votes 2,488
Clearly, the campaign linked the candidacies of Gutekunst and LaMena, as well as Tomeo and Schwartz.
In my judgment, the Gutekunst/LaMena campaign concentrated on substance and the future of the district, while the Tomeo/Schwartz campaign relied upon personal popularity and associations with the past. I believe that the district will be much better off with the success of the Gutekunst/LaMena efforts, but I would encourage both Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz to redirect their time and efforts to serving the district, and learning more about our challenges in this trying time.
Losing an election is never fun, as I found out the one time I ran in 2002 against administrative and union opposition, but it gave me the opportunity to reinvigorate and learn. I had all the incentive I needed to redirect my own energies, initially into the PTA organization and later, after a reform movement led by Mike Kaszubski and Joe Fusaro and Dan Ciccone brought candor and disclosure and created the opportunity for citizen participation, by serving diligently on Board and District committees.
Both Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz now have the incentive to do that, not only for the benefit of the district and its students, but for their own benefit as well.
Congratulations to Bill Gutekunst.
Congratulations to Mike LaMena.
And let's pass along our sympathies for their spouses, who will surely see less of them for the next three years. Whether you like a particular trustee, or not, you have to respect them for their dedication of time and energy into a sometimes thankless and always difficult job.
Elwood survives and thrives.
This will be a very quick synopsis, for the sake of timeliness; a detailed commentary will (I hope) be produced on Wednesday.
Budget Vote
Despite the very large proposed tax increase that would be required by a modest proposed increase in the school budget for 2011/12, the voters of Elwood, in overwhelming numbers, passed the budget by 1,779 YES votes (61.2%) to 1,129 NO votes (38.8%).
The total votes on the Budget were 2,908.
A hotly contested BOE Trustee election always brings a large voter turnout, and today, despite the generally miserable weather, was no exception. We can attribute the large YES tally to the fact that all four candidates, while approaching the Trustee election from very different standpoints, as well as the nature of the candidates' appeals, each expressed support of the budget (although each one of them, at the Candidates Debate, also expressed reservations -- of varying degrees and substance -- about the budget).
Therefore, we undoubtedly saw a majority of each candidate's electoral support also supporting the budget, and that led to a materially higher YES vote than one would have expected from such a high tax levy perspective.
BOE Election
The winners of the two seats, one vacated by the retiring Mike Kaszubski and the other vacated by the retiring Patty Matos, were Bill Gutekunst and Mike LaMena, respectively.
Each winner had a very comfortable margin over his competitor.
Kaszubski seat:
Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)
James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,609
Matos seat:
Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)
Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)
Total Votes 2,488
Clearly, the campaign linked the candidacies of Gutekunst and LaMena, as well as Tomeo and Schwartz.
In my judgment, the Gutekunst/LaMena campaign concentrated on substance and the future of the district, while the Tomeo/Schwartz campaign relied upon personal popularity and associations with the past. I believe that the district will be much better off with the success of the Gutekunst/LaMena efforts, but I would encourage both Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz to redirect their time and efforts to serving the district, and learning more about our challenges in this trying time.
Losing an election is never fun, as I found out the one time I ran in 2002 against administrative and union opposition, but it gave me the opportunity to reinvigorate and learn. I had all the incentive I needed to redirect my own energies, initially into the PTA organization and later, after a reform movement led by Mike Kaszubski and Joe Fusaro and Dan Ciccone brought candor and disclosure and created the opportunity for citizen participation, by serving diligently on Board and District committees.
Both Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz now have the incentive to do that, not only for the benefit of the district and its students, but for their own benefit as well.
Congratulations to Bill Gutekunst.
Congratulations to Mike LaMena.
And let's pass along our sympathies for their spouses, who will surely see less of them for the next three years. Whether you like a particular trustee, or not, you have to respect them for their dedication of time and energy into a sometimes thankless and always difficult job.
Elwood survives and thrives.
Yet Another District Labor Unit Has Agreed to Major Cost-Savings Measures
[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/16]
Coming just about a week after the District's Custodial Staff courageously, and responsibly, agreed to significant concessions (without onerous and budget-busting demands), our District's Paraprofessional Staff "...have agreed upon the terms for a new contract that will freeze salaries and steps for the next year."
This is also a wonderful decision by these very dedicated employees, who now join the Custodial Staff, who had joined the District's Central Office Administrators (again, without future budget-busting demands), who joined the one who started the compensation cost-savings efforts (again, and certainly, without future budget-busting demands), our innovative Superintendent of Schools.
Clearly, some people really care about the students and the District and the taxpayers more than they care about any selfish personal financial gain. They also recognize that we are all, indeed, in this together, and the long-term health of the District is in everyone's best interests.
The announcement, pasted below in its entirety, was posted on the District's website tonight.
Jerry Hannon
................................................
Paraprofessional Staff Agrees to New Contract with Capped Increases
The Elwood Paraprofessional Union and the Elwood Board of Education have agreed upon the terms for a new contract that will freeze salaries and steps for the next year.
This three-year agreement, coming just a week after the Elwood custodial unit agreed to significant contract concessions, adds another 50 Elwood employees to the staff who are doing their part to help the district’s children and residents.
Most paraprofessionals in Elwood are community residents who generally work part-time, supporting our programs for students by assisting staff, working in the cafeterias, and helping students with special needs.
The new agreement calls for a complete freeze with neither overall nor step increases for the 2011-12 school year. The initial year is followed by two additional contractual years that will not increase salaries and longevity above 2% in each year and may be lower, depending upon implementation of a state tax cap, and it freezes step increases in both additional years as well. It should also be noted that this agreement represents the entirety of the increase in compensation.
The Board provides thanks our paraprofessionals for joining our custodians, central administrators and Superintendent of Schools in their concessions aimed to preserve the programs, services, and staffing on behalf of the Elwood community.
Coming just about a week after the District's Custodial Staff courageously, and responsibly, agreed to significant concessions (without onerous and budget-busting demands), our District's Paraprofessional Staff "...have agreed upon the terms for a new contract that will freeze salaries and steps for the next year."
This is also a wonderful decision by these very dedicated employees, who now join the Custodial Staff, who had joined the District's Central Office Administrators (again, without future budget-busting demands), who joined the one who started the compensation cost-savings efforts (again, and certainly, without future budget-busting demands), our innovative Superintendent of Schools.
Clearly, some people really care about the students and the District and the taxpayers more than they care about any selfish personal financial gain. They also recognize that we are all, indeed, in this together, and the long-term health of the District is in everyone's best interests.
The announcement, pasted below in its entirety, was posted on the District's website tonight.
Jerry Hannon
................................................
Paraprofessional Staff Agrees to New Contract with Capped Increases
The Elwood Paraprofessional Union and the Elwood Board of Education have agreed upon the terms for a new contract that will freeze salaries and steps for the next year.
This three-year agreement, coming just a week after the Elwood custodial unit agreed to significant contract concessions, adds another 50 Elwood employees to the staff who are doing their part to help the district’s children and residents.
Most paraprofessionals in Elwood are community residents who generally work part-time, supporting our programs for students by assisting staff, working in the cafeterias, and helping students with special needs.
The new agreement calls for a complete freeze with neither overall nor step increases for the 2011-12 school year. The initial year is followed by two additional contractual years that will not increase salaries and longevity above 2% in each year and may be lower, depending upon implementation of a state tax cap, and it freezes step increases in both additional years as well. It should also be noted that this agreement represents the entirety of the increase in compensation.
The Board provides thanks our paraprofessionals for joining our custodians, central administrators and Superintendent of Schools in their concessions aimed to preserve the programs, services, and staffing on behalf of the Elwood community.
