Showing posts with label CCSD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCSD. Show all posts
Friday, September 2, 2016
JSM Statement Intended for the CCSD 09-01-2016 BoE Meeting
Below is the text of a statement I intended to make at the Chappaqua Central School District Board of Education meeting of September 1, 2016. I was unable to attend the meeting due to a death in my immediate family. While I intend to make a public statement at our next meeting on September 13th, I post this here as I believe it to be timely.
I have served nine years on the Chappaqua Central School District Board of Education. I was recently re-elected to my fourth term. In my long service on this Board I have come to appreciate the uniqueness of our board. It is set apart from other boards by our collaborative and transparent practice, by our collegial nature, and by our single-minded focus on our students and community.
This board has historically been very successful because of our collaborative nature. We don’t always agree, but we have always discussed issues, courses of action, and strategy openly among us as a group and come to consensus. I am making this statement today because I am quite concerned that we continue this practice.
A PR firm was recently re-hired by our attorneys at the district’s request. To be honest, I am not sure exactly to whom I refer when I say “at the district’s request”. I do know that I was not consulted, and I did not have a say in the decision. To be clear, my concern is not in the legality of the hiring but in the process or lack thereof. I think it important that all board members have an opportunity to go on the public record as to their thoughts.
There are certainly good arguments to be made on both sides of the merits of hiring a PR firm. One, it allows the administration to focus on their task at hand, educating our children in a safe and educationally challenging environment. Two, as we are not commenting on any pending legal matters, it helps the district address what I believe to be some inaccurate, incomplete and biased reporting and posting on social media. However, I happen to think that hiring a PR firm sends the wrong message, we should be able to do whatever a PR firm can do for us internally, and we should use the money for other direct educational expenses.
But that is not the point. I strongly believe that we should reach these decisions as an entire Board and in a transparent manner. I want to be part of a Board that reaches consensus collaboratively and transparently. Being on the wrong end of many a 4-1 vote in my service, I have come to appreciate our board because we followed a collegial process, and we all have had our opportunity to have our say.
I certainly appreciate that the district, the administration, and the board is in the middle of a legal situation that we have never faced before and have no road map with which to navigate. However, that is the very reason why I believe that a collaborative, transparent process for work on the board, and between the administration and the board is so critical.
The entire board asked to see a draft of any legal filing before it was made. This has not been the case though. Speaking for myself, I have yet to see a draft of documents prior to them being filed. That concerns me greatly. I first found out about the legal filing in the media.
While I know that filing to be legally appropriate and much more nuanced than what was reported, it was inappropriate in its form. While I am not a lawyer, common sense and good judgement says that it certainly could have been worded differently to both protect our legal position and reflect that our focus always has been and always will be on supporting our students whether that support is academic or emotional. To be clear, while I am quite confident the administration and my fellow Board Members feel the same way, I can only speak for myself that I do not believe it is appropriate to blame a victim of abuse, alleged or proven.
Finally, let me end by saying that the health and well-being of our students remains our critical mission. The Board, the Administration and our entire staff have made every effort and will continue to make every effort to provide support to all of our students and families.
While we will continue to protect student privacy and will not comment while litigation is ongoing, I believe that the community is smart enough to know that we do put our students first and that what they read in the media and on social networks may be incomplete, inaccurate and said with an undisclosed agenda.
Thank you to the entire community for your help and support.
Jeffrey Mester
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Former CCSD Board Member Gregg Bresner Letter to the Community Re: $42.5 million Bond
Here is a clean copy of former CCSD Board Member Gregg Bresner's letter to the community regarding the CCSD bond:
Labels:
Bond,
CCSD,
Collaborative Learning,
community,
Education,
Infrastructure
The CCSD $42.5 million Bond
First, the usual disclaimer. I am writing as an individual and as an individual school board member with his own ideas and opinions. I do not speak for the Chappaqua Central School District nor do I speak for the entire Board. I speak for myself only.
The tl;dr is that I support the proposed bond and I am asking you to support it to. I ask that you go to Horace Greeley High School on Tuesday June 14th and vote yes. Vote yes for the students, vote yes for the community, vote yes for youth sports, vote yes for education.
Having said that, while I support the bond, I am not ignorant to the fact that this is not a perfect bond. Know that the initial "wish list", the list of all the projects both infrastructure and educational started at around $55 million. However, the Board of Ed, in its charge to the administration, was very clear that any bond proposal would have to be tax neutral. That is, using various offsets, the maturing of existing debt and cost savings would have to pay for the bond. The board was adamant that it would only put a bond before the voters if it was not going to increase taxes in and of itself. It won't.
What doing the bond now does for the district is it gives us financial flexibility and improves our facilities. The district has spent years driving the curriculum towards this point and years working with our teachers through professional development including during the summers to train them so that we can take advantage of collaborative education. Now, we need the facilities to catch up with the research and training.
What this bond does is support education and support the youth in our community. As it turns out, by supporting education, by working to remain at the forefront of education and the latest research and thoughts on successful education, we help support property values in the district. Maintaining our infrastructure and improving our fields to be on par with virtually every other district in Westchester also helps property values.
I could go on for a while, but my former fellow Board Member, Gregg Bresner wrote a letter to his friends and neighbors and to the community that I think sums it up much better than I could. I support the bond. Vote yes on June 14th.
I copy his letter here. (Any formatting errors are mine. My knowledge of html and embedding documents is limited, but I try.)
The tl;dr is that I support the proposed bond and I am asking you to support it to. I ask that you go to Horace Greeley High School on Tuesday June 14th and vote yes. Vote yes for the students, vote yes for the community, vote yes for youth sports, vote yes for education.
Having said that, while I support the bond, I am not ignorant to the fact that this is not a perfect bond. Know that the initial "wish list", the list of all the projects both infrastructure and educational started at around $55 million. However, the Board of Ed, in its charge to the administration, was very clear that any bond proposal would have to be tax neutral. That is, using various offsets, the maturing of existing debt and cost savings would have to pay for the bond. The board was adamant that it would only put a bond before the voters if it was not going to increase taxes in and of itself. It won't.
What doing the bond now does for the district is it gives us financial flexibility and improves our facilities. The district has spent years driving the curriculum towards this point and years working with our teachers through professional development including during the summers to train them so that we can take advantage of collaborative education. Now, we need the facilities to catch up with the research and training.
What this bond does is support education and support the youth in our community. As it turns out, by supporting education, by working to remain at the forefront of education and the latest research and thoughts on successful education, we help support property values in the district. Maintaining our infrastructure and improving our fields to be on par with virtually every other district in Westchester also helps property values.
I could go on for a while, but my former fellow Board Member, Gregg Bresner wrote a letter to his friends and neighbors and to the community that I think sums it up much better than I could. I support the bond. Vote yes on June 14th.
I copy his letter here. (Any formatting errors are mine. My knowledge of html and embedding documents is limited, but I try.)
Labels:
Bond,
CCSD,
Collaborative Learning,
community,
Infrastructure,
Real Estate Values
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
PLEASE VOTE TODAY!!
Complacency is the enemy of victory!
Please go out and vote today! In a low turnout election, every vote does count.
Voting is from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm today at the Horace Greeley Gymnasium. Parking available for voters in the second lane close to the gym. Once at the high school, voting only takes 5:00 minutes or less. No excuses. Go vote.
Please go out and vote today! In a low turnout election, every vote does count.
Voting is from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm today at the Horace Greeley Gymnasium. Parking available for voters in the second lane close to the gym. Once at the high school, voting only takes 5:00 minutes or less. No excuses. Go vote.
Labels:
Board of Ed,
Budget,
CCSD,
Horace Greeley High School,
school board member,
vote
Sunday, May 19, 2013
CCSD Letter to the Town of New Castle Regarding the Chappaqua Crossing Proposed Change in Retail Zoning
On Thursday May 16th the CCSD BoE submitted a letter to the Town of New Castle for inclusion in the Chappaqua Crossing property DSEIS detailing our concerns with the proposed retail zoning change. Here is a copy of that letter.
Labels:
CCSD,
Chappaqua Crossing,
Concerns,
DSEIS,
Fee Simple,
Reader's Digest,
Retail Zoning,
Safety,
Town Board,
Traffic,
Zoning
Patch Candidate Q&A
The Patch asked the candidates for the school board to respond to several questions. The Patch has not yet published them, but I expect they will sometime before the election. Below are the questions and my responses. (This was cut and pasted from an email so apologies for any formatting errors.)
What are the school district's biggest challenges?
The biggest challenge facing the district is creating a sustainable educational model that is both fiscally prudent and sound as well as adaptive to the changes in how education is designed and delivered in the 21st century. Our students need to learn to be creative risk takers and critical thinkers not just memorizers of content knowledge. I think we need to adapt to the rapidly changing technology and learn to use technology for actually improving the educational experience. We need to continue to move towards a sustainable budget model including addressing structural (mandates) and contractual issues. We also need to find alternative ways to engage our students in their learning process.
