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

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:
.......................................................

"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

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"
.......................................

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

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

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

April 7th Elwood School Budget Workshop - Part One

[Originally Transmitted 4/10 on Elwood Community Network]

Introduction:

The school district’s fifth Budget Workshop proved to be another very long evening, beginning just after 7:30 PM, following the BOE’s return from a brief Executive Session, and not concluding until approximately 11:28 PM. There were 124 participants in the audience at its peak, including 6 or 7 administrators not on the dais, as well as several staff members, but by far most of the audience were residents. The Residents Remarks period, as scheduled, took place after announcements, presentations, and dialogue among the BOE trustees and District Administration. There were 24 sets of comments and/or questions, with 6 residents taking the opportunity to come to the microphone a second time, after all 18 residents who wanted to address the Board had their own chance to do so.

Truer Words Were Never Spoken:

At approximately 11:25 PM the 24th, and final, remarks of the evening came from a resident who described himself as a New York City Police Officer (whether current or recently retired was not clear) who has two children in Elwood schools. This gentleman, obviously reacting to the very disappointing proposal to the district from the teachers union, related that he had personally agreed to take a Zero increase in pay for three consecutive years so that the jobs of his brother and sister police officers could be preserved. He could not understand how so many young teachers could be allowed to lose their jobs.

Big Announcement of the Evening:

The Superintendent advised the audience that the Elwood Teachers Alliance, which is the teachers union for our district, had submitted a proposal for a partial (*, see Note below) deferment in salary, and that partial deferment would only be for approximately five months of the District’s full fiscal year. They also offered an actual freeze of the scheduled increase for stipends for extra-curricular activities and athletics (but this particular expense is merely a small factor in our budget).

However, in return for that partial deferment of the scheduled raise (but not deferment of Step increases), and for only a small part of the school year, the union was demanding that the Board of Education extend their labor agreement for an additional year, until June 30 of 2015. Moreover, they wanted a raise built into that extended year which would be based upon the Consumer Price Index, with a minimum of 1.75% and a maximum of 3%.

( * Note: A teacher’s salary is determined by a multi-part formula, combining a contracted percentage raise for a particular year, with a contacted percentage increase by virtue of a teacher being in the district for one additional year, usually known as “Step”; in addition, there are also increases related to the college degree(s) obtained, as well as additional credits earned subsequently, but those achievement-based criteria are not the subject of discussions about potential sacrifice by the teachers union, for 2011/12, in order to save jobs that would otherwise be lost. Furthermore, the mere delay of the scheduled raise for the teachers, instead of an actual freeze for the year, would mean that the higher level of pay would be reflected for pension purposes in a teacher's final average salary, and it also means that the full amount would be included in the base for which a higher salary level, in accordance with the amounts already in the contract, would be calculated for the 2012/13 school year. The structure of the teachers contract is so complex that, in a particular year one teacher might see a significantly higher raise than another, and the next year could see something of the opposite; therefore, the Board and District discuss and negotiate on the basis of averages for the teachers.)

Following the Superintendent’s synopsis, Board President Michael Kaszubski read the Board’s response to that “final” proposal from the teachers union, which began with appreciation for the union’s consideration of possibly participating in the sacrifices that will have to be made by students and taxpayers alike (not to mention the personal sacrifice already made by the Superintendent, and subsequently by other District administrators).

But, the Board’s letter also provided a very clear outline of why the union’s proposal was not only far short of the mark of making a substantial difference for our 2011/12 budget (given the rising expenses combined with the cut in State aid), but was also completely at odds with any specter of reasonability and even a great risk for the taxpayers of Elwood.

You may download a PDF copy of the full text of the Board’s letter to the union by going to this page on the District website (http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/newsdistrict_information/budgetfinancial_information) and then scrolling down to the last item in the section for the April 7th Workshop.

The BOE letter makes it very clear what the teachers are receiving, in terms of the annual negotiated raises and “Step” increases, so that when someone tells you that the teachers took a freeze in the 2009/10 school year, you will see that it was only a partial freeze (i.e, their salaries were actually increased an average of 2%, by virtue of Step increases), and the union also obtained an extension of the contract at a guaranteed rate of increases in both categories for the extended 2013/14 year of the contract. The Board’s letter also makes it clear that the one year extension, to 2014/15, demanded by the union as compensation for their partial freeze, for part of the year, would cost the District and its taxpayers additional increases between 4.55% and 5.80%.

The operative part of the Board’s letter is as follows:

“The ultimatum by the Executive Board of the bargaining unit is simply not acceptable. It fails to recognize the long-term systemic issues in public finance and would still result in the devastating loss of jobs and core education for next year and the years to follow. Furthermore, the BOE has heard from the community and is in no position to add additional years to the teachers contract.

They poignantly go on to say:

“The Board of Education is prepared to present the community with a budget that keeps all programs, that keeps all 28 teacher jobs intact, retains all sports, and retains all extra-curricular activities. These would occur in exchange for a complete freeze in increase and step for next year for each of your unit members. Even with the Board of Educations’ suggested proposal, we realize that a 7% tax increase may not be warmly received by all voters, but believe that we would, as a group, be saying to the community that we support our schools and our teachers.”

Mr. Kaszubski, and the Board, received a loud round of applause from a super-majority of the audience, at the conclusion of his reading of the letter.