Sensible Board Representation At Stake As Labor Contracts Approach
[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/16]
Tomorrow, from 2 PM to 10 PM, in the cafeteria of Elwood Middle School, we have our annual vote for Board of Education trustees, as well as the annual School Budget Vote. I urge everyone to participate and vote on an informed and unemotional basis.
Both the BOE election and the budget vote are obviously important, and while people may understandably disagree about the size of the budget increase, I am most concerned about the risk to the district if we were to get new trustees who might not be sufficiently diligent in representing the District, its students, and its taxpayers, as the time approaches for a new teachers union contract, which currently expires on July 1st of 2014. Whomever is elected tomorrow will be on the Board through June 30th of 2014, and will be one of those who are responsible for renegotiating that contract.
That fact is all the more important considering the financial crisis that this and every District increasingly faces, because of past and threatened future State actions, and energy and health insurance escalation, as well as the impacts on so many residents due to the long-term recession.
It is always better to have positive reasons to support someone for election, and I think that this community is blessed by the quality of two of the candidates: (1) Bill Gutekunst, candidate for the seat currently held by Mike Kaszubski; and, (2) Mike LaMena, candidate for the seat currently held by Patty Matos.
All of you received my summary of the BOE Candidates Debate, which contained not only responses from the four candidates but also an analysis of some key points for the district, its students, and its residents. That summary contains my analysis of the specific reasons that both Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LeMena are the best candidates for their respective races, and if you did not retain a copy, but want to read it again, you may also access the piece on my blog, Elwood Illuminations (http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/05/boe-candidates-debate-and-other.html).
I will personally vote for Bill Gutekunst, and for Mike LaMena, and would urge everyone to consider the very positive reasons, outlined in the BOE Candidates Debate summary, for doing the same.
But, there are also reasons for me to have concern regarding their opponents, James Tomeo and Jack Schwartz, respectively, and I think you should know why, in my opinion, that is the case.
During the Question and Answer period, the answers given by both Mr. Tomeo, and by Mr. Schwartz, seemed much too similar on several points.
One of these points related to the previous cost-reduction offers to the district, over the past months, by the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the union for Elwood's teachers. As outlined in the previously-referenced summary from the Candidates Debate, Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz seemed very sympathetic to the union's offer. However, that second offer would have required the District to extend the teachers contract for another two years, at an assured annual increase (plus Step) for those two years, and the cost for that extended period would have been much more than the partial freeze which the teachers union would have agreed to take.
In one of his replies, Mr. Gutekunst pointed out that the benefit to the district would have been approximately $300,000 for each of the next two years, or about $600,000 total, but the cost to be weighed against that short-term benefit was $1,000,000 for each of the two years extended.
I don't know about you, but if some bank was offering me $1,000,000 in 2015, if I would give them a deposit of $300,000 in 2012, I would be a fool not to do that. That would be one super rate of return, something that Bernie Madoff would have been happy to offer his investors.
Fortunately for the health and well-being of the District, the Board of Education rejected the union's offer, and this paragraph, which I cited in my community commentary on April 16th (and which is available on Elwood Illuminations at: http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/05/district-has-posted-reply-to-2nd.html), was the heart of the Board's reasoning:
"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."
I find it amazing that Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz could not appreciate the danger, for the District, which would have been created if the Board had accepted the teachers union's offer.
These two candidates also had a close approach when it came to discussing a potential State cap for superintendents' compensation. They conveniently ignored the importance of looking at the compensation for a superintendent of schools in contrast with the compensation for a district's teaching staff. Neither took the logical step of comparing the materiality of cost for a superintendent (typically between 1/4 of 1% to 1/2 of 1% of a school district's budget) with the cost for a teaching staff (typically between 65% to 70% of a school district's budget). Neither spoke about compensation from the perspective of merit.
Is it possible that ignoring the elephant in the room, in favor of focusing upon the mouse, is a tactic?
Having done a FOIL of the Nominating Petitions for all candidates, I do have my concerns about the ability of Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz to maintain independence and to be diligent when it comes to union contracts.
But, let's vote for Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LaMena for the very positive reasons that we all have, and let's hope that Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz evolve in their own understanding of the economics of running a school district, and the importance of understanding a Net Present Value approach when considering offers.
Jerry Hannon
Tomorrow, from 2 PM to 10 PM, in the cafeteria of Elwood Middle School, we have our annual vote for Board of Education trustees, as well as the annual School Budget Vote. I urge everyone to participate and vote on an informed and unemotional basis.
Both the BOE election and the budget vote are obviously important, and while people may understandably disagree about the size of the budget increase, I am most concerned about the risk to the district if we were to get new trustees who might not be sufficiently diligent in representing the District, its students, and its taxpayers, as the time approaches for a new teachers union contract, which currently expires on July 1st of 2014. Whomever is elected tomorrow will be on the Board through June 30th of 2014, and will be one of those who are responsible for renegotiating that contract.
That fact is all the more important considering the financial crisis that this and every District increasingly faces, because of past and threatened future State actions, and energy and health insurance escalation, as well as the impacts on so many residents due to the long-term recession.
It is always better to have positive reasons to support someone for election, and I think that this community is blessed by the quality of two of the candidates: (1) Bill Gutekunst, candidate for the seat currently held by Mike Kaszubski; and, (2) Mike LaMena, candidate for the seat currently held by Patty Matos.
All of you received my summary of the BOE Candidates Debate, which contained not only responses from the four candidates but also an analysis of some key points for the district, its students, and its residents. That summary contains my analysis of the specific reasons that both Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LeMena are the best candidates for their respective races, and if you did not retain a copy, but want to read it again, you may also access the piece on my blog, Elwood Illuminations (http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/05/boe-candidates-debate-and-other.html).
I will personally vote for Bill Gutekunst, and for Mike LaMena, and would urge everyone to consider the very positive reasons, outlined in the BOE Candidates Debate summary, for doing the same.
But, there are also reasons for me to have concern regarding their opponents, James Tomeo and Jack Schwartz, respectively, and I think you should know why, in my opinion, that is the case.
During the Question and Answer period, the answers given by both Mr. Tomeo, and by Mr. Schwartz, seemed much too similar on several points.
One of these points related to the previous cost-reduction offers to the district, over the past months, by the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the union for Elwood's teachers. As outlined in the previously-referenced summary from the Candidates Debate, Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz seemed very sympathetic to the union's offer. However, that second offer would have required the District to extend the teachers contract for another two years, at an assured annual increase (plus Step) for those two years, and the cost for that extended period would have been much more than the partial freeze which the teachers union would have agreed to take.
In one of his replies, Mr. Gutekunst pointed out that the benefit to the district would have been approximately $300,000 for each of the next two years, or about $600,000 total, but the cost to be weighed against that short-term benefit was $1,000,000 for each of the two years extended.
I don't know about you, but if some bank was offering me $1,000,000 in 2015, if I would give them a deposit of $300,000 in 2012, I would be a fool not to do that. That would be one super rate of return, something that Bernie Madoff would have been happy to offer his investors.
Fortunately for the health and well-being of the District, the Board of Education rejected the union's offer, and this paragraph, which I cited in my community commentary on April 16th (and which is available on Elwood Illuminations at: http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/05/district-has-posted-reply-to-2nd.html), was the heart of the Board's reasoning:
"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."
I find it amazing that Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz could not appreciate the danger, for the District, which would have been created if the Board had accepted the teachers union's offer.