Academically, as always, our biggest challenge is reaching the middle of the bell curve. We need to find a way to challenge and motivate the students that fall in that huge range that is the middle student. One way to do that is to allow the students to decide how much to challenge themselves rather than have strict numerical cutoffs. For example, I believe that a student that wishes to take an AP class at the high school should be given that opportunity to challenge themselves rather than there being a bright line cutoff. In the event the student is not keeping up at the end of the first quarter, then have that student drop into a non AP section. Reaching the middle students is essential not only at the high school, but more importantly is reaching out to those students at both the elementary and middle school levels.
I also think a major challenge facing the district is expanding community involvement. We need to find ways to get more of the residents involved in education whether that is through attending Board Meetings, sending emails to the Board, voting in the election, voting on the budget, helping to fight unfunded mandates or simply being more involved in the different buildings.
Finally, I think that with natural turnover in our administration team especially at the building principal level, we need to ensure that they have and develop the necessary leadership skills to drive their buildings to both academic and social success. Leadership is critical to having thriving students all striving to reach their potential. Our central office administration is actively involved in taking a lead role in support of the new school administrators.
State-mandated employee pension contributions have been a significant driver of higher costs for the district in recent years. What changes, if any, would you like to see to the pension system?
The State mandated pension plans, Teacher's Retirement System (TRS) and Employee Retirement System (ERS) are Defined Benefit Plans. The State of New York taxpayers are guaranteeing a market rate of return to the plan. I would support a change from a Defined Benefit Plan to a Defined Contribution Plan whereby districts know their obligation is simply a straight line function of the number of employees. The plan itself and the members of the plan would be taking the investment risk, not the taxpayers.
Pragmatically, I would accept a transition period as well as protections for staff employed more than a certain number of years. Without compensation, I think it is wrong to retroactively change the system to someone who is well on their way to retirement and has relied on the expectations of the current plan. This transition could also include the unionized staff having to make contributions to their own defined benefit plan. I think it is imperative from a fiscal standpoint that benefits and their associated costs are brought in line with the private sector. Or, let the State of New York take over payments to the pension systems that they mandated.
Do you support repealing the Triborough Amendment to the state's Taylor Law, which preserves terms of expired union contracts until new deals are in place?
First, it is important to understand what is the Taylor Law and the Triborough Amendment to that Law. In short, in New York State, the Taylor law prohibits policemen, firemen and teachers from striking. Without the ability to strike, the legislature felt that these groups lost all leverage in negotiations, so they amended the law to protect against cities, municipalities, school districts, etc from unilateral cuts to compensation in the event a contract expired without an agreement on a new contract. What the amendment says is that in the event of a contract expiring without a new contract being agreed to, that the terms of the old contract would continue. In theory, that is a reasonable right to exchange. The groups are prohibited from striking, but the employers would have to live under the terms of the existing contract.
Where I diverge from this thought process is in the interpretation of what should be continued in the event of no agreement. To actually repeal the entire Triborough Amendment would be a mistake. But, I believe it should be modified so that so called "step" increases do not continue in the absence of an agreement. What I think is fair and appropriate is for the actual compensation to stay exactly as it was at the end of the expired contract. No unilateral cuts by employers and no automatic step raises to employees. This change will create a more level playing field in contract negotiations. The real issue for me behind the Triborough Amendment is automatic step increases.
Finally, I think it is only fair to point out that locally, in the CCSD, so far, 3 of our 4 bargaining units have agreed to new contracts that give them lower raises than they would have gotten under the Triborough Amendment. That is, they accepted raises that were less than their natural step increases. I believe that is a strong show of good faith and an indication that our staff recognizes and appreciates that we are partners whose primary focus is on the students.
What are your thoughts on tenure for teachers and administrators?
First, tenure is a state mandate. The concept of tenure is not something we can control locally. What we do control is the granting of tenure. In general, with a few exceptions, if a teacher or administrator is to be employed in the district beyond their three year probationary period, then they need to have been granted tenure. That is a State law, not a locally negotiated provision to our contracts. The history of tenure was to provide for academic freedom and teaching without the fear of reprisals. It also protects against arbitrary firings. However, the system as it is designed limits performance based hirings and firings. The 3020-a process is so expensive, time consuming and fraught with peril as to make it almost irrelevant. (See NYC and "rubber rooms"). The system severely limits the district's ability to make personnel decisions based strictly on current work product or merit.
So, if I were king, I would change the system. I do believe there needs to be material protections for the staff. What I would do would be to give staff 5 year contracts. In the event the district fired a teacher for anything other than enrollment reasons, the balance of the contract would be paid or one month severance pay for every year worked, whichever is greater. This would give protections to teachers and allow the district to make decisions on hiring based on merit.
The district is facing academic mandates from the state, such as continued administration of a new teacher and principal evaluation system and a shift to what are called common core standards. How do you think the district is doing in responding to these requirements? What else, if anything, would you like to see done?
I believe in local control of public education. I think the core standards are a knee jerk reaction to outdated data and a misguided attempt by the federal government to create minimal standards that will, in effect, bring the top performing schools down to the core standards when our local expectations are much much higher than theirs. Essentially, we are forced to waste time and money being in compliance with standards that are below our own. Similar things could be said about the APPR.
I believe we as a district do a much better job of evaluating our staff than does the APPR which is 25% mandated to rely on standardized test scores. So, I think the federal and state government should stay out of local education or at the least provide for exemptions for high performing districts such as ours.
As to how the district is responding to the requirements, we are making the best of what I think is a bad situation. The district, in partnership with the CCT and the administrators, has created APPR criteria and measurements that are far and above what the State is suggesting. We will continue to evaluate personnel with more than checked off boxes and standardized test scores. Evaluating a teacher's effectiveness is part art and part science. We need to use both quantifiable measures as well as observation. In fact, we as a district have had our APPR held up as a model for other districts around the state to emulate.
Most of the district's budget revenue comes from property taxes. Would you support creating new revenue streams for the district? If so, what would you propose?
Of course I support creating new revenue streams for the district. Who wouldn't? I have made some specific proposals at Board meetings. For example, if our biggest asset is our teachers and our rigorous academic program, with technology advances and districts throughout the New York facing financial pressures, why not sell our classes to other districts? Through technology, we could easily package our classes, use Skype, etc to deliver first class learning to other districts that cannot afford to offer certain classes. Another possible revenue source is selling physical district assets. The Facilities Committee on which I sit is currently exploring the sale of several parcels of district property we deem to be not needed for future use. In general, I think it is incumbent upon the district to find its own sources of revenue. However, know that the district is restricted by NY State law from many types of revenue sources including taking any kind of financial risk, using taxpayer assets such as facilities to profit or to rent them to for profit groups. Any ideas along those lines are restricted.
I also support continuing and expanding the public-private partnership between the district and such groups as the Chappaqua School Foundation, the Sports Boosters and the Turf Committee.
Currently, Chappaqua Crossing developer Summit/Greenfield has a proposal for the site, which is across the street from Horace Greeley High School, before the New Castle Town Board to rezone the property to allow for 120,000 square feet of retail, including a supermarket of 36,000 to 66,000. Summit/Greenfield has also stated that it could create more tax revenue for the school district. Do you support the plan, oppose it, or are you undecided? What are your concerns, if any, with the proposal as it currently stands?
If you are asking me as a current School Board member and hopefully future School Board member, I neither support nor oppose the retail plan directly. It is not the role of a School Board member to support or oppose the plan any more than it is the role of a Town Council member to tell us whether or not we should have an SRO in our schools.
I do have some serious concerns about the plan that, for the most part, mimic the District's submission to the DSEIS. Mainly, first and foremost, the safety of our students and staff. Second, I am very concerned about traffic. Third, I am concerned about the intersection of the first two. That is, I am concerned that emergency first responders have the ability to respond to any emergency in the district, particularly at the high school in a timely and appropriate manner. Will the addition of a retail zone and the ensuing increased traffic negatively affect first responders ability to respond to the high school? Fourth,, I am concerned about other general matters such as underclass students parking across the street, non-authorized students leaving the campus, and especially the accuracy of the tax projections.
I think that both the developer and the Town, before proceeding need to clearly outline for the district how the traffic and safety concerns will be addressed. I also remain concerned about the residential student enrollment versus the residential taxes paid. To the extent that a market rate dwelling is not taxed as at a fee simple rate, there is concern that the other taxpayers in the district will need to absorb the costs. I would also like to better understand the tax projections from the retail zone. What are the assumptions that underlie those projections and could the Town and the developer, as part of a tax certerori settlement on the current outstanding grievances agree to a set tax number going forward for a period of years that will allow the district to make long term revenue plans and assumptions.
As a resident and School Board member I would hope and expect that our Town representatives clearly detail for New Castle residents the logic and reasoning behind their proposed changes to the zoning code and how they think the benefits of such a change out weigh the negatives before they approve of the plan if they do.