Fifty Cent Version of the Logic Behind This Action:

Our school district has a certain amount of money available for employee compensation.

When there are raises built into labor agreements, as there are in Elwood's and other districts, and when revenue sources are reduced, you either have to get everyone in the current system to hold fast to current pay levels, or you have to lay off some of your workers so that you can pay higher amounts of money to those who will be left, after the layoffs.

Nobody is being asked to take an actual cut in their current pay.

Nobody is being asked to take on more classes or duties than they now have.

The school district has a binding contact with the union, so it cannot demand anything.

But, the union has it within its power to protect the jobs of younger teachers, merely by agreeing not to take the increase in pay for 2011/12 which the contract would otherwise require in terms of both the annual negotiated raise as well as "Step."

Basically, the teachers union has four days in which to reconsider, so that some very fine teachers -- their younger colleagues -- can be retained by our district rather than put on the streets at a time when it will be difficult for them to obtain a position in another district. Retaining these teachers will also ensure that our students do not end up with much higher class sizes, thereby enhancing educational opportunities, and it will enable us to retain programs that would otherwise have to be cut.

This is out of the hands of the Superintendent, and out of the hands of the Board of Education. It is totally in the hands of the Executive Board of the teachers union, which has been responsible for negotiations to this point in time.

Let’s hope that wiser, and more considerate, and cooler heads will prevail.

Other Issues and Comments:

These will be covered in Part Two, as soon as I can finish the analysis of my notes.

Jerry Hannon

Example of How Albany Shafted NY School Districts and Their Taxpayers

[originally transmitted 4/3 on Elwood Community Network]

I have pasted below a description of the 2000 Retirement Enhancement Law; as noted it was signed into law by Gov. George Pataki, whom we all remember, and it came from a bill in the State Senate sponsored by Sen. Carl Marcellino, who is still the State Senator for our community, and a bill in the State Assembly sponsored by Assemblyman Vitaliano, whose name is unknown to me.

To see the reaction to that new law by the state's teachers union organization, New York State United Teachers, you can go to this web page:
http://nysut.org/media/archive/000711pensionlegislation.html

Read the description below, and consider carefully how this change in law expanded the retirement benefits for public employees in NY State, since this has a very real (and increasingly high) cost for school districts and their taxpayers, particularly since the State simultaneously eliminated the 3% contributions by certain tiers of employees after they have achieved ten years of service.

Albany and our State politicians are a recipe for disaster; they had already cut State aid to school districts this past year, and they have now cut aid even more for 2010/11, despite the fact that it was Albany which has increased the costs for those same school districts in not only the referenced pensions, but also in unfunded State mandates for school districts, and in personnel management constraints and restrictions for school districts.

Brilliant!

Maybe they'll offer us the Bubonic Plague next year, while simultaneously taking away hospital beds and decreasing their funding of medical care for the less wealthy among us.

But then they'll probably try to take our eyes off of the Governor and Legislature by telling us that the salaries of nurses, and the salaries of doctors, and the salaries of hospital administrators, are too high relative to the Governor's salary, and that those are the only problems to which we should pay attention.

Just remember the mantra: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain in Albany.

Dorothy knew better, and she unmasked the phony Wizard of Oz. And that's what we also need to do with Albany.

Jerry Hannon

-----------------------------------------

Retirement Enhancement Law Add Article 19 SS900-902, Add Art 19-A SS910 & 911, R&SS L (Signed 7/11/00 Gov. Pataki ) S.8142 Marcellino / A. 11418 Vitaliano - Provides for the following enhanced retirement benefits : (1) an additional one-twelfth of a year of additional retirement credit for each year of service up to a maximum of two years for certain employees who are Tier I and II members; (2) Elimination of the three percent of salary contribution rate for employees who are Tier III and Tier IV members with more than ten years of membership in a retirement system.

RSS - Retirement and Social Security

Article 19 - BENEFIT ENHANCEMENTS
900 - Definitions.
901 - Election of benefit enhancements.
902 - Benefit enhancements.

II. Benefit Enhancement:
(S.8142 by Sen. Marcellino, et al. /A.11418 by Rules by Asm. Vitaliano)

For members in the New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS) and New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System (NYSLERS), these new benefit improvements include:

(1) Tier I & II Members: Members who are currently in active service will be afforded one month of additional service credit for each year of service up to a maximum of 24 months at no cost.
ο This legislation also increases the maximum final average salary factor to 79%.
ο The benefits provided by this legislation can be used in addition to the benefits provided by the state's early retirement incentive (Chapter 86 of the laws of 2000).
ο Members who are eligible for both the benefit enhancement and the early retirement incentive (Chapter 86 of the laws of 2000) may increase their final average salary factor to a maximum of 85%, depending on their credited service.
ο For members retiring at the close of this school year, this bill takes effect June 1, 2000. For all other members, this bill takes effect on October 1, 2000.

(2) Tier III & IV Members: Individuals who have been members of any public retirement system for 10 or more years or who maintain 10 or more years of credited service will no longer have to make the required 3% contribution towards their retirement!!! This benefit will begin on October 1, 2000.
ο Members who have not been members of a public retirement system for 10 years or have less than 10 years of credited service will no longer have to make contributions towards the retirement system once they reach their 10th anniversary.