Other

Carmel Central School District Board March 9, 2010 Board Meeting

Submitted by JDKJJK on Wed, 03/10/2010 - 12:02pm

I attended last night’s meeting of the Carmel Central School Board.  On the agenda was the third in a series of presentations on the proposed 2010/11 school budget.  The meeting was taped and will be broadcast on the local Comcast channel.  However, I have provided a summary of last nights meeting for those who may not get a chance to view the broadcast.   

Attendance at last night’s meeting, as well as the meeting held on March 2nd, was very impressive.  There were very few vacant seats.

Also impressive was number of public comments, unlike previous board meetings there were at least 10 individuals who made comments before the board.

The majority of the comments were from parents who were justifiably concerned about the proposed reductions and the proposed realignment of Kent Elementary School and the Kent Primary School.

Several of the comments seemed to indicate a desire to retain the status quo and there was concern addressed about the elimination of Teacher’s Assistant positions and a Guidance Counselor. 

There was also concern addressed about the elimination of certain programs, which from the speaker’s comments and Assistant Superintendant Irvin’s response, indicated that these programs were implemented to help reduce the number of students who, in the future, may require more costly Special Education intervention. 

Mr. Irvine agreed that he still believed that these programs were indeed useful for achieving cost avoidance in the future.  However, the proposed cuts were necessary based upon the current financial pressure facing the community and that with this in mind the Board could not look at possible future potential savings.  

While I applaud the Board’s decisions on reducing overall costs, I must admit I was not satisfied with Mr. Irvine’s comments.  If the programs slated for elimination substantially reduce the District’s long-term costs then I believe it should be possible to quantify how these future savings. If the Board cannot quantify substantial future savings from these programs then the Board’s decision to eliminate these programs correct.

As to the other comments, while a majority of the parents voiced there support for the Teacher’s there was a palpable frustration at the means and methods utilized to determine where the and how the proposed cuts were made. 

One speaker, who by his initial comments, I originally perceived as opposed to the budget cuts, in a later interaction with Board member Steve Port this same individual demonstrated his frustration at the fact that teacher’s were not held to performance standards.

Several speakers raised the lack of accountability for schoolteachers and while no names were mentioned, there was a general feeling that certain individuals should not be teaching.     

Along these same lines, there were questions about the methodology employed for the reduction of staff.  Assistant Superintendant Irvin explained the seniority system, and he informed the audience that the current tenure system is covered under NYS Education Law.

Another Speaker voiced her concerns about the proposed cuts and she stated that she believed that the Board should be looking at alternatives such as consolidating back office operations. 

There was also one speaker, who defended the teachers.  However, she also voiced her opinion that the Board should be looking at negotiating a wage freeze for the Administrative staff and the Teachers.  She believed that the Teachers would be amenable to a wage freeze if it meant saving jobs.

In response to the proposal for a consolidation of back office operations, I informed the audience that the authority to consolidate back office operations rests entirely with the School Board.  I further explained that under the current rules the Board would have to approach another District and negotiate a consolidation of back office operations.  I also informed the audience that Assemblywoman Galef has a legislative proposal to empower the local BOCES with authority to determine administrative consolidations. 

Board member Steve Port seemed to take issue with my statement and appeared to interpret my statement as an endorsement for school district consolidation.  Mr. Port stated that consolidation would lead to less personal interaction and increased layers of bureaucracy.  I informed Mr. Port that I was not advocating for the consolidation of the entire District.  I explained that I was aware of studies that indicate consolidation of districts does not necessarily lead to cost savings.  However, in retrospect I am having second thoughts on this position.  The study relied upon that demonstrates school districts do not achieve economies of scale based upon consolidation was conducted during the 1980’s.  Since the 80’s, there have been vast technological improvements and maybe it is time to revisit this issue. 

Finally, as to the issue of a wage freeze, I have consistently proposed this to the School Board at both meetings and via emails.  I believe prior to the beginning of the current school year I sent Superintendant Ryan an email and asked him if had approached the Teachers Association and requested to renegotiate the terms of the current agreement.  I did receive a response in which Superintendant Ryan stated that the Board was looking at all possible measures to reduce costs.  However, I never did receive an answer as to whether the Board ever formally requested that the Teacher’s Association reopen negotiations.  The Board was equally silent on this issue last night. 

 

Jim Kirk  

Additional Link for State and Local Information

Submitted by JDKJJK on Sat, 01/16/2010 - 1:16am

While seethroughNY.net is a valuable link, the following link provides additional information on NY State municipal contracts.  I have also provided a link to Arbitration decisions and Fact-Finding results (e.g. teachers decisions (second link)).  