In fairness, I would add that Summit Greenfield has reached out to the district and expressed a willingness to both address these issues and be a good neighbor. I hope actions speak louder than words.
The issue of personnel status disclosure came up last year when longtime Greeley football coach and physical education teacher William Tribou was suspended and then resigned with a settlement with the district. The school board did not disclose details because it was a personnel matter, with a reason given that disclosure was not allowed. Is it appropriate for districts to not disclose personnel status when an individual is facing discipline or leaving, and would you support repealing limitation of school officials disclosing details of employee suspensions, terminations or resignations?
If you are asking if the exception to the open meeting law statutes of NY State should be revoked legislatively to allow for public discussion of personnel matters, my short answer would be, no. I think that in personnel cases there are competing and often conflicting interests. Mainly, the interest of the employee and their privacy versus both the public's right to know and the potential safety and welfare of students in the district. That includes educational, physical and social welfare.
The presumption made by both the exception to the open meeting law and by the rules and regulations governing a 3020-a hearing is that a staff member has the right to privacy at least until any allegations are proven, AND that the Board members through their sworn oaths and fiduciary obligations as Board Members are protecting the public's interest in personnel cases. In the cases where the personnel issue is performance and not conduct, I think that the APPR process and the fact that those records are publicly reviewable, at least by the parents of children in the teacher's class, makes that part both public and accountable.
Ethically, I am uncomfortable making what are allegations public until they are proven or stipulated to or agreed upon. I ask a simple question, how does the employee get their good name back if the allegations are not true?
The state-mandated cap on annual tax levy increases will expire in June 2016 unless if it is renewed. If elected, this would happen near the end of your term. Do you support allowing the cap to expire or should it be extended?
Again, this is a simplified question to a complex issue. The June 2016 renewal is tied to rent control laws. As per your link to a power point presentation, page 2 slide 6 last bullet point, "Expires June 15, 2016 unless rent control extended" If rent control is extended, the tax cap will be as well. While I would never rely on a political outcome, I would be very surprised if a deal to extend rent control did not happen.
However, in short, without the benefit of seeing how it continues to work in the next 3 years, I support extending the tax cap. I think the best case for the district would be for the tax cap to be extended while at the same time the state starts funding many of its own mandates such as pension plans. But, even if the State were to continue to ignore the burden they shift from themselves to the local taxpayer and not address mandates, I would still support extending the tax cap.
Labels:
Board of Ed,
Budget,
CCSD,
Jeffrey S Mester,
Mester,
Q and A,
reelection,
school board member,
The Patch,
vote
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Candidate Statement and Brief Biography for NCN
I was asked to submit a biography and candidate statement for publication in NewCastleNOW. Here is what I submitted.
Jeffrey S. Mester: Candidate Statement and Biography
Candidate Statement
This is my third time running for the School Board and I can
safely say that the oddity of running for a volunteer position never seems to
go away. We are asking you, the
community, to select us as the best, most appropriate volunteer. So, first, I
would like to recognize my fellow candidates, Warren and Rick, for their
willingness to volunteer. I admire their
decision to offer to commit their time to the community.
One of the reasons I originally ran for the Board six years
ago was because of my strong belief in my responsibility as a community member
to serve our community in a way that best suits my qualifications with the
community's needs. That remains true
today.
New York State says the qualifications for school board
membership are an ability to read and write, be
a qualified voter, and be a resident of the district for at least one
year prior to the election. Not a very
high bar indeed.
Any candidate that receives enough votes can be a member of
the Board of Education, but to be an effective member of the Board requires
much much more. It is not simply about
being smart and having the time. It is
not about representing one segment of the community.
As one of my fellow
candidates will learn, there is a lot more to the job than the hot button
issues. It is easy to identify problems;
it is much harder to offer solutions and make decisions. I am the only candidate who can stand on a
proven, successful track record of doing just that.
Being a school board member is about, first and foremost, having a passion for education. It is also about understanding education law
and regulations, about understanding the budget, and about listening. Listening to the community, listening to the
students, listening to the administrators, listening to the staff, and listening to your own gut.
Going forward, I will continue to work for ALL members of
the community to reach responsible budgets.
I will further seek to reduce the burden on taxpayers by strengthening
the public-private partnerships such as with the Chappaqua School Foundation
and the Sports Boosters. I will continue
to support openness and transparency. I
will continue to support and seek public involvement and input.
The Board cannot and should not face the challenges ahead
alone. We need community involvement and
support. I will seek to bring the various interest groups including residents
with children in the schools as well as residents without, and district
personnel together to collectively and creatively find sustainable solutions for
our district.
For the past six years, I have worked tirelessly on behalf
of the members of this community to be an effective member of the school
board. It requires a person with an extensive and detailed knowledge
of the district, a complete understanding of the budget and the structural
budget issues the district faces, a person who can make practical and reasoned
decisions, a person who is flexible and can build consensus, a person who can
balance competing community interests, and a person who has vision and
conviction. There is no experience like direct experience and a
proven track record. I stand on mine.
Simply put, common sense with an uncommon commitment.
Brief Biography
I am 51 years old. I have three terrific children one
of whom graduated from HGHS last year and two currently in high school.
All three started in the district in Kindergarten at Roaring Brook Elementary
School, attended Seven Bridges Middle School, and then went on to Horace
Greeley High School. My professional background is in the trading of
equities and equity derivatives. Most recently, I have been in the
compliance side of the business. I have an undergraduate BA in Economics
from the University of Virginia and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from
the Kelllogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University.
Labels:
Board of Ed,
Budget,
CCSD,
CCT,
Chappaqua,
Jeffrey S Mester,
Mester,
NCN,
Newcastlenow,
newcastlenow blog,
reelection
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Reply to Comments and Questions on NCN
In response to this NewCastleNOW article and the comments below that article. This is the unedited version from before I tried to get it into one 2000 character comment box.
Usual disclaimers apply. I do not speak for the Board of Ed. I speak only for myself. This is not a district statement either. Shake well before using. Refrigerate after opening. Your mileage may vary.
To C-O-N-T-R-O-L: I can think of many reasons both positive and negative why we would want questions asked privately. But, I think it is safe to say that whenever the Board or Administration replies to an email, it assumes that that email can and will be made public. I do.
I do not agree with your assumption that it makes our job a lot easier if people don't hear each other's criticisms. That is only the case if you also assume our job is to ignore the public. While I recognize that some people think that, I view our job as actually the opposite of that. While I don't think we should just be a weather vane twisting in the wind with the latest opinion, I do think that we are elected as fiduciaries to the community and as such have an obligation to listen to what the community has to say which by the way can include complements. If you read the post on my blog about deciding to run or not, I address this there.
I think it is also important for the community to know that the Board is not always in a 5-0 agreement on how to do things, but we do act as a consensus Board. In general, after a consensus of the Board is taken, the President of the Board will fashion a response that reflects that consensus. Whether I support that consensus response, I will always support that this is a majority rules Board and that the President has certain power/authority/obligation to respond in a way that (s)he sees fit within the consensus.
As for the last meeting and the timing of the two statements, I can tell you there was nothing Machiavellian about them. After almost 6 years on the Board, I can tell you that the announcement about the administrator's contract was put first, for two reasons. One, it was not on the agenda anywhere because of the timing of the agreement with the Board (not agreed upon until after the agenda was made. Agendas are generally set on the Thursday or Friday prior to the next meeting.) so it was put first, and, two, it was good news for the community in terms of the budget impact. The meeting was primarily focused on the budget. Hence, put the budget item first.
The so called Tim Bloom response was not purposely moved to 11:00 pm or later in the meeting so no one would hear it. First, Tim never wrote directly to the Board. He wrote to the administration and published it here on NCN. So, it was a little confusing as to who the Board would actually be responding to. In the end, we were responding to the community in general, but we never got one direct piece of correspondence from anyone in the community about it. Writing anonymous comments on an internet blog is a very inefficient way to communicate with the Board. (Any Board.)
Second, there are few people attending the meetings. Most watch it on replay or on NCMCTV online. Anyone could fast forward to find the portion they are looking for. Third, it was on the agenda in the Superintendent's and President's report. Ironically enough, it comes later in the meeting because we moved the presentations to the beginning of the meetings so that the public could come to watch that and not have to wait until the end. When I first got on the Board and prior to that, the business section came first and then the presentations. We got criticized for that and changed it.
Legally, we are required to have an agenda. It makes sense to stick to it as much as possible as we are also required to publish it in advance. Some have suggested that we start earlier. We have considered that. I for one, would love to get home before midnight on a meeting night. But, there were other considerations and other points of view. In the past, we had a lot of feedback that starting earlier would make it particularly difficult for those with students in elementary and middle school to attend. Between dinner and bedtime, starting at 7:00 or 7:30 would be a hardship for many.