These two candidates also had a close approach when it came to discussing a potential State cap for superintendents' compensation. They conveniently ignored the importance of looking at the compensation for a superintendent of schools in contrast with the compensation for a district's teaching staff. Neither took the logical step of comparing the materiality of cost for a superintendent (typically between 1/4 of 1% to 1/2 of 1% of a school district's budget) with the cost for a teaching staff (typically between 65% to 70% of a school district's budget). Neither spoke about compensation from the perspective of merit.
Is it possible that ignoring the elephant in the room, in favor of focusing upon the mouse, is a tactic?
Having done a FOIL of the Nominating Petitions for all candidates, I do have my concerns about the ability of Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz to maintain independence and to be diligent when it comes to union contracts.
But, let's vote for Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LaMena for the very positive reasons that we all have, and let's hope that Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Schwartz evolve in their own understanding of the economics of running a school district, and the importance of understanding a Net Present Value approach when considering offers.
Jerry Hannon
Saturday, May 14, 2011
BOE Candidates Debate And Other Considerations
Prelude:
First of all, if you are not interested in the details of the debate and its dynamics, you could just read the Overview and Summary and then skip right to the Total Impression and Analysis. But, if you would like to gain a sense for the specifics of the responses and the potential impact of some of the more critical, then you might want to take the time to review the admittedly lengthy section simply called Details.
Additionally, you should feel free to forward this piece to anyone among your neighbors or friends; it will also be posted to the blog, Elwood Illuminations, http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/, for convenient reference.
Overview and Summary:
While waiting for my son at High Performance Tai Kwan Do, on Thursday, I had an interesting conversation with another Elwood resident, a PTA president, who had also attended the Wednesday Debate among the four candidates for school board trustee. It sounded as if our individual reactions to the debate were quite similar.
Earlier in the day, while going through the customary one hour wait at my doctor’s office, I had a chance to review my twenty plus pages of notes from the debate, and to reflect more carefully on some sensible points made by a few, and some illogical or even inaccurate points made by others.
Aided by that further analysis, I also detected a pattern, in the answers to some of the questions asked by audience members, which suggested that two of the candidates had been coached by the same team of advisors and were effectively responding from a pre-scripted and agenda-driven perspective which appeared related to the interests of the “old guard” among Elwood employees, particularly some of the teachers and building administrators.
Taking the debate performance first, and cautioning that debate performance by itself should never be the sole basis for supporting one candidate and rejecting another, I would assign the following grades, using a twelve grade scale, to each candidate; all candidates answered each question, in a sequence that shifted by one at each question, and each candidate had an opening statement and a closing statement:
Mike LaMena (candidate for the Matos seat) A
Jack Schwartz (candidate for the Matos seat) B -
Bill Gutekunst (candidate for the Kaszubski seat) B -
James Tomeo (candidate for the Kaszubski seat) D +
Interestingly, nobody, including the very impressive Mr. LaMena, correctly answered one errant question which was related to the LIPA challenge to the property assessment of its power plant to the north, on Long Island Sound. Each spoke as if he did not appreciate that the LIPA challenge affects the Northport School District, but not Elwood (nor Harborfields, nor Commack, nor Half Hollow Hills, etc), and that resulted in my lowering everyone’s grade by a very minor one notch.
Details:
Now, for those who want to read about the content of the program, and are willing to take the time to do so, here is my summary of the questions and answers period, which was the heart of the program, from the debate:
On the question of goals, everyone spoke of a need for increased communication and participation, but there were also some helpful specifics. Bill Gutekunst pointed out that the escalation of costs with our need for ever higher taxes have been driven by unfunded mandates from the State, and that we also need to look at the district’s contractual obligations. Mike LaMena spoke of his commitment to legislative reform which is what will be required to dive through real change including a State empowerment of districts locally.
On the question of whether they support this year’s budget, all candidates indicated that they support this year’s budget with some reservations, with a variety of non-specific comments about non-sustainability in the long term.
On the question of each candidate’s experience, Messrs. Gutekunst and LaMena and Schwartz recited their long histories in business, respectively, in healthcare (president of a respiratory services company), financial services (chief operating officer of a financial advisory firm), and law (patent attorney). Mr. LaMena also taught for one year, following graduation from the University of Notre Dame in 1995, at a Catholic high school in the Bronx.
On the question about full day kindergarten, all candidates supported the concept if it made sense for the students. With reduced funding from the State, there seemed to be a sense of realism about the need for possible constraints, including the Board’s reduction to a half-day program for 2011/12, but there was also a specific endorsement by Mr. LaMena of the Board’s attempt last month to consider a hybrid program (Editorial Note: That would require cooperation by the teachers union, as indicated by Ass’t Sup’t for Human Resources Ron Friedman, in order to be implemented). Mr. LaMena also committed to restore full-day kindergarten if it becomes financially viable and balanced in terms of the needs of other grades.
On the question of potential consolidation of school districts, Mr. Tomeo said there was pride in Elwood and that the idea of Elwood merging with one of its rivals did not sit well with him. Mr. LaMena indicated that we need to do what we can to preserve the intimacy of Elwood but also noted that the BOE has a fiduciary obligation to consider such potential measures. He further noted that our district should explore opportunities for consolidation of services, and not just mergers. Mr. Schwartz indicated that he saw how much pride there was in our school district among residents, and that a merger would have to be really good for Elwood. Mr. Gutekunst indicated that he moved from the Northport school district into Elwood because of community pride in its schools, and he noted that no merger can ever take place unless there was a willing partner to consider it, and that a formal study would have to be done to determine the positive or negative effects, and that each district’s Board could only recommend it to its voters, and that nothing would ever happen unless the voters of both districts, independently, voted to approve such a transaction.
On the question of whether a State-imposed limit of $175,000 on superintendent compensation would, or would not, be good for Elwood, Mr. LaMena said that there has to be an assessment of value versus cost, and further noted that the Board has to look at all salaries, whether the superintendent, or the teachers, or the custodians, or any other unit. He finally noted that the question has to be whether any employee is earning his or her compensation and that we really need the approach of meritocracy. (Note: Webster defines that as “a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement”). Mr. Schwartz replied that a State-imposed cap on superintendent’s compensation is a good idea, and he then went on to cite his interpretation of the current superintendent’s contract, which he apparently considered excessive. Mr. Gutekunst said that he agrees with a concept of a salary cap, but further explained that one consideration is whether the superintendent and the district is actually doing more with even less support in the Central Office. He further explained that the value of the work has to be considered against the cost of the salary. Mr. Tomeo said that he agrees with the salary cap and that this would be a huge savings for our district.
Now, this set of exchanges by the four candidates demands, before we take even one step further, much greater analysis and clarity and fact-checking.
Before turning to what the candidates said, we need to first recognize another part of reality that the audience member who posed the question may not have realized, or chose to ignore. The actual proposal by the Governor would have two tiers of caps for superintendent compensation, and the $175,000 figure is actually for large districts, not Elwood. As a small district, Elwood’s superintendent would be limited to $155,000.
Now, to show you how absurd that would be, I went to the website of SeeThroughNY.net, and discovered the 2010 compensation for the following: (1) Vincent Mulieri (Glenn principal) $155,922; (2) Eilenn Maiori (originally Glenn assistant principal, now at Elwood Middle School) $130,563; and (3) Lorelei Stephens (Special Education teacher and head of the Elwood teachers union) $117,830.
Aside from the absurdity of thinking about a superintendent, with total responsibility for everything that happens in this district, and the power to positively change or to negatively foul up whatever happens with our students, having little or no difference in compensation from those reporting to him, the salary disparity gets even more interesting with the third individual.