Just one note of caution the Contract link appears to have a glitch that generates a warning asking if you wish the scripts to stop running as they may cause your computer to become unresponsive.  I have clicked yes and the page I was seeking became available without any additional problems.  If you are uncomfortable with receiving the error message, do not proceed with the connection.  If attempts to close the website through clicking the "X" box are unsuccessful you can end the program by pressing Alt+Control+Delete simultaneously, which will start your computer's Task Manager.  You can then utilize Task Manager to end the program. 

The second link appears to work without difficulty. 

 

Jim Kirk

 

 

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbcontracts/

 

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/

NY Public Payroll Watch

Submitted by JDKJJK on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 7:09pm

 

December 2, 2009

Teachers clean up on “pension reform”

E.J. McMahon

Buried in the so-called Tier V pension bill just passed by the state Legislature is an incredible set of special concessions to unionized school teachers in New York.  None of these changes were contained in Governor Paterson’s original “pension reform” proposal, which was a colossal missed opportunity to begin with.  The worst of the giveaways to teachers in the final bill–effectively locking in one of the fastest-growing, most difficult to control components of school district compensation costs–is not even mentioned in Paterson’s press release hailing the bill’s passage.

The teachers’ union had their way on three major items:

  • While the minimum full-benefit retirement age after 30 years service was raised from 55 to 62 for all other civilian employees, it will set be at 57 for teachers.  In 2007-08, the median retirement age for New York State Teachers Retirement System (NYSTRS) members was 58.
  • The Legislature promised to enact a three-month early retirement window for teachers who are 55 but have only 25 years of service.  Districts will greet this as a cost savings, but it also will shift a so-far uncalculated cost to an already stressed pension fund.
  • Last but not least, the Tier V bill makes permanent a temporary law, annually renewed since 1994, barring school districts from “diminishing” health benefits for retired school district employees unless “a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions” applies to active workers.  Since changes in benefits for current employees must be collectively bargained, the provision effectively gives unions a veto on the matter.  This provision of Tier V, described the Assembly’s press release on the bill as “mak[ing] permanent retiree health protections,” goes unmentioned in the Governor’s celebratory release.

To be sure, the Assembly and Senate had long been in the habit of annually (and unanimously) rubber-stamping extensions of the retired teachers’ health coverage provision.  But as long as the provision was temporary, there was always a chance that some future occupant of the governor’s office would feel sufficiently emboldened to veto it or demand modifications as a condition for approval.  In general, any coveted benefit subject to periodic renewal also represents a significant point of potential leverage over the unions for a sufficiently reform-minded executive.

In one fell swoop, the Tier V bill will eliminate that leverage.  Further, it will embolden other public-sector unions that had been seeking the same permanent, perpetual benefits for their members.  The newly permanent provision for teachers becomes a precedent for everyone else.  Other public-sector units will now put strong election-year pressure on the governor and Legislature to give them same thing.  (Indeed, the Tier V bill also featured a four-year extension of compulsory arbitration rights for police and firefighters–another feature of current law that unions covet, for reasons explained here.)

Keeping in mind that the Tier V pension changes did not require bargaining with unions to begin with, Paterson and Legislature got very little from NYSUT in exchange for the special teacher goodies in the bill.  In fact, NYSUT’s sole concession apparently came down to this: while all other civilian employees in Tier V must contribute 3 percent of their salaries towards their pensions throughout their careers, teachers hired after Jan. 1 will pay 3.5 percent—a token one-half of a percentage point more, at a time when contributions are poised to increase by double-digit percentage rates.

According to the NYSTRS actuarial note pegged onto the Tier V bill, the hypothetical “entry rate” employer contribution for teachers under the new benefit structure will be about 26 percent below the rate for the current benefit structure.   This is equivalent to the projected savings for other Tier V non-uniformed members.  But, as in other areas, “it will be at least several years before [the change] has a noticeable impact on the employer contribution rate,” the actuarial note points out.

In the meantime, if the predicted path of employer contribution rate increases in the regular state retirement system is any guide, the rate for teachers is likely to rise from 6.17 percent to over 15 percent within the next few years.  NYSUT can always seek to claw back the benefit reductions before anyone in Tier V gets around to retiring–just as the union successfully did soon after Tier IV took effect in the early 1980s.  And again, districts are now more permanently stuck with costly early retiree health benefits–which, for example, amount to a $1 billion unfunded liability for the Buffalo city school district alone.

Unions are fond of using “fair share” analogies, but NYSUT is paying nowhere near its fair share for what it has gotten out of this bill.

The changes in police and fire pensions also included in the bill, especially the creation of a permanent employee contribution rate, will save more and represented a more significant change–but were balanced by the rote renewal of compulsory arbitration for those same unions.  Besides, when police and fire pensions are so much more expensive than those for everyone else, there’s scant rationale for pegging the contribution rate at the same 3 percent level as the one charged to non-uniformed employees, and below the 3.5 percent that will now be charged (but for how long?) to newly hired teachers.