One of the interesting things that happened at the last meeting is relevant here. I am not sure how many people noticed it, but we received an email with several questions from a resident who was unable to attend the meeting. President Tipp actually read the questions during the appropriate part of the presentation. It is certainly a way to ask a question while not having the pressure or whatever of coming to the microphone. I will sometimes email questions to the presenters in advance so that they are prepared to answer them publicly. I don't think it is fair to the public when someone says they will get back to you on that. Then the response is not on the record. Feel free to email the Board with questions you might have in advance. If you send it to the President and/or all the Board members, I think the President would be more than happy to represent your questions at the appropriate time.
On a slightly similar note, Christine has been prodding the Board for several years to make its meetings live. One of her concepts with having it live would be to have the ability for someone watching at home to ask a question maybe through email or a text or something. It is certainly something to be considered, although I have never seen it in practice. I have suggested to Christine that I would be willing to do a live online forum answering questions. I envisioned it something along the lines of a Reddit Ask Me Anything. If I decide to run for a third term, I would definitely be willing to answer any question I legally could on any subject.
I think this Board has gotten an undeserved reputation by some of the anonymous commenters here on NCN as a closed Board. Nothing is farther from the truth. We have gone out of our way to be as transparent and forthright as we can. Some items, particularly personnel and legal items, we are precluded from speaking about publicly. It is frustrating to us too when we cannot speak about something we would want to otherwise.
Yes, we have a three minute stated limit on questions. However, I can only remember two times where we actually imposed that limit and with those two times, we simply told the person they could ask additional questions after those who have not had a chance to ask any question yet already did so. Quite frankly, if you cannot ask one or two questions in three minutes time, then you are making a speech. I cannot think of anyone who has not had a chance to ask their question or make a comment at one of our meetings.
Do we get defensive at times? Sure, we are human. We are also volunteers. We are trying to do our best. Really. I recognize that we will not always be universally applauded for some of our decisions. There are many issues where the community itself is divided. I personally get frustrated when people think because we do not agree with them or do not take a certain course of action they support that we don't listen. We listen, we deliberate, we consider ramifications and we decide.
I just want to make one more point about anonymous comments. I get why some who make comments wish to remain anonymous. It can be scary criticizing teachers or administrators when your child is in school. There is one school of thought that your child could be subject to retaliation. Believe me when I tell you that I considered it myself when I speak out or when we negotiate, etc. While it is a concern, I know the leadership of all the unions well. I know many of the teachers in the district personally. I give them more credit than thinking they would even dream of retaliation. They are professionals dedicated to teaching. It is just not something that would enter the mind of the staff.
I personally don't mind criticism. I do mind personal attacks. Question my thought process, question my vote, question my decisions, but don't question my integrity, don't call me names, don't make statements you know to be false or ones you don't know to be true.
I oppose anonymous comments. I think using your name leads to a more civilized dialogue. I think using your name gives your comment more credibility. I get that some people want to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, but I don't condone it.
Finally, I wish the community would recognize that we are volunteers trying to do our best. We don't get paid, we don't have any perks that I am aware of, and we don't get benefits. We do spend a lot of time, we do work hard. and we do want to engage the public. If it was such a great job, more people would be trying to do it. It is a rewarding job if you care about education, care about the students and care to serve your community. A wise former board member told me on the way out the door, that it is only a thankless job if you are expecting thanks. I am not.
Edit: Feel free to post a comment here on my blog. I will reply to all that ask a question or ask for a reply.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
To Run or Not to Run, That is the Question
I wrote this email in response to a voice mail I received from Tom Auchtermonie, the editor of the Chappaqua/Mt. Kisco Patch. Both he and Christine (New Castle NOW) asked about my plans to run again.
Tom,
Tom,
Thank you for calling.
That announcement put out by the LWV and the PTA regarding their April 2nd meeting is accurate. They contacted me over the weekend to see what my status was, and I was ok with them sending out what they sent out.
I still have not decided.to run or not. They may have used the word "announced" which I prefer, but either way, I am still weighing the decision.
Serving on the Board for the past six years has been very rewarding for me and hopefully a positive for the district and community. There are many many factors both personal and school related that go into making this decision.
I happen to think for a myriad of reasons that the district is at a critical crossroads as to the direction it takes. While the budget issues that dominated my first terms are still there and will likely remain for years to come, I am very comfortable with how we have faced and will continue to face the pressures on the district in that regard. Negotiations with 3 of our 4 bargaining units have shown that the district and its units are trying to be true partners.
I think, rightfully, that the focus going forward after this year's budget, will be a fight for the soul of the district. By that I mean with a relatively new Superintendent, with new principals at Grafflin, Roaring Brook and Horace Greeley, with many many state and national mandates, the district has to decide who we want to be, what our mission will be going forward and how do we get there. It is going to take strong leadership to steer the district toward our goal. [Edit: Upon reread, I want to make it clear that I think we have that strong leadership in the district currently.]
Hopefully, one of the bi-products of Tim Bloom's open letter to the administration is a two way conversation between the district and the community about what we want, who we want to be, and how we accomplish those goals. While I gave a general response on my blog,10514 Musings, I think it is important that the district, the board and the administrators have an open and frank discussion with the community about the future of this district. We need to find a shared vision, not an imposed one.
I think that being a Board Member for the next 3 years is going to take a significant commitment of time and energy. It is why I hesitate. Whether I run or not, I strongly encourage members of the community to step up and make that commitment.
I hope to make my decision shortly. When I do, of course, I will let you and The Patch readers know.
Jeffrey
Labels:
Board of Ed,
CCSD,
community,
dialogue,
LWV,
PTA,
reelection,
school board member
Friday, March 15, 2013
Reply to Tim Bloom Letter to the Administration
(Note: I initially left off my usual disclaimer. The absence of it does not change the fact that I am speaking only for myself, I do not speak for the district or the Board here. All other disclaimers are valid here too. YMMV.)
Tim,
I have told you this privately, but I think it important to reiterate it publicly. I very much admire your forthrightness and willingness to take personal risk by writing this letter. Quite frankly, I wish I were not saying that there is personal risk in writing, but anytime you go against the establishment, in my days, "the man", you risk backlash.
As a School Board Member, I know that the district sometimes makes mistakes. I know that the reasoning for some decisions are not always readily obvious. I know that like any large institution that caters to all the students in the district we sometimes have to make compromises. I know that there are times we are not even legally allowed to say why we do what we do. It is all frustrating. I add one more caution: Do not take the Board's silence in any circumstance as not caring or not aware or as tacit approval either.
One area in which I think we should never compromise is in our 'lofty ideals'. I have no knowledge of any of the facts of this particular letter. I am not writing now to comment on the particulars of this letter; this is something that Tim and his peers have to work out with the building administration. I am writing to thank Tim for starting the dialogue.
I would like to say that, in general, a successful district educates the entire student and the entire student body. If, in one of the Board's strategic questions, we as a district strive to educate critical thinkers, we must accept that that means allowing students to take risk, to make mistakes, and to learn lessons not only in the classroom, but also outside the classroom. Rather than stifle that urge, we should support it.
We need to support our students in extra-curricular activities including student council and self governance, in clubs, in sports, and in the performing arts. Education is not just learning the ABCs in the classroom. It is not just your gpa or what classes you take. It is inclusive of after school activities. We need to encourage our students to reach for their next level. We must let them challenge themselves. Sometimes that means taking risks ourselves.
Finally, at the risk of embarrassing you Tim, knowing what a terrific student you are, knowing of your dedication and fortitude on the football field, knowing you are a committed volunteer firefighter in Town, knowing you are student council President, and knowing that you are a good friend to so many, I sleep well at night comforted that future generations and future leaders like you will soon takeover.
JSM
Tim Bloom, Student Council President, Letter to HGHS Administration:
Tim,
I have told you this privately, but I think it important to reiterate it publicly. I very much admire your forthrightness and willingness to take personal risk by writing this letter. Quite frankly, I wish I were not saying that there is personal risk in writing, but anytime you go against the establishment, in my days, "the man", you risk backlash.
As a School Board Member, I know that the district sometimes makes mistakes. I know that the reasoning for some decisions are not always readily obvious. I know that like any large institution that caters to all the students in the district we sometimes have to make compromises. I know that there are times we are not even legally allowed to say why we do what we do. It is all frustrating. I add one more caution: Do not take the Board's silence in any circumstance as not caring or not aware or as tacit approval either.
One area in which I think we should never compromise is in our 'lofty ideals'. I have no knowledge of any of the facts of this particular letter. I am not writing now to comment on the particulars of this letter; this is something that Tim and his peers have to work out with the building administration. I am writing to thank Tim for starting the dialogue.
I would like to say that, in general, a successful district educates the entire student and the entire student body. If, in one of the Board's strategic questions, we as a district strive to educate critical thinkers, we must accept that that means allowing students to take risk, to make mistakes, and to learn lessons not only in the classroom, but also outside the classroom. Rather than stifle that urge, we should support it.