As head of the teachers union, under the labor contract with the union, Ms. Stephens gets released from about 40% of her teaching duties to perform union-related functions: therefore, her true salary for teaching, alone, would really be derived by dividing her $117,830 compensation by 0.6; that means an effective salary for her teaching duties, alone, of the equivalent of $196,383.
Obviously, that would be a good topic for future Board deliberations, assuming that the union would ever consent -- in labor negotiations -- to such a change.
Now, back to an analysis of responses by the candidates.
Two candidates, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Tomeo, seemed to take particular pleasure in discussing the superintendent’s compensation, but did not go the essential further step of discussing the superintendent’s compensation as a proportional cost of the district’s budget and particularly not in the context of the cost of teachers compensation as a proportional cost. They also did not address the matter of cost versus value, as Mr. LaMena said, nor did they address the matter of whether or not the superintendent is doing more, in the Central Office, with less and less Central Office support for him.
On the matter of proportionality, or what I would call a test of materiality or substance, the cost of a superintendent of schools typically ranges between 1/4 of 1% to 1/2 of 1% of a school district’s budget (or, 0.0025 to 0.0050), with that range generally related to the size of the district. In contrast, the cost of teaching staff generally ranges between 65% and 70% of a district’s budget (or, 0.65 to 0.70), again generally related to the size of the district.
You could eliminate the entire compensation for a superintendent of schools and it would be like pouring a glass of water into the Mississippi River, at flood stage.
If a potential BOE member wants to make a real dent in Elwood’s cost structure, then you have to tackle the big money issues, the locally negotiated costs and the State-imposed costs, of our teaching staff, and other staff, and not dance around the edges of our problems as if that was a real solution.
On the matter of value, my own observation is that our current superintendent has provided greater value to this district, for the money that we are paying him, than any superintendent in the past twenty years. You may recall commentaries which I did several months ago, where I pointed out the specific value of innovations by our superintendent, and also noted that you often get what you pay for, as we sadly found out a few years ago. Elwood must not settle for mediocrity, and it must not tolerate incompetence; that “savings of money” is a short-sighted recipe for disaster.
Furthermore, the current Central Office administration -- including the cost of the superintendent’s compensation -- is costing less, overall, than it did last year. Our superintendent has consolidated jobs, and has substituted part-time employees for what had been previously full-time employees, with somewhat bloated salaries, and has simultaneously managed to increase the quality of the work of the two offices so affected because of the tremendous quality of the individuals which he has brought into the district.
The reality is that “same old same old” is not helpful, and is not energetic, and is not innovative, and it ultimately leads to a sense of entitlement and self-promotion. In my opinion, much of the “old guard’s” discomfort in Elwood about embracing change is finding its way into trash-talk about the superintendent, and the district.
So, let’s talk about right-sizing compensation, but let’s do it for everyone, and let’s do it on the basis of materiality, and, first-and-foremost, let’s do it on the basis of merit.
Now, on to the next question from the debate.
On the question of the impact of the pending State cap on property taxes, none of the candidates felt that it would be a good idea, by itself, but that the concept had some merit. Mr. LaMena had the most specific comments, and he noted that the concept of risk management always demands that you need to plan for the worst, but work for better results. The critical issue, he went on to say, is to address the numerous unfunded mandates from New York State.
On the question about bullying, each candidate spoke about the need for student awareness of what it does to the child; teaching respect for others, finding ways to root out bullying, and emphasizing the need to have that understanding begin at each child’s home, were the basic messages.
On the question about the impact of increased State testing, Mr. LaMena noted that while we live in a data intensive society, testing cannot define the process for us, but measurement is an important objective. Mr. Schwartz, while noting that testing is a fact of life, said there is a danger of too much testing. Mr. Gutekunst observed that while you may measure success by a test, it is not a real measure of knowledge. But he went on to say that there can be a value in having data results go back to the teacher, for possible adjustments.
On the question of concrete ideas for working with bargaining units, Mr. LaMena observed that we need to find a common ground in any negotiation, and that there has to be a sense that we are all in this together. He further noted that we can’t mortgage the future of this district for some current short-term benefit. Mr. Schwartz said that the parties to any negotiation need each other, and that the ideal result is when everyone is either happy, or just a little upset at the result. Mr. Gutekunst indicated that he has a lot of respect for the teachers and the job that they do every day, but observed that the Board has a fiscal responsibility to consider all contracts, particularly in this time of great economic uncertainty. Mr. Tomeo noted that the Board needs to have an open discussion with the teachers union, and then said that the teachers union did come up with a somewhat reasonable offer.
On the question of mandates that should be cut, Mr. Schwartz said that he was not informed about those, while Mr. Gutekunst also said he needed to become more familiar he was careful to noted that we certainly don’t want to cut those mandates which benefit the district and its students. Mr. Tomeo said that he would attend some NYSSBA workshops, while Mr. LaMena observed that the Board would need to do a comprehensive review, and determine where there is flexibility. But he was also the only candidate to give one specific mandate that needed to be changed, when he named the State’s requirement that a district must provide a seat on a bus for any student who is entitled to transportation, even if that student never even uses that bus. (Editorial note: This is a point of obvious waste that ticks off many residents, who witness buses that have very few students on them; but most of those residents are not aware of the State-imposed requirements.)
On the question about steps to relieve the burden on taxpayers, Mr. Gutekunst noted that while any negotiation is a good start, the teachers union’s offer would not have been good for the district because the teachers would have given back about $600,000 over the next two years, but only if the district would agree to extending the contract at an additional cost of $1,000,000. He pointed out that the district cannot leverage itself like that. Mr. Tomeo said that the negotiation with the teachers should have been a two way street. Mr. LaMena pointed out that the tax levels in our district are not sustainable, and that the key to change is by getting real legislative reform for the burdens which the State has created. Mr. Schwartz said that budgeting is a balancing act, with some prepared to pay much more, and others who can’t pay very much, and that the district needs to find a happy medium. But, like Mr. Tomeo, Mr. Schwartz said that the district should have made a counter-offer to the teachers union.
On the question about the value of class size, Mr. Tomeo noted that his classes ranged between 22 to 31, and that 26 seemed to be OK. Mr. LaMena observed that while smaller class size is beneficial, the challenge for the district is what we can best do help keep class sizes low. He cautioned that sound judgment is needed for the decision-making process. Mr. Schwartz said that optimally small class sizes are best, but that an addition of 1 or 2 or 3 more in class should be acceptable. Mr. Gutekunst said that smaller class sizes are better but that a balance is needed since there are also budget needs. He was the only one of the candidates to offer a concrete view that while increased class sizes might be acceptable at the high school level, we must be much more cautious about higher class sizes in the younger grades.
I have already covered the errant LIPA question, and the lack of understanding by all, so we’ll skip to the next point.
On the question about educational priorities, Mr. Gutekunst said that we must support a full core educational program. Mr. Tomeo indicated that we need to keep a well rounded academic agenda. Mr. LaMena noted that the breadth of offerings is critical and gave as an example the interest of differing students and their parents for such issues as AP courses, or full day kindergarten, or science and math classes. He went on to note that it is the responsibility of a Board trustee for all of these matters. Mr. Schwartz commented that he wouldn’t be so presumptive to know what to do, and that he would brainstorm with each of the Principals.
On the question about finding ways to supplement State aid and local taxes, Mr. Tomeo spoke about billboards and ads that he has seen at sports venues, and asked why we couldn’t go to local merchants for such support. Mr. LaMena said that we need to learn what is viable; what is legal, and what is not legal? Mr. Schwartz said that we need more community involvement, and that such support could serve to reduce non-educational stipends for staff members. Mr. Gutekunst said that we need to look at our budget, line by line, because it is also a matter of decreasing expenses as well as increasing revenues. To that point, he observed that we need to look more closely at consolidating services with other districts, as well as renegotiate our transportation contract with bus companies.