Is the Tier V bill at least a step in the right direction?  Yes–only in the sense that if you are standing in Albany, face southwest and take one giant stride forward, you will be about three feet closer to an expense-paid vacation in Las Vegas.

Filed under: Labor unions, New York State, Public Pensions, School Finance —

Kent councilman seeks Putnam funding if police hurt on ERT

Submitted by JohnB on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 9:52am

 Kent councilman seeks Putnam funding if police hurt on ERT

Michael Risinit
mrisinit@lohud.com

CARMEL — Police officers injured in the line of duty can receive their full pay from their employer while they recover — a cost Putnam County should bear, a Kent councilman says, if a Kent member of the county’s Emergency Response Team is injured on a county call.

The state’s 207c law allows injured law enforcement personnel to receive their salary and benefits for as long as it’s determined they can’t work or until retirement.

Kent Councilman Michael Tierney is worried about the cost to the town, should a Kent officer be injured on an ERT call, and whether its officers can continue participating under the current arrangement.

"Everyone has to be aware of what our exposure is. In this economy, we’re looking at everything," he said.

The team consists of eight Putnam County Sheriff’s Office members, 10 Carmel police officers, five Kent police officers and two members of the county’s Emergency Services Bureau. It was formed in 2005 and, Carmel Police Chief Michael Johnson said, "responds to incidents that can stress the capabilities of the individual respective patrol forces." Examples include calls for barricaded or armed suspects, he said.

Tierney met last month with the county Legislature’s Protective Services Committee about the matter and the Kent Town Board is to discuss the issue at its Dec. 7 meeting.

The legislative committee will revisit the issue at its meeting Monday.

Committee Chairwoman Mary Ellen Odell, R-Carmel, and Legislator Richard Othmer Jr., R-Kent, said legislators are waiting for an opinion from the county law department.

"But it looks like we may be successful deputizing them, in keeping them under the county," Odell said, referring to times when the officers are on an ERT call.

Much of the team’s training and equipment cost is covered by annual Homeland Security grants, although in 2010 only half of the grant — which is $109,500 this year— can go to reimbursing the agencies for overtime and filling the regular-duty slots of officers away on training.

Previously, there were no limits on applying the money. Tierney said he also had concerns about more of these costs coming to rest on Kent.

Lt. Alex DiVernieri of the Kent police said the department "applaud(ed)" Tierney’s efforts to reduce Kent’s costs.

"Bottom line, the members of the Kent Police Department that are on the Putnam County ERT are an integral part of providing safety to not only citizens of Kent but to the entire county," he said.

Through a spokesman, Sheriff Donald B. Smith acknowledged Tierney’s concerns and pointed out participation with the ERT benefits both the county team as well as the individual department.

"The participation of each of the law enforcement agencies in the ERT is voluntary and requires the approval of the governmental leadership of each respective municipality," sheriff’s spokesman Capt. William McNamara said.

Johnson, the Carmel police chief, said he wasn’t seeking to have the county cover his officers’ 207c costs but would ask for any of the same protections afforded Kent.

 

The full link to the article is here:  http://www.lohud.com/article/20091123/NEWS04/911230318/1205/NEWS0408/Kent-councilman-seeks-Putnam-funding-if-police-hurt-on-ERT

Congratulations and New Direction

Submitted by kmichlrose on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 8:10am

On behalf of Kent Fiscal Watch I would like to congratulate our newly elected officials and to take a moment to thank those who served our town in the various capacities who are now moving on with their careers.

Kent Fiscal Watch will continue to remain true to its original mandate as a non-political group of town residents who share similiar concerns regarding the future of our community. While as a group we do share similiar concerns, we do not always share similiar opinions. I'd encourage all to remember this as we move onward to address the next set of issues facing our town.

Some have posted positions on our blogs that are clearly single-minded in their content.  That is just fine.  In fact, we encourage open and honest debate amongst our readers and only wish for this to expand beyond our normal posters to include new members and contributors.  Feel free to post your point-of-view.  However, please remember it is merely the opinion of the poster and NOT the position of Kent Fiscal Watch.

Kent Fiscal Watch will continue to bring information to the foreground - giving the local reader the opportunity to locate news that affects their community - and allowing the reader to ask questions of their own to then draw their own conclusions.

As a certain news network says... WE REPORT - YOU DECIDE.

Government of, by, and for whom.

Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 10:14pm

 

ALERT!  All Kent residents should be advised that a serious abuse of electoral position has just been perpetrated by our Town Superisor.  The Assessor's data base has been used inappropriately to send out a blatant piece of political propaganda under the guise of correcting false rumors, and a little birdie told me that overtime pay was incurred to get it into the mail.