We need to support our students in extra-curricular activities including student council and self governance, in clubs, in sports, and in the performing arts. Education is not just learning the ABCs in the classroom. It is not just your gpa or what classes you take. It is inclusive of after school activities. We need to encourage our students to reach for their next level. We must let them challenge themselves. Sometimes that means taking risks ourselves.
Finally, at the risk of embarrassing you Tim, knowing what a terrific student you are, knowing of your dedication and fortitude on the football field, knowing you are a committed volunteer firefighter in Town, knowing you are student council President, and knowing that you are a good friend to so many, I sleep well at night comforted that future generations and future leaders like you will soon takeover.
JSM
Tim Bloom, Student Council President, Letter to HGHS Administration:
To the Horace Greeley High School Administration,
I was very disappointed to hear yesterday that the Greeley Games event that I proposed is not going to happen. Quite frankly, I'm not at all surprised, as this seems to be par for the course these days. It has gotten to the point where every single member of the Student Council is disenchanted with the way the administration is trying to dismantle the very things that had made Greeley great for so long. We have lost our motivation to try to engage the students, generate enthusiasm and a sense of community and make being a Greeley student more than capitulating to the arbitrary decisions of the administration. Why bother working on proposals and trying to innovate when we know the administration is going to say no?
It’s funny that we are all so frustrated with our elected officials in Washington, yet the same thing is happening right here. Each time a new idea comes to the floor, we're getting filibustered, then left to take the blame for not taking action. It's really sad to see how significantly Greeley has declined over the past four years, from the exercise in political correctness gone mad re: the funball team name debacle to the arbitrary and ridiculous hoops that need to be jumped through to bring in a speaker, to the fact that a group was told they can’t sell hot chocolate in the morning for charity because it’s “too dangerous.” I don't feel as if I'm doing even half the job I ran for as President and the reason for that is the administration. Know that for us high school is more than just getting into college. It’s supposed to be an experience that matures us not just intellectually, but also in other ways. How can we do that when the only thing we are assured of is the academic aspects and those aren't so great anymore either? This school has become so resistant to positive new ideas that students actually care about and so concerned with the possibility of political incorrectness that nothing even has a chance. For example, how do we know that the event I proposed would have an attendance problem if it’s never happened before?
When I sat down with Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Corsilia in the beginning of the school year, I saw the potential to reignite at least some of the fire that I know Greeley used to have. I now know how wrong I was in thinking that. I know that interest in participating in Student Council is in rapid decline and I wouldn't be surprised if next year's group has trouble filling all of the positions, another sign that the administration is failing to provide a meaningful high school experience. People simply don’t want to deal with working hard and formulating new ideas only to be shot down. You are denying leadership opportunities to the next generation of leaders by rendering those who do want to lead utterly ineffective. It has become simply not worth my time either to think of fun creative ways to bring the school community together when I know that there is no chance of any of our ideas actually coming to fruition. I'm tired of being asked, "When are we going to have a school wide event?" or "When is something fun going to happen?" and not having an answer. From this day forward, I am going to tell anyone who asks that the administration won't let it happen. I don't want the students who elected me to think I don't care and haven't been trying mightily to bring this school back to its former greatness.
I am deeply disappointed in the administration for not recognizing that the Greeley we all love is slipping away because they are afraid of innovation and trying something new. The other members of the Student Council feel the same way and share my disappointment in your decisions. I've spoken to many former Greeley students recently, some who graduated last year, some who graduated ten years ago, and some who were Student Council members themselves, and they are amazed that the Greeley they knew and loved bears no resemblance to the one I am graduating from in just a few months. This school has gone from a place of which I was proud to be President to a place that I can't wait to leave. If it is your long-term plan to oversee a community of grade-obsessed, one dimensional, disinterested students then continue to do what you are doing. If you want a vibrant, engaged community of students who participate in their education more fully, then you need to reexamine how you interact with us. Less police state and PC paranoia and more positivity would help. Just today, I heard of two new issues that are all of the sudden problems in the eyes of the administration. I’ve been told that the beloved Greeley A Capella groups have to meet with you because the fact that they rehearse off the school campus is a problem. Why? Why do they have to change how they operate if they are successful as they are now? Isn’t this discouraging the independence that you encourage us to develop throughout high school? And now you want to change the traditional trip to Jones Beach for seniors? You have already dismantled quite a few senior traditions. Can you leave just one alone?
I feel compelled to write this as the elected representative of the student body, a position that I will continue to take very seriously until my term is up. I will continue to plan the events that are already on the calendar and I will continue to fulfill my responsibility of addressing the school at the coming assemblies and ultimately graduation, but I promise nothing more. The next time you need someone to represent Greeley, whether it be to a group of students from another country or one new student who will be joining this so-called community next year, find someone else. I don’t feel as if I can lend my time to your causes, if mine are not taken seriously. To summarize, we’ve all had enough of the arbitrary decisions. The Theatre Company just put on a play about sex (and a very good one might I add) without being questioned, and yet a song for the a capella concert was questioned because it included the word bullet and referenced guns. Can you explain that inconsistency? I can't. I wish you an uneventful rest of the school year.
Sincerely,
Tim Bloom
Thursday, January 19, 2012
BOCES Follow-Up
On Tuesday January 19th, the Board of Ed voted unanimously to reject the BOCES proposition. We believe that while the work needs to be done and we have an obligation to the consortium to participate, there are better, less costly and more efficient alternatives. This is not a symbolic protest vote, it is a genuine vote against the current proposal. But, we seek to offer alternatives to that proposal.
Our Director of Facilities has already met with his BOCES counterpart, and we are prepared to make several significant and specific suggestions on how to change the proposal to make it more effective and less costly. We are also prepared to meet with other members to establish a facilities advisory board to help BOCES plan this project and their facilities projects going forward.
Below is an email exchange with BOCES following the vote.
We received the following email in reply:
Our Director of Facilities has already met with his BOCES counterpart, and we are prepared to make several significant and specific suggestions on how to change the proposal to make it more effective and less costly. We are also prepared to meet with other members to establish a facilities advisory board to help BOCES plan this project and their facilities projects going forward.
Below is an email exchange with BOCES following the vote.
John,I wanted to follow up with you as I know that our district clerk spoke with you about our vote last night.We are eager to work with you and the other component districts to develop long term solutions to the facilities problems. We feel very strongly that by pooling our intellectual resources we will find the best way to ensure that our fiscal resources are used in the most beneficial and sustainable manner.Our no vote in no way implies that we are attempting to eschew our obligations and we recognize that as part owner of these facilities we need to help support them.Additionally, we sincerely appreciate and value the programs and services that PNW BOCES provides to our students and teachers.We would very much like to meet with you, other district board members and their facilities directors in a collective brainstorming environment and see if we can move these projects forward in way that works for everyone.I look forward to working with you.AlysonAlyson Gardner KieselPresident, Chappaqua Central School District Board of Education
We received the following email in reply:
Alyson,Thank you so much for going the extra mile to reach out to us. Your district clerk, Theresa Markley did a wonderful job relaying the message from the Board about the vote and your ideas for moving forward. I spoke with Dr. Langlois, our Superintendent, about the ideas from you and your fellow Board members this morning. We both agree that meeting to find a way to address our capital needs is a good idea. I will speak with Jim tomorrow so we can start planning to get together.I want to thank you and your fellow Board members for your willingness to be a part of the solution for our capital needs.John
Labels:
accountability,
Board of Ed,
BOCES,
BoE,
CCSD,
energy performance contract
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Anonymous Myths on BOCES Debunked
"The Board of Ed does not even understand the BOCES fees and charges..."
First, participation in BOCES is a state mandate. Back when BOCES (Board of Cooperative Education Services) were first formed in the 1940's, the big 5 cities were excluded and districts were given a chance to opt out. Only one district in Westchester, Mamaroneck chose to opt out. Once that initial decision was made some 70+ years ago, BOCES is like a roach motel. You can check in, but you can never check out.
The Board knows full well about BOCES charges. I am not so sure that NCN did an adequate job explaining them as many comments seemed to be based on either incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. BOCES charges are in our budget every year. BOCES is used for many different reasons. One, obviously, are the on-site educational services. They are invaluable to the students and save the district significant amounts of money versus creating our own program for a handful of students. In fact, that is the point. BOCES was set up to be a more efficient and cost effective way to handle certain types and parts of the FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education).
There appears to be some confusion regarding the annual costs. We are not being charged $2 million (or close to that) for sending a 12 students there. The charges for the 12 students are only part of the overall BOCES costs.
We also currently use BOCES for their expertise in certain areas as well as their ability to coordinate and share services inter-district. For example, we are working through BOCES to develop on-line learning opportunities. Through BOCES several Westchester districts are developing on-line courses that will allow districts to share the resources and the expenses of developing the resources. We anticipate being able to increase our course offerings in the future to include on-line classes developed through BOCES that would not otherwise be economically feasible to develop and offer on our own.