This is one of those sets of dialogue that, again, cries out for clarity, and the blowing away of smoke, and the covering of mirrors.
One would think that some people, who have claimed to attend BOE meetings, and committee meetings, either were not often there, or, if they were there, did not pay attention to all that was discussed.
The State of New York restricts what school districts can do with regard to advertising, so that is not a matter of ignoring a potential source of revenues; it would be a matter of changing State laws and State Education Department regulations. These facts have been discussed at several BOE meetings in this school year, and in prior school years.
Another not-fully-understood comment is that relating to the potential use of parents in a volunteer capacity. While that was indeed the suggestion of a current Trustee, what was neglected was attention to the follow-up comment by Ron Friedman, the Assistant Sup’t for Human Resources, that the teachers union or other bargaining unit whose members might be affected could take the district to the Public Employment Relations Board, and, if their members had a long pattern of employment and compensation for such “jobs” turned over to parent volunteers, the district would likely lose such an action.
That, my friends, was the heart of the questions and answers at last Wednesday’s candidates debate.
Total Impression and Analysis:
By now everyone has undoubtedly read biographies and commentaries by the four candidates, and for me the two races are now clear.
For the seat presently held by Mike Kaszubski, the two candidates are James Tomeo and Bill Gutekunst.
I had previously indicated that in this time of financial challenge and the need for cost containment while preserving programs, the standards for determining the suitability of the candidates need to be even higher than the very high standards which we have had in much simpler times. Accordingly, while I commend James Tomeo for his enthusiasm and willingness to serve, I find that he lacks the experience of a career, or the experience of raising a family, and I would instead encourage him to devote his future to serving the district in other ways, which will also help his understanding in the future.
Mr. Gutekunst demonstrated, in this Candidates Debate, that he has a sound understanding of the responsibilities of the Board of Education, and he further demonstrated a refreshing candor and clarity in answering the questions which were put to all candidates. His impressive career in the healthcare industry, including significant executive experience, as well as his community service with youth, would put him in good position to represent the interests of all students and staff and residents of the district. His diverse skills would be very helpful for our Board.
For the seat presently held by Patty Matos, the two candidates are Jack Schwartz and Mike LaMena.
As previously noted, both Mike LaMena and Jack Schwartz are qualified, by virtue of their considerable business experience as well as their experience in raising a family, to serve on the Board of Education at this very challenging time.
However, Mr. LaMena has not only performed head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the Candidates Debate, Mr. Schwartz included, he also came up with some very sound analyses of issues, and provided some very specific and concrete examples and ideas, and the experience of listening to his answers and comments during the one and on-half hour event, was extremely positive and gives one great hope for our future. Moreover, Mr. LaMena has over fifteen years of financial experience in business, and this will be a critical skill-set for our district as we continue in the very rough seas of State cut-backs and likely additional restrictions. We need his talent. Finally, Mr. LaMena, is the only one to have the practical experience of having once had the responsibility of teaching students, even if it was for only one year.
Retiring Trustee:
Finally, I want to take note of the tremendous service of Patty Matos, who withdrew from the contest just this past Wednesday. As you could tell from my initial comments, when the list of candidates became known, I have long respected her talent and her dedication on so many levels, the Board of Education being merely the most recent.
I knew that Patty had been wrestling with the idea of whether or not to run again, and it is my understanding that it was only her sense of public service that caused her to submit her Nominating Petitions. Therefore, the original contest for her seat would have had three contestants: Mike LaMena, Patty Matos, and Jack Schwartz.
But, after getting to know Mike LaMena over the past few weeks, and learning about his qualifications and ideas and sensible approach, she now feels comfortable that he would provide the balanced non-agenda skills to make our Board of Education even better. So, Patty will, instead, have yet another opportunity to reinvent herself in service to this district and its students, as she has in so many ways over the years.
She will be greatly missed, as will Mike Kaszubski, about whom I will write at another time.
School District's Custodial and Maintenance Staff Helps Out
[Originally transmitted to Elwood Community Network on 5/11]
The announcement, pasted below in full, was posted to the website of the Elwood School District.
The community should be grateful to the custodial and maintenance staff for this significant action which reduces the district's personnel expense, for this small group of workers, at this time of financial stress for school districts and residents alike.
Perhaps it may inspire the teachers union to act in the same spirit of true sacrifice, as was first demonstrated by the Superintendent, and subsequently by the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, and now by the custodial and maintenance staff.
Jerry Hannon
......................................................
The community should be grateful to the custodial and maintenance staff for this significant action which reduces the district's personnel expense, for this small group of workers, at this time of financial stress for school districts and residents alike.
Perhaps it may inspire the teachers union to act in the same spirit of true sacrifice, as was first demonstrated by the Superintendent, and subsequently by the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, and now by the custodial and maintenance staff.
Jerry Hannon
......................................................
Custodial and Maintenance Staff Pitches In, Agrees to Contract Concession
The Board of Education of the Elwood UFSD is pleased to announce that the district’s custodial and maintenance employees, represented by the United Public Service Employees Union, have agreed to a contractual concession that will reduce their increase in pay by half next year.
The Board thanks these hardworking men and women - a number of whom are residents of the district - for pitching in to help the district, given our extraordinarily difficult financial circumstances. We believe we must do all we can to preserve the programs and staffing that our community wants for Elwood’s students.
For the 2011-12 school year, the custodial and maintenance staff will receive an increase of 1.625%, followed by two additional contractual years that will not increase salaries above 2% in each year and may be lower, depending upon implementation of a state tax cap. It will save the district money in 2011-12, and solidifies a fair and reasonable labor agreement for the subsequent two years that is tied to evolving economic conditions.
It should also be noted that this agreement represents the entirety of the increase in compensation.
Contact Reminders From Suffolk County Police Department
[Originally transmitted to Elwood Community Network on 5/3]
The May edition of the SCPD's newsletter has two timely reminders, one relating to severe weather, and the other relating to all other situations.
We can all help to make our police more efficient by following the guidelines they provide; the relevant excerpts are pasted below for convenient reference.
Jerry Hannon
......................................
The May edition of the SCPD's newsletter has two timely reminders, one relating to severe weather, and the other relating to all other situations.
We can all help to make our police more efficient by following the guidelines they provide; the relevant excerpts are pasted below for convenient reference.
Jerry Hannon
......................................
Severe Weather: This Spring has brought severe weather across the nation and although we have been affected to a lesser extent, Long Island has certainly not been immune. You can assist us during periods of severe weather by not calling 911 unless it is a true emergency—instead call 852-COPS for non-emergency police response. Stay informed during severe weather and other emergencies by signing up for the CodeRED Emergency Notification System at www.suffolkcountyny.gov, clicking on the CodeRED icon on the left side of the page, or by calling (631) 852-4900.
Contacting the Police Department
Concerned citizens often inquire as to the appropriate method to contact the Suffolk County Police Department. The following guidelines should be used when contacting us:
Concerned citizens often inquire as to the appropriate method to contact the Suffolk County Police Department. The following guidelines should be used when contacting us:
Emergencies: Dial “911” to report crimes in progress, fires, medical emergencies or incidents requiring an emergency response. After you dial “911” a specially trained operator will come on the line to assist you. Remain calm and speak slowly and clearly. It is difficult for operators to understand callers who are yelling or speaking quickly. Please remain on the line until the operator tells you it is okay to hang up, unless it is unsafe for you to do so. Please do not hang up if you dial 911 in error, as the operator may send police to confirm no emergency exists.
