At our September 20th meeting, the Board voted unanimously to move our meeting date to Wednesdays (from Tuesdays) starting with the 2012-2013 school year. Here is a link to my original post on the issue. I would like to thank my fellow Board members for moving this idea forward for the next school year.
At that same September 20th meeting, Christine Yeres, editor and blogger for NewCastleNOW, asked if we would also move the meetings to New Castle Town Hall. Without looking at the tape of the meeting, I recall my response was along the lines of, "That makes no sense whatsoever".
The more I think about it, it makes even less sense than that. I think the reason Christine asked it was as a way to backdoor going live since the town is already set up for that and it would cost the district close to $10,000 to set up.
Here is why it makes no sense. One of the issues that became clear during the Reader's Digest/Summit Greenfield development debate was that too many people equate the Town of New Castle with the Chappaqua Central School District. We are very different. First, the CCSD has a budget almost 3 times the Town's. Second, only 90% of the people in the CCSD are also in the Town of New Castle. Mt Pleasant is about 10% of the district. Third, only about 80% of those in the Town of New Castle reside in the CCSD.
Second, we are the school district not in anyway associated with the Town. We should be using district facilities. Third, the most centrally located facility for residents of the CCSD is the Horace Greeley High School. Town hall is at the south end of the district. HGHS is also convenient for the Administration that has offices yards away from the meeting place. Finally, HGHS give us the flexibility to change the location from the academic commons to the auditorium if there is a need based on attendance.
To me, the only issue remaining with meeting dates and locations is the production of the district calendar. It was clear in April when this first came up and again the other night that producing the calendar is a burden for the PTA. They are doing it as a favor at our request. I do not think we should continue to place that burden on the PTA. I strongly believe we should take that back in house. It is not fair of us to burden an outside organization. And, it brings control of the decision making with respect to the calendar 100% with the district.
Showing posts with label Meeting Schedule. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meeting Schedule. Show all posts
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Follow Up to Turf Post
The following are some questions