BOCES is also used as a purchasing co-op for its member districts. We use them to lower the price of certain items and services for the district. In addition, we are able to use (purchase) certain administrative services that we would otherwise not have the need for a full time staff member to do. These purchasing costs are a pass through from BOCES. They will appear on the BOCES expense line because we are being billed by BOCES to pay the vendor, but they are not necessarily BOCES services per se.
The district is charged in two ways from BOCES. One, we are charged an annual allocation of administrative and operational costs. Two, we are charged directly for the services we use and the co-op purchases we make. The latter is obvious and easy to appreciate. The former is less obvious. We are required to be part of BOCES.
Looked at another way, what would be the affect on the district's budget if there were no BOCES? Would we spend the same, more or less? As I have been told, Mamaroneck's analysis of not being a member is that it is about the same in annual costs to the district as if they were a member. They purchase services a la carte from the Northern and the Southern Westchester BOCES. It is my opinion that you would have to break down the expense into its components.
For example, we would clearly spend more on the goods and services we use/buy as part of the co-op buying service. The only time we use BOCES for that now is if it would save us money vis a vis purchasing it on our own. For the educational services provided to the students we send to classes at BOCES, we would spend considerably more without BOCES. Educating one student versus spreading the cost over several or many similarly situated students is prohibitive. The question becomes, does the cost savings from co-op purchasing whether it is goods and services or education related classes out weigh the expense of simply being a member and getting an allocation of annual administrative /operating expenses.
There are other costs associated with BOCES that don't show up in the BOCES lines on our budget. For example, the cost of transportation to and from BOCES for our students is part of our transportation costs. And there are cost savings we accrue by being an inclusive district that otherwise would likely be part of BOCES. Educating our students in district within the general population not only is a significant benefit academically and socially to both the students in need of services as well as their classmates without, it is cost savings to the district.
The BOCES budget itself, is very similar to its component district's budgets. Most of the cost are personnel related for salaries and benefits. It cannot borrow money itself, so it has not debt service. As a member district, we act as our taxpayers act in relation to our district/board. We can and do demand efficiencies, we expect them to reduce administrative head count in order to lower benefits expense, we expect them to keep plain old administrative operating expenses in check, and we question what are appropriate course offerings. But we are only one member district and our opinion does not always rule the day. There are clearly districts that are much heavier users of BOCES services that derive a much larger benefit from being part of the co-op. Just like Westchester County does not get back tax dollars from the state in the form of services that it pays in taxes, some districts like the CCSD do not benefit as much as others. But, we are mandated to remain part of the system just like residents of Westchester cannot opt out of the State tax system.
I don't want to mislead anyone and say that if we were not required to be part, we would withdraw. That decision would take a lot of analysis and prioritizing of what it is that the district wants to provide its residents.
The difference though from a non-member and a member in terms of cost really comes to the forefront when there is a cash call for facilities improvements like we are faced with now. Whereas non-members are faced with higher user fees than members for services, non-members are not being asked to help defray the cost of the facilities upgrades and repairs. It is no different than owning an apartment in a co-op building. There are occasionally capital repairs that require the building board to issue a one-time assessment.
The Board is certainly aware that our annual administration charges are based on a formula that is 50% a measure of wealth as defined by property values and 50% by number of students in the district. This is actually a change from 100% based on property value wealth that used to be what the formula used. NWBOCES applied for and got an exception from the State of NY to change the formula to 50-50.
As part of the annual allocation of expenses, there is a capital cost included. That is supposed to be used for facilities maintenance and the like. I believe that last year we paid $70,000 toward that. It is clear that BOCES has not been doing proper maintenance or proper planning. The majority of what they are asking for is for structural repairs (flat roofs need replacement). This capital call raises many questions independent of how BOCES is operated and expenses shared on an annual operating basis.
What was our capital costs used for all these years if there are still millions of dollars in repairs needed? Why weren't these repairs or replacements done periodically to avoid this sort of one time expense? Why was there no replacement plan that could have been discussed with member districts so that we could properly plan ourselves for upcoming costs? Finally, who should pay for facility repairs and upgrades, users, member districts or some combination?
Simply put, on a relative basis, relative to other members of the BOCES and relative to our own local education usage, we do not use the facilities anywhere near what most other districts use. Our ~12 students are not a material part of the wear and tear on the buildings. Asking the CCSD to pay for the repairs based on property valuations and wealth vis a vis other districts is a regressive tax on our community members. One suggestion to BOCES at our meeting was to charge users a prorata cost, not member districts. Districts that use services but are not part of our BOCES are not being given an allocation of these costs.
Know too that we are not the only district grappling with this issue. A majority of the districts have questioned the surprise nature of the critical need for repairs as well as BOCES costs structure in general. I know of several districts that are meeting again with BOCES prior to their vote to express their displeasure with this situation. One suggestion that seems to be gathering momentum is to reduce the size of the capital request to a bare minimum level needed to keep the facilities operating without upgrade.
To clarify, while our district's allocation is about $1.5 million, we would borrow the funds and repay them over time. The annual cost to the district would be around $90,000 according to the administration. If the proposal is voted down by the member districts and we are forced to pay for this on an ad hoc emergency basis, the costs to the district would likely be higher. In fact, Bedford voted yes because of its fear that a no vote would cost more.
First, participation in BOCES is a state mandate. Back when BOCES (Board of Cooperative Education Services) were first formed in the 1940's, the big 5 cities were excluded and districts were given a chance to opt out. Only one district in Westchester, Mamaroneck chose to opt out. Once that initial decision was made some 70+ years ago, BOCES is like a roach motel. You can check in, but you can never check out.
The Board knows full well about BOCES charges. I am not so sure that NCN did an adequate job explaining them as many comments seemed to be based on either incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. BOCES charges are in our budget every year. BOCES is used for many different reasons. One, obviously, are the on-site educational services. They are invaluable to the students and save the district significant amounts of money versus creating our own program for a handful of students. In fact, that is the point. BOCES was set up to be a more efficient and cost effective way to handle certain types and parts of the FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education).
There appears to be some confusion regarding the annual costs. We are not being charged $2 million (or close to that) for sending a 12 students there. The charges for the 12 students are only part of the overall BOCES costs.
We also currently use BOCES for their expertise in certain areas as well as their ability to coordinate and share services inter-district. For example, we are working through BOCES to develop on-line learning opportunities. Through BOCES several Westchester districts are developing on-line courses that will allow districts to share the resources and the expenses of developing the resources. We anticipate being able to increase our course offerings in the future to include on-line classes developed through BOCES that would not otherwise be economically feasible to develop and offer on our own.
BOCES is also used as a purchasing co-op for its member districts. We use them to lower the price of certain items and services for the district. In addition, we are able to use (purchase) certain administrative services that we would otherwise not have the need for a full time staff member to do. These purchasing costs are a pass through from BOCES. They will appear on the BOCES expense line because we are being billed by BOCES to pay the vendor, but they are not necessarily BOCES services per se.
The district is charged in two ways from BOCES. One, we are charged an annual allocation of administrative and operational costs. Two, we are charged directly for the services we use and the co-op purchases we make. The latter is obvious and easy to appreciate. The former is less obvious. We are required to be part of BOCES.
Looked at another way, what would be the affect on the district's budget if there were no BOCES? Would we spend the same, more or less? As I have been told, Mamaroneck's analysis of not being a member is that it is about the same in annual costs to the district as if they were a member. They purchase services a la carte from the Northern and the Southern Westchester BOCES. It is my opinion that you would have to break down the expense into its components.
For example, we would clearly spend more on the goods and services we use/buy as part of the co-op buying service. The only time we use BOCES for that now is if it would save us money vis a vis purchasing it on our own. For the educational services provided to the students we send to classes at BOCES, we would spend considerably more without BOCES. Educating one student versus spreading the cost over several or many similarly situated students is prohibitive. The question becomes, does the cost savings from co-op purchasing whether it is goods and services or education related classes out weigh the expense of simply being a member and getting an allocation of annual administrative /operating expenses.
There are other costs associated with BOCES that don't show up in the BOCES lines on our budget. For example, the cost of transportation to and from BOCES for our students is part of our transportation costs. And there are cost savings we accrue by being an inclusive district that otherwise would likely be part of BOCES. Educating our students in district within the general population not only is a significant benefit academically and socially to both the students in need of services as well as their classmates without, it is cost savings to the district.