Teach your children about “911” and ensure they know to call this number for an emergency, only in an emergency. Reinforce that they should never call “911” as a game or prank, for this drains emergency services and may slow our response to true emergencies. Placing false calls to 911 is a felony, punishable by substantial fines and/or imprisonment of up to 7 years in prison.
Non-Emergencies Requiring Police Response: For non-emergencies requiring a police response, such as parking problems, loud music or prior incidents, dial (631) 852-COPS. Using this number helps ensure emergencies receive priority answering, while ensuring your call receives appropriate attention as well.
General Inquiries Not Requiring a Police Response: Please contact your local precinct directly. You can also email your local precinct and many specialized units within Department. Visit www.suffolkpd.org and click on the Contact Us or Phone Directory icons for more information.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Glenn Girls Basketball Team To Be Honored By Town & County
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 5/1]
With gratitude for the fact that this can't possibly be snowed out (as Glenn's Football and Volleyball teams experienced earlier this year, twice), you should pencil into your personal calendars two dates, and times, and locations, at which the John Glenn Girls Basketball Team will be honored for winning the Suffolk County Championship in their Class:
Suffolk County Legislature, Hauppauge May 10th, 9 AM
Town Board, Town Hall, Huntington June 6th, 7 PM
Our fine young ladies deserve every honor for their wonderful achievement and it would be nice to have community representation as support for them. Congratulations to the team and their coaches.
Suffolk County Legislature, Hauppauge May 10th, 9 AM
Town Board, Town Hall, Huntington June 6th, 7 PM
Our fine young ladies deserve every honor for their wonderful achievement and it would be nice to have community representation as support for them. Congratulations to the team and their coaches.
Elwood Quiz, In Connection With the May 17th Election
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/29]
Question:
What are the names of (1) the former Elwood Board of Education Trustee, who was endorsed by Elwood's teachers union for his/her only contested election to the BOE, and (2) the former Elwood Principal, who was known to be active in other union matters in Elwood, who were reported today to have met, on Thursday night, at a home in the Old Chester Hills section of Elwood, with a very young and very inexperienced candidate for the May 17th election for the Elwood Board of Education?
Contest Guidelines and Rules:
You have twenty-four hours to consider the question, and to propose your answer; both names must be correct.
The first correct answer will receive 20 Belgian Francs, and the second correct answer will receive two Nathan's Franks.
Frankly speaking, given the conversion of most European nations (including Belgium) to the Euro, the second prize is worth much more than the first prize.
There are no penalties, other than sheer bemusement on the part of the writer, for wrong answers.
Only one entry is permitted per household. Void where prohibited by law. Caveat Emptor. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. New York City Transit when I dated Gloria DiSalvio during college.
Question:
What are the names of (1) the former Elwood Board of Education Trustee, who was endorsed by Elwood's teachers union for his/her only contested election to the BOE, and (2) the former Elwood Principal, who was known to be active in other union matters in Elwood, who were reported today to have met, on Thursday night, at a home in the Old Chester Hills section of Elwood, with a very young and very inexperienced candidate for the May 17th election for the Elwood Board of Education?
Contest Guidelines and Rules:
You have twenty-four hours to consider the question, and to propose your answer; both names must be correct.
The first correct answer will receive 20 Belgian Francs, and the second correct answer will receive two Nathan's Franks.
Frankly speaking, given the conversion of most European nations (including Belgium) to the Euro, the second prize is worth much more than the first prize.
There are no penalties, other than sheer bemusement on the part of the writer, for wrong answers.
Only one entry is permitted per household. Void where prohibited by law. Caveat Emptor. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. New York City Transit when I dated Gloria DiSalvio during college.
The Flowers (and Signs) That Bloom in the Spring, Tra-La
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/28]
Yes, it is that time of the year when not only the daffodils and the tulips pop up everywhere, but BOE election signs also begin to "pop up" and spread.
As part of our First Amendment rights, subject to laws relating to property and obstructing driver vision and so on, we are entitled to post signs on our properties supporting candidates for any public office, including school board.
But, please remember the commandments relating to this right.
For every citizen:
XI Thou shalt not steal or deface the signs of candidates, even those whom you believe do not deserve to be elected, unless someone has placed a sign on your own private property without your permission. (*)
For the five candidates, or their campaign workers:
XII Thou shalt not place campaign signs on private property unless you have already obtained the consent of the owner of that property. (*)
XIII Thou shalt not place campaign signs on public property, including recharge basins (sumps), or adjacent to intersections which are not on private property. (#)
With regard to the two notes above:
* = While most of us would find it hard to believe that someone would actually do this, a few years ago Elwood did have a candidate for BOE who placed signs on some lawns without the consent of the owner.
# = First-time candidates often may not realize that Town codes, and County codes, prohibit placement of campaign signs, or any form of commercial advertising, on publicly-owned land. As I discovered in the one time I ran, in 2002, either the Town or the County will remove such signs and usually dispose of them. Since these signs are not cheap, do yourself -- and everyone else -- a favor by keeping your signs away from public property.
But to all, a Happy Spring (finally).
Jerry Hannon
Yes, it is that time of the year when not only the daffodils and the tulips pop up everywhere, but BOE election signs also begin to "pop up" and spread.
As part of our First Amendment rights, subject to laws relating to property and obstructing driver vision and so on, we are entitled to post signs on our properties supporting candidates for any public office, including school board.
But, please remember the commandments relating to this right.
For every citizen:
XI Thou shalt not steal or deface the signs of candidates, even those whom you believe do not deserve to be elected, unless someone has placed a sign on your own private property without your permission. (*)
For the five candidates, or their campaign workers:
XII Thou shalt not place campaign signs on private property unless you have already obtained the consent of the owner of that property. (*)
XIII Thou shalt not place campaign signs on public property, including recharge basins (sumps), or adjacent to intersections which are not on private property. (#)
With regard to the two notes above:
* = While most of us would find it hard to believe that someone would actually do this, a few years ago Elwood did have a candidate for BOE who placed signs on some lawns without the consent of the owner.
# = First-time candidates often may not realize that Town codes, and County codes, prohibit placement of campaign signs, or any form of commercial advertising, on publicly-owned land. As I discovered in the one time I ran, in 2002, either the Town or the County will remove such signs and usually dispose of them. Since these signs are not cheap, do yourself -- and everyone else -- a favor by keeping your signs away from public property.
But to all, a Happy Spring (finally).
Jerry Hannon
Should We Be Surprised that LIPA Was Not Looking Out For Us?
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/27]
While listening to the Morning Edition news program on the WSUF (105.7 MHz) affiliate of WSHU, which is the NPR station which covers Southern Connecticut and Suffolk County NY, I heard a terrific -- shocking, but terrific -- investigative journalism story which they did regarding overcharges and highly questionable charges billed to LIPA by its contractors, and simply passed along by LIPA for payment by its ratepayers, you and me, in the electricity rates.
Here, from the WSHU website (http://www.wshu.org/news/story.php?ID=8715) is the base introduction for this story:
.......................................................
This is another demonstration of the value of good investigative journalism, based on facts, and based on excellent analysis, and free of any bias or partisan political fantasies, or hopes, or trumped-up (pun intended) charges.
Usually we find good investigative journalism done by the better newspapers in our country, as the recent Pulitzer Prize awards attest, but it is great to see WSHU and NPR tackling a major issue, such as abuses of ratepayers by LIPA, and it is only puzzling that Newsday failed to uncover this abuse.