Yesterday and today most homeowners received a letter, signed by the Supervisor, on official town stationary, and mailed at the cost of the
taxpayer at $0.44 each.  And for what purpose but to correct rumors so that Doherty's chosen "team" of candidates will not be hurt in the election on Tuesday.   Now if she had sent out the same copy on personal stationary and at her own expense, I would not have bothered to comment, but would have accepted it as a Hallowe'en prank.

She writes with the word "we" but I happen to know that not all Board members were contacted before this  so called "explanation" was sent out, although all of their names appear on this official stationary.  She attempts to describe the budget process, but falls short of truth when she fails to tell you that first draft (called a Tentative Budget) is issued by the Financial Officer, one of the duties of the Supervisor.  So she is the author of this draft.  Other Board members have not had a chance to formally input their suggestions, but as I say that I am reminded that the Gang of Four always votes the same.

She claims that "we" are not cutting any Recreation Programs.  But the public was informed by Lou Tartaro at the Candidate's Forum just this past Wednesday that they had taken the entire Capital Account of Recreation (used to expand programs) to be used to decrease debt incurred by the building of the Town Hall, that oasis of mediocre architecture, poor planning, and worse execution and unacceptable cost overruns.

She states "no one is going to lose their jobs" but she is planning to cut down to part time from full time on some jobs...from what I hear only those who do not kiss her ring.

Since I am a proponent of "Shared Services," the third item in her cynical piece of political propaganda, let me reassure those who see it as job loss that this administrtion will never do anything that can hurt it politically if they can avoid it.  Job creation and vote creation are inextricably tied together.  That is why this government avoids an open dialogue on shared services that is fair to both the taxpayers and the employees.

There will be a Preliminary Budget Hearing (as the law requires every year)on November 5th at Town Hall and I truly hope that all voters will be there. But if events pass as usual with the majority governing group, public input will be but a pretense and they will go ahead exactly as they see fit because they are "the elected" as they discard the notion that the one dissenting member is also elected.

Please remember that under the previous Supervisor we had started to
establish a precedent of regular budget reviews, but this group has only provided one so far.  What can we do to make our town a "government of, by and for the people?"

Debate and Government: Comments on the Bedford Healthcare Forum

Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 8:46am

On Wednesday night, September 2nd, my husband and two friends attended a Healthcare Forum sponsored by Congressman John Hall that was held in Bedford. We all went because we felt it was our duty as citizens to gain a better understanding of this important matter facing our country.

 
What we came away with was a certainty that the people in this packed hall (standing room only) expressed a fearful disgust with their government in general, and an alarming degree of discourtesy for John Hall, who tried earnestly to respond to legitimate questions. There were groups of hecklers – apparently organized to disorganize - who shouted insults and catcalls at every attempt of the Congressman to reply and at any questioner who did not represent their destructive and naysaying posture. But there were also ordinary local citizens…owners of small local businesses, retirees, parents…who expressed legitimate concerns and an innate distrust of government.
 
Another generality that struck me about this crowd was a total lack of compassion for the uninsured, for “illegal aliens” (that one man defined as beings from another planet,) for the less fortunate of our society. Is that who we are? I don’t think so, but I was reminded of how successfully the Goebbels propaganda machine was used to blame Jews, Gypsies and all dissenters for what was wrong in the Third Reich.
 
I am often an outspoken critic of government on many levels, with a focus on our local Kent government, but even I was shocked by the depth of anger and fear displayed by the crowd at this meeting. As an insurance professional for more than ten years, I know how much public pressure and DC lobbying, at a cost of billions, the industry has promulgated over many years (since 1915, when they used the same bugaboo “socialism”) to keep the insurance business state-regulated and out of the control of the Fed. I also know that this is what the fight is about for the industry, much more than fear of the competition from a public option. But they’ve done a great job again of manipulating the public.
    
So, I did some research and found some pertinent comments about government in the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower as cited in a NY Times Op-Ed of September 3rd. DDE received a letter from a WWII veteran, who felt that Eisenhower was hedging and wrote “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.” In reply he wrote, “I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed. Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”
 
Let us honor Eisenhower’s vision of an open society, debate our issues, and remain mindful of the simple courtesies that we wish to imbue in our children. To distrust all government is to distrust ourselves as a society with the choices we make. We travel and trust the roads each day that our government has constructed, we call on our police and fire force to protect the safety of our persons and property, and we take for granted the processes of our justice system – all provided for us by government and paid for by our taxes. They are no more imperfect than we are ourselves. And at the same time, let us take our responsibilities as citizens seriously. Vote in all elections, serve on school boards, get involved, remain constructively critical, form independent opinions, and think for ourselves.
Syndicate content