The BOCES budget itself, is very similar to its component district's budgets. Most of the cost are personnel related for salaries and benefits. It cannot borrow money itself, so it has not debt service. As a member district, we act as our taxpayers act in relation to our district/board. We can and do demand efficiencies, we expect them to reduce administrative head count in order to lower benefits expense, we expect them to keep plain old administrative operating expenses in check, and we question what are appropriate course offerings. But we are only one member district and our opinion does not always rule the day. There are clearly districts that are much heavier users of BOCES services that derive a much larger benefit from being part of the co-op. Just like Westchester County does not get back tax dollars from the state in the form of services that it pays in taxes, some districts like the CCSD do not benefit as much as others. But, we are mandated to remain part of the system just like residents of Westchester cannot opt out of the State tax system.
I don't want to mislead anyone and say that if we were not required to be part, we would withdraw. That decision would take a lot of analysis and prioritizing of what it is that the district wants to provide its residents.
The difference though from a non-member and a member in terms of cost really comes to the forefront when there is a cash call for facilities improvements like we are faced with now. Whereas non-members are faced with higher user fees than members for services, non-members are not being asked to help defray the cost of the facilities upgrades and repairs. It is no different than owning an apartment in a co-op building. There are occasionally capital repairs that require the building board to issue a one-time assessment.
The Board is certainly aware that our annual administration charges are based on a formula that is 50% a measure of wealth as defined by property values and 50% by number of students in the district. This is actually a change from 100% based on property value wealth that used to be what the formula used. NWBOCES applied for and got an exception from the State of NY to change the formula to 50-50.
As part of the annual allocation of expenses, there is a capital cost included. That is supposed to be used for facilities maintenance and the like. I believe that last year we paid $70,000 toward that. It is clear that BOCES has not been doing proper maintenance or proper planning. The majority of what they are asking for is for structural repairs (flat roofs need replacement). This capital call raises many questions independent of how BOCES is operated and expenses shared on an annual operating basis.
What was our capital costs used for all these years if there are still millions of dollars in repairs needed? Why weren't these repairs or replacements done periodically to avoid this sort of one time expense? Why was there no replacement plan that could have been discussed with member districts so that we could properly plan ourselves for upcoming costs? Finally, who should pay for facility repairs and upgrades, users, member districts or some combination?
Simply put, on a relative basis, relative to other members of the BOCES and relative to our own local education usage, we do not use the facilities anywhere near what most other districts use. Our ~12 students are not a material part of the wear and tear on the buildings. Asking the CCSD to pay for the repairs based on property valuations and wealth vis a vis other districts is a regressive tax on our community members. One suggestion to BOCES at our meeting was to charge users a prorata cost, not member districts. Districts that use services but are not part of our BOCES are not being given an allocation of these costs.
Know too that we are not the only district grappling with this issue. A majority of the districts have questioned the surprise nature of the critical need for repairs as well as BOCES costs structure in general. I know of several districts that are meeting again with BOCES prior to their vote to express their displeasure with this situation. One suggestion that seems to be gathering momentum is to reduce the size of the capital request to a bare minimum level needed to keep the facilities operating without upgrade.
To clarify, while our district's allocation is about $1.5 million, we would borrow the funds and repay them over time. The annual cost to the district would be around $90,000 according to the administration. If the proposal is voted down by the member districts and we are forced to pay for this on an ad hoc emergency basis, the costs to the district would likely be higher. In fact, Bedford voted yes because of its fear that a no vote would cost more.
Labels:
Anonymous comments,
BOCES,
Budget,
CCSD,
Debunked,
expenses,
mandates,
Myths,
NCN,
special education
Friday, December 2, 2011
Does Bill Clinton Read His School District Website?
In the news today, former President Bill Clinton in a joint press conference with President Obama talked about retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. It is part of President Obams'a "Better Building Initiative". This article states,
Maybe President Clinton reads the Chappaqua Central School District website. If he does, he would have seen this article posted to the CCSD site on the energy performance contract. Right here in his adopted hometown we are going green and according to his analysis helping to create jobs! Too bad he doesn't give Joe Gramando, John Chow and the district credit for being an early adapter and proactively green.
Energy Performance Contract - Phase 1 Project Timeline
Noting rural communities like his new hometown of Chappaqua, N.Y., Clinton added: "Every little county has got one bonded contractor. That bonded contractor can guarantee to every public school, every state, county and local building, every little office building ... what the savings are going to be."All the former President has to do is go about a mile down the road from his house to Horace Greeley High School to see this in action. The district recently signed an Energy Performance Contract with Johnson Controls that guarantees that the cost savings from the upgrades to district facilities will pay for the cost of the improvements themselves. Or, over the term of the agreement, there is no net cost to the taxpayer for significant improvements to the district's infrastructure.
Maybe President Clinton reads the Chappaqua Central School District website. If he does, he would have seen this article posted to the CCSD site on the energy performance contract. Right here in his adopted hometown we are going green and according to his analysis helping to create jobs! Too bad he doesn't give Joe Gramando, John Chow and the district credit for being an early adapter and proactively green.
Energy Performance Contract - Phase 1 Project Timeline
To support the administration and faculty in their efforts to create a rich and dynamic learning environment that will prepare students to be productive members of an increasingly global community of limited natural resources, the District entered into a long-term Energy Performance Contract with Johnson Controls in July 2011.
Basically, an energy performance contract is a financing tool that utilizes cost savings from increased building efficiency and reduced energy consumption to pay for the cost of installing new energy conservation measures - without any up front capital expenses.
The contract agreement is for Johnson Controls to guarantee that the savings (plus building aid the District receives from the state) will meet or exceed the annual payments to cover all project costs, and that Johnson Controls pay the difference if at any time energy savings do not materialize.
Phase I of the energy performance contract brings improvements to all 6 school building, the Education Center and the Chappaqua Public Library.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Proud Resident of New Castle and CCSD
| Photo By Larry Clark; Muscle by HGHS Varsity Football Varsity Football players pushing cars on 117 on way home from game. Link to other photos from Larry Clark |
Below is an edited version of an email I sent to my fellow Board members and the administration late on Saturday night. Turns out, that because of the power outage at the Ed Center, it did not go out until later. I altered the letter for publication, to remove any personal references, and to make it more blog readable. As 97.3% of it is unedited, you get the point. I also apologize for the length and stream of consciousness style, but for anyone who knows me well or whose child has had me as a coach, you know I tend to rant and ramble in my emails. And with special thanks to the parents on the New Castle Knights/Hornets+, I now try to give the important stuff in paragraph one (I'm Ok; the bull is dead.) and the rest is the details.
Alyson, Randy, Vicky, Karen, Lyn, John, Eric, et al:
I am writing to tell you all how proud I am of the district and our community after watching some events unfold today.
First, at 9:00am, I watched our JV Football team beat, crush actually, Spring Valley on a cold, windy and begining to snow field here at HGHS. The Varsity team was to play at Spring Valley at 1:30. The team left for SV on two buses at 11:30ish. I left at noon. It was snowing hard when I left and the roads were trecherous. Quite frankly, as a parent I was concerned about the buses crossing the Tappan Zee and heading deeper into the storm, but not wanting to be the paniced parent or the over protective one, I grinned and bore it.
Just past the Tap, hard to see, but by the side of the road was a Chappaqua Transportation bus. I recognized the number 390 as one that had left with the football team. (I am weird that way with bus numbers, license plates and other random numbers. Weird in other ways too, but that is another email.) It is slippery and slow going, but I manage to pull over about 20 yards in front of the bus. I figure as a parent and BoE person I should check on the kids' well being.
It was hard to tell about the boys because they were not on the bus. They had all immediately piled onto the other bus and continued on their way. I found out later that the entire bus started smelling an odor and the driver determined the bus was overheating, contacted the other driver and they arranged to make the transfer. I get back in my truck and continued to the field.
By this time, it is blizzard like conditions when we arrive at the field. I talk to the bus driver who made it and he tells me that Joan is sending a mechanic and another bus. I am a little amazed. Sending the third bus to replace the broken one would be the proper thing to do most any day, but today, it sort of seemed like throwing good money after bad. It was so hard going on the roads that I did not think it safe to have him drive.*
Anyway, I walk to the field and it is covered, really covered in about 4-5 inches of snow. You cannot see the field at all. The refs are up to their ankles in snow. At this point, there were only two other people in the stands. Of course they were Chappaqua parents! If you know the football team and its fans, you knew that more would show too. They did.
The whole thing is surreal. The players are taking running slides in the snow having fun. They decide that since we are there, we should play the game. I think if they had had some foresight, they would have called it off early in the morning. Of course, to top off the crazy scene, when they start the national anthem, I guess for all 5 of us in the stands and the two teams, it is James Marshall Hendrix (aka Jimi) playing the anthem on his heavily distorted guitar.
The game starts and it is what you would expect from a game played in a literal blizzard. Neither team can move the ball, neither can punt it nor place kick it. But boy do the boys look like they are enjoying themselves! By now, an additional 10-15 Greeley parents (and brothers AJ and Koby!) have shown up. Mostly the regulars who support the players regardless. There were two SV parents there the entire time.