Jerry Hannon
While listening to the Morning Edition news program on the WSUF (105.7 MHz) affiliate of WSHU, which is the NPR station which covers Southern Connecticut and Suffolk County NY, I heard a terrific -- shocking, but terrific -- investigative journalism story which they did regarding overcharges and highly questionable charges billed to LIPA by its contractors, and simply passed along by LIPA for payment by its ratepayers, you and me, in the electricity rates.
Here, from the WSHU website (http://www.wshu.org/news/story.php?ID=8715) is the base introduction for this story:
.......................................................
"LIPA struggles to provide oversight of storm costs
A receipt from Hooters. One of thousands of receipts submitted by National Grid to LIPA for Hurricane Earl
Charles Lane
Suffolk, NY April 27, 2011
Suffolk, NY April 27, 2011
Starting in January WSHU began investigating the Long Island Power Authority's response to storms. Specifically we looked at a non-storm, Hurricane Earl which grazed Long Island last September. WSHU examined four thousand pages of receipts and invoices and found reckless overspending that went unnoticed by LIPA until we began asking questions.
Documents
WSHU has posted all of the invoices National Grid has so far submitted to LIPA for Hurricane Earl. You can search and browse them on DocumentCloud or crunch through a downloadable spreadsheet.
Looking for something specific? like just the crew guide receipts, or examples of high priced meals (like here, here , and here), or luxury transport , or clothing , or alcohol, or GPS devices, or all the charges so far disputed for 2010 (plus Earl).
If you see something interesting (or know of things we missed), email charles@wshu.org"
.......................................
Documents
WSHU has posted all of the invoices National Grid has so far submitted to LIPA for Hurricane Earl. You can search and browse them on DocumentCloud or crunch through a downloadable spreadsheet.
Looking for something specific? like just the crew guide receipts, or examples of high priced meals (like here, here , and here), or luxury transport , or clothing , or alcohol, or GPS devices, or all the charges so far disputed for 2010 (plus Earl).
If you see something interesting (or know of things we missed), email charles@wshu.org"
.......................................
This is another demonstration of the value of good investigative journalism, based on facts, and based on excellent analysis, and free of any bias or partisan political fantasies, or hopes, or trumped-up (pun intended) charges.
Usually we find good investigative journalism done by the better newspapers in our country, as the recent Pulitzer Prize awards attest, but it is great to see WSHU and NPR tackling a major issue, such as abuses of ratepayers by LIPA, and it is only puzzling that Newsday failed to uncover this abuse.
Jerry Hannon
Supplement Regarding Some of the Candidates for BOE Trustee
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/20]
With regard to yesterday's community commentary, "School District Received Nominating Petitions for Board Trustee Positions," I now have some information about the other two candidates whom I did not know.
I also have been made aware of two minor corrections, and I will quickly cover those first:
(1) Mr. Gutekunst's first name is William, and not "Walter", as I had typed.
(2) James Tomeo graduated from John Glenn HS in 2008, and not 2007, as I had imagined.
Now, for the information about William Gutekunst and Michael LaMena, which I have learned from reliable friends:
William Gutekunst - Bill and his wife live in the East Northport section of Elwood, and they have children in Elwood schools. According to the internet site Linked In, Bill is a Vice President of Medical Solutions Group Inc., which has a regional office located in East Northport. He was one of the organizers of the Elwood Youth/John Glenn HS Wrestling Golf Outing last October, and he serves on the Executive Board of Elwood Youth Wrestling Club. I don't know of any service by Bill on district committees, but Bill's business management experience could be useful for the district.
Michael LaMena - Mike is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and spent one year teaching at Mount Saint Michael Academy in the Bronx. He spent fourteen years as an executive at Morgan Stanley before joining HighTower Advisors, where he serves as Chief Operating Officer. Mike and his wife live in the Huntington section of Elwood, and they have three young children; one friend believes that the one child of school age is at Harley. I don't know of any service by Mike on district committees, but Mike's experience with financial activities and hands-on executive experience in operations management could also be useful for the district.
Undoubtedly over the next few weeks we will all hear from each of the five candidates, one of whom we clearly know well and favorably already.
Jerry Hannon
With regard to yesterday's community commentary, "School District Received Nominating Petitions for Board Trustee Positions," I now have some information about the other two candidates whom I did not know.
I also have been made aware of two minor corrections, and I will quickly cover those first:
(1) Mr. Gutekunst's first name is William, and not "Walter", as I had typed.
(2) James Tomeo graduated from John Glenn HS in 2008, and not 2007, as I had imagined.
Now, for the information about William Gutekunst and Michael LaMena, which I have learned from reliable friends:
William Gutekunst - Bill and his wife live in the East Northport section of Elwood, and they have children in Elwood schools. According to the internet site Linked In, Bill is a Vice President of Medical Solutions Group Inc., which has a regional office located in East Northport. He was one of the organizers of the Elwood Youth/John Glenn HS Wrestling Golf Outing last October, and he serves on the Executive Board of Elwood Youth Wrestling Club. I don't know of any service by Bill on district committees, but Bill's business management experience could be useful for the district.
Michael LaMena - Mike is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and spent one year teaching at Mount Saint Michael Academy in the Bronx. He spent fourteen years as an executive at Morgan Stanley before joining HighTower Advisors, where he serves as Chief Operating Officer. Mike and his wife live in the Huntington section of Elwood, and they have three young children; one friend believes that the one child of school age is at Harley. I don't know of any service by Mike on district committees, but Mike's experience with financial activities and hands-on executive experience in operations management could also be useful for the district.
Undoubtedly over the next few weeks we will all hear from each of the five candidates, one of whom we clearly know well and favorably already.
Jerry Hannon
School District Received Nominating Petitions for Board Trustee Positions
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/18]
I have learned, as many of you have probably already heard through the Elwood grapevine, that qualified nominating petitions, for each of the two seats, have been received by today's 5 PM deadline. I am listing the names alphabetically, but actual position on the ballot is determined by lot.
For the seat presently held by Mike Kaszubski:
1. Walter Gutekunst
2. James Tomeo
For the seat presently held by Patty Matos:
1. Michael LaMena
2. Patty Matos
3. Jack Schwartz
Frankly, I have never met, much less spoken with, either Mr. Gutekunst or Mr. LaMena. Undoubtedly information will develop on both of these individuals, and I will offer comments after that has occurred.
The job of Board of Education Trustee is a grueling one, demanding not only a major investment of time, but also an investment of emotional energy. The fact that this is a totally unpaid and uncompensated position means that we have to respect the dedication of anyone who does this job, and even admire those who are willing to make the commitment to the community and school district, should they be elected.
Since I do know three of the five candidates, I will pass along my own experience with them.
Listing the three alphabeticallly:
Patty Matos - Frankly, I am delightfully surprised that Patty is apparently going to run for re-election; I had been afraid that she would not, despite the fact that I don't think there are even a handful of potential candidates in this community who could hold a candle to her accomplishments, much less defeat her in an election. Patty probably has more friends in Elwood than you or I have in the entire Northeast United States, and those few who don't like her -- well, they simply don't really know her or want to know her.
Patty is the quintessential devoted member of our community, and has been active in the school district for well over twenty years. That includes serving as President of most (if not indeed all) of the PTA units, and she was my immediate predecessor as Elwood PTA Council President.
In addition, Patty has actively served on several committees of this school district, both prior to her 2008 election to the BOE, as well as subsequently. Selfless devotion to the district, and dedication to the entire K though 12 spectrum, as well as continuous and consistent active involvement and volunteer work for the students and the entire school community, are important elements for anyone asking for our trust and support.