Since we decided to stand in front of the press box where there was an overhang and where we figured we could hear what the coaches were saying since we could not actually see the field if we looked left into the storm, we found out that a lot of the families in SV hail from the islands and there was no way they would be out in this. Interestingly, both my sons told me that the other team's players were real nice, real funny and complaining about the cold the entire game.
At half time the score was 0-0. It was obvious that if any team found a way to score, it would likely be the winning score. It took until midway through the fourth quarter, but we finally managed a touchdown! The game ended 7-0 Greeley!!
But there was still the problem of getting home and doing it safely. At that point we did not know the 2nd bus had arrived. The few parents had already taken count and were prepared to take 3 or 4 players in their cars to get them home safely. Normally, Coach T requires that the players all take the team bus to and from every game. None of hopping a ride with mom or dad like they do in middle school. Today, as we all gathered at the buses in the lot afterwards, Coach T, unhesitatedly made the announcement that parents could take their kids. I guess it was sort of a reward for the families that traveled and supported the teams - if having a cold, wet and smelly football player in full pads in your car is a "reward".
These boys were exhausted and COLD. Most had on an Under Armour shirt of some sort and not much else besides their pads and uniform. They were wet too! The boys got on the buses with the parents and some support staff following behind caravan style. Immediately, within a 1/4 mile of the lot, we were stuck in a mess of cars slipping and sliding.
The drivers did an amazing job being cautious and persistent with the buses.* It took about two hours to get to 117 in Pleasantville, normally a 30-35 minute ride. But we were stuck once again on 117. A lot of cars were sliding and spinning their wheels. So what did our cold, wet and tired players do? They got off the bus and started to help push cars out of the snow or to the side of the road. They saw a problem, and they presented and executed a solution. Critical thinking in action!
| Photo By Larry Clark Muscle by Greeley Football team |
I am quite sure that first, we should not have had those buses running at all today. But the boys loved playing and I can tell you that they will all be talking about this game when they are our age. There might be more like 2 feet of snow in the retell and the ride back will have taken 6 hours, but it was one for the ages.
I am also quite sure that letting kids off the bus on 117 is not something we normally would do. If we search long and hard enough for a policy, I am sure we can find one that prohibits it. But, it was the right thing to do. To see the boys, in their depleted state being part of the Chappaqua community was awesome. The driver and the coaches who let them off the bus should be commended. Being a good citizen sometimes means doing what is right, not what is written in the rule book.
When they finally did get to the high school, it was amazing to watch them all arrange rides and make sure that no one was left at the HS. These are kids helping kids, no parents involved. Football brothers not leaving anyone behind. Maybe it is limited to the football team and is a testament to the coaches, but I would like to think that it is really a testament to the whole district and the staff. When I go to games, all the staff know me and say hello. I know they are watching out for the kids, even Joe's [Gramando] staff whose primary responsibility has nothing to do with the kids directly.
Although I have really gotten to my point, I add the following addendum to the story. If you have read this far already, I thank you as I know many of you, like me, have no power. I am not trying to drain your cell batteries, just making a long winded point.
On the way home in my truck, not knowing the extent of the damage in Chappaqua I agreed to head to the high school before going home. One of mine left this or that and claimed he really needed it. Ok, let's go. So I am heading down the big hill on Roaring Brook just before the light with about a 67% chance of making the turn and then being able to stop at the bottom when I am flagged down by a couple who appear to be in their late 60s or early 70s. (I have no ability to judge or guess age anymore.)
I stop. Their minivan is clearly in the wrong place and I see no hope of it getting in the right place by anything we or they could do. They tell me that they called AAA who told them sorry, ain't happening tonight. They then called 911 who pretty much blew them off too. They were told to go to the Holiday Inn. Sounds great, but these are two older folk, lost, without any way to do anything.
"Get in" I hear myself saying. I tell them I will take them somewhere, not sure where just yet, but first I need to stop at the high school. They get in and start telling us their tale. Turns out they had a heavy accent and their english was not so good. (I think they were speaking german, but it was all greek to me.) After the high school I need to stop across the street so the boys can get something or other there too. Now I leave this old couple in my truck as all of us go inside to figure out what to do with them.
I end up driving them to the police station. The police officer on duty btw was not very nice nor very helpful, but I am sure he was having a long hard day. He told me to drive them to the Holiday Inn. I told him, no thanks and we are leaving them here in your capable hands to discuss the slogan, "To serve and protect". The nice couple who told us all about their dog who got lime disease and died while we drove to town, tried to thank me by reaching into his pocket. No, it is what we do here in Chappaqua, we help each other out in time of need I told them. I was even prouder when my boys were thanking me for helping them and telling me I did the "right thing" even if it took them another extra half hour to get out of their wet cold clothes.
But it does not end there. I realize it is now close to 6:30 and we have not eaten and I am not going to cook tonight. I wish I could plan my meals months in advance like Karen, but if I were to do that, there would be a lot of pasta and Rocky's on the menu. So we stop in Pizza Station.*** In there is John Buckley from the Town Board and a few tables of customers.
I say hello to John. I commiserate with him and tell him at least the BoE members recognize that an October snow storm must be a budget buster. He asks why I am out and I give him the Reader's Digest version (see what I did there?). He then tells me that he stopped at Quaker Hill making his rounds to local businesses and there is a newley wed couple, married earlier today I think, stranded at QH. "I never want to make calls and ask for favors, but for once I called a buddy on the FD and asked him if he could grab a 4 wheel drive vehicle, come to QH, and take this young couple to the Holiday Inn on their wedding night." he told me. Another community member just trying to do the right thing.
Then, this one table consisting of a grandmother, mother, and young boy who had overheard our entire conversation asked me "who we are". I tell them we serve on the town council and school board. They are amazed. Turns out they live in NYC, their car had some sort of glitch (wipers stopped?) and since the trains were not working they were stuck here in the pizza place.
Next thing I know, I am on the phone with her husband who has decided to drive up from Manhatten to rescue them but is lost as they had closed part of the Saw Mill and his gps was taking him in circles. I direct him to the Pizza Station. The woman told us that they were looking at houses in Westchester (not today, but in general) and had not looked in Chappaqua "yet". She told us that she would not consider buying in another town now after hearing and witnessing all sorts of good deeds today.
I tell you all this to point out that most of the town never hears about all the good people do around here, about the spirit of volunteerism, about the good that we do as a board. Why? Because good news does not sell, controversy does. Unfortunately, most of the town only knows of us through what they read in the blogs. If only they knew of the extraordinary things done in the district every day.**
As Gregg said last year on his way out, it is only a thankless job if you are looking for thanks. I tip my hat to you all fellow volunteers who do this for some reason I am not sure even we know, but do it nonetheless.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
Stay warm, stay safe and stay home,
Jeffrey
* I had a chance to meet Seth from Chappaqua Transportation on Monday at a meeting where opening of school was discussed. I thanked him for the terrific job that his drivers did Saturday and let him know that the Coaches had also written to the AD and Board pointing out what a great job his drivers did.
**As an example, on Monday (Oct 31st) while driving around the district facilities in my role as Co-Chair (with Randy K) of the Board's Facilities Committee, I happened upon Joe Gramando working hard to get things back up and back to normal and then a meeting in the high school where all the district administrators (Ed Center and building principals) lead by Lyn McKay were meeting to discuss and finalize a plan for opening schools and communicating with the community to keep them up to date on the situation. They had developed plans A, B and C depending on power restoration, bus safety and facilities availability. I was impressed not only with the operational planning, but with the attention to detail going into communicating efficiently and clearly with the community on a timely basis.
Also, I want to recognize the extraordinary level of cooperation between the Town of New Castle and the CCSD. I know there was communication at all levels of the two entities. The BoE communicated with Barbara Gerrard and she with us, as well as Superintendent McKay and Assistant Superintendent Chow (and Joe Gramando) in constant contact with Penny P and other members of the Town staff sharing information, finding ways to help each other out, etc. Two simple examples of cooperation would be the Town in a time crunch and while being burdened with so many other logistical items managed to pull off a Halloween celebration for the kids at the community center and in town that probably should be the template for Halloweens to come. The district opened HGHS as a warming center and place to shower for residents of New Castle.
*** As another totally "only in Chappaqua" moment and as a testament to our merchants, I was in Pizza Station again on Monday early evening (I still had no power) when in walked a young trick or treater. Unfortunately, PS was all trick or treated out. The owner, whose name I do not know, shrugged and ask if he wanted a slice instead of candy. I big shake yes of the head and two minutes later off he went with his free Halloween slice. (When it came time to pay for my slice, I said, "Trick or Treat?, but I guess that does not work for big kids.)
+
+
| New Castle Hornets 2009-10 |
JSM
Labels:
Board of Ed,
BoE,
CCSD,
Chappaqua,
critical thinking,
football,
Musings,
New Castle,
NewCastle,
Pizza Station,
rant,
snow storm