Jack Schwartz - Jack, if I recall correctly, is a patent attorney. He was active in the group that was focused, in 2008 and 2009, upon pushing the school district to establish Full Day Kindergarten. As I was a member of only six district committees over the past few years (dropping back to four committees this year, due to so many other demands for my time), I don't know if he served on more than the two where I occasionally but infrequently saw him, the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC) and the Facilities Committee. He has not actively participated in the CFBAC during the 2010/11 school year.
James Tomeo - I served with James on the Shared Decision-making Committee of John Glenn HS a few years ago, when I was a Parent Member and he was a Student Representative. James graduated from John Glenn in 2007, I think, but I don't know what he has done since that time. I do know that he is a genuinely nice person, and my records also show that he was an unsuccessful candidate for Board Trustee in 2008. What I do find somewhat surprising is that James has apparently not served on any district committees subsequent to his unsuccessful run for the Board of Education, and if someone cared enough about the district to run for the BOE, then I feel that person should have been willing to give it a commitment of active and consistent support in a meaningful way.
Good luck to all of the candidates, and after I am able to develop information about Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LaMena, I will comment at that time.
Jerry Hannon
I have learned, as many of you have probably already heard through the Elwood grapevine, that qualified nominating petitions, for each of the two seats, have been received by today's 5 PM deadline. I am listing the names alphabetically, but actual position on the ballot is determined by lot.
For the seat presently held by Mike Kaszubski:
1. Walter Gutekunst
2. James Tomeo
For the seat presently held by Patty Matos:
1. Michael LaMena
2. Patty Matos
3. Jack Schwartz
Frankly, I have never met, much less spoken with, either Mr. Gutekunst or Mr. LaMena. Undoubtedly information will develop on both of these individuals, and I will offer comments after that has occurred.
The job of Board of Education Trustee is a grueling one, demanding not only a major investment of time, but also an investment of emotional energy. The fact that this is a totally unpaid and uncompensated position means that we have to respect the dedication of anyone who does this job, and even admire those who are willing to make the commitment to the community and school district, should they be elected.
Since I do know three of the five candidates, I will pass along my own experience with them.
Listing the three alphabeticallly:
Patty Matos - Frankly, I am delightfully surprised that Patty is apparently going to run for re-election; I had been afraid that she would not, despite the fact that I don't think there are even a handful of potential candidates in this community who could hold a candle to her accomplishments, much less defeat her in an election. Patty probably has more friends in Elwood than you or I have in the entire Northeast United States, and those few who don't like her -- well, they simply don't really know her or want to know her.
Patty is the quintessential devoted member of our community, and has been active in the school district for well over twenty years. That includes serving as President of most (if not indeed all) of the PTA units, and she was my immediate predecessor as Elwood PTA Council President.
In addition, Patty has actively served on several committees of this school district, both prior to her 2008 election to the BOE, as well as subsequently. Selfless devotion to the district, and dedication to the entire K though 12 spectrum, as well as continuous and consistent active involvement and volunteer work for the students and the entire school community, are important elements for anyone asking for our trust and support.
Jack Schwartz - Jack, if I recall correctly, is a patent attorney. He was active in the group that was focused, in 2008 and 2009, upon pushing the school district to establish Full Day Kindergarten. As I was a member of only six district committees over the past few years (dropping back to four committees this year, due to so many other demands for my time), I don't know if he served on more than the two where I occasionally but infrequently saw him, the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee (CFBAC) and the Facilities Committee. He has not actively participated in the CFBAC during the 2010/11 school year.
James Tomeo - I served with James on the Shared Decision-making Committee of John Glenn HS a few years ago, when I was a Parent Member and he was a Student Representative. James graduated from John Glenn in 2007, I think, but I don't know what he has done since that time. I do know that he is a genuinely nice person, and my records also show that he was an unsuccessful candidate for Board Trustee in 2008. What I do find somewhat surprising is that James has apparently not served on any district committees subsequent to his unsuccessful run for the Board of Education, and if someone cared enough about the district to run for the BOE, then I feel that person should have been willing to give it a commitment of active and consistent support in a meaningful way.
Good luck to all of the candidates, and after I am able to develop information about Mr. Gutekunst and Mr. LaMena, I will comment at that time.
Jerry Hannon
District Has Posted Reply to 2nd Variation of Contingent Offer from Teachers Union
[Originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 4/16]
For those who have not gone to the District website today, you will find a link to the reply from the Board of Education to a revised offer from the teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance.
You will find that letter by going to the Home Page, http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/, and following the first item under "Headlines", titled "Board of Education response to the Elwood Teachers Alliance offer New!"
It is obvious that the union continues to offer a financial concession but only, repeat, only if the District will agree to a contract extension plus a commitment to future increases.
You will find the BOE's financial analysis in the body of the letter referenced above. The verbal summary of the Board is found in the following three sentences:
"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."
I don't know how you react to this scenario, but to me the concept of sacrifice, which is what all of us are being asked to do, is just that. Sacrifice. It should not be a negotiation to get "x" benefit in the future by giving up "y" today.
The students are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they have to give up in 2011/12 in terms of reductions in either programs or after-school activities.
The taxpayers are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they are being asked to do in terms of significant tax increases for 2011/12.
The benefit to the teachers union is that they would be able to preserve the jobs of many of their colleagues, the younger teachers, the future of our schools and our society, providing that the more-senior teachers (since we are still faced with the last hired-first fired system imposed on us by Albany) simply give up a scheduled increase in 2011/12.
That's right, they are not being asked to take an actual CUT in salary; they are simply asked to not take a scheduled INCREASE in salary for 2011/12.
I remain hopeful that wiser, and calmer, and more compassionate minds and hearts among the teachers union's Executive Board will prevail.
But the clock is ticking ever more loudly, and time is flying by ever so swiftly.
Jerry Hannon
For those who have not gone to the District website today, you will find a link to the reply from the Board of Education to a revised offer from the teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance.
You will find that letter by going to the Home Page, http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/, and following the first item under "Headlines", titled "Board of Education response to the Elwood Teachers Alliance offer New!"
It is obvious that the union continues to offer a financial concession but only, repeat, only if the District will agree to a contract extension plus a commitment to future increases.
You will find the BOE's financial analysis in the body of the letter referenced above. The verbal summary of the Board is found in the following three sentences:
"The request to extend your contract for two years, through June 2016, in light of diminishing state aid, and a looming tax cap with no specific guarantee of mandate relief, leaves us unable to extend a further financial commitment to your unit members. Simply put, we are unable to write you a check now without knowing if we will be able cover the expense. If we were to make such a commitment, the future increase of salary expense you proposed will put us above the tax cap and our only recourse would be to eliminate jobs and/or valuable programs."
I don't know how you react to this scenario, but to me the concept of sacrifice, which is what all of us are being asked to do, is just that. Sacrifice. It should not be a negotiation to get "x" benefit in the future by giving up "y" today.
The students are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they have to give up in 2011/12 in terms of reductions in either programs or after-school activities.
The taxpayers are not going to get any carve-back, or future benefit, for what they are being asked to do in terms of significant tax increases for 2011/12.
The benefit to the teachers union is that they would be able to preserve the jobs of many of their colleagues, the younger teachers, the future of our schools and our society, providing that the more-senior teachers (since we are still faced with the last hired-first fired system imposed on us by Albany) simply give up a scheduled increase in 2011/12.
That's right, they are not being asked to take an actual CUT in salary; they are simply asked to not take a scheduled INCREASE in salary for 2011/12.
I remain hopeful that wiser, and calmer, and more compassionate minds and hearts among the teachers union's Executive Board will prevail.
But the clock is ticking ever more loudly, and time is flying by ever so swiftly.
Jerry Hannon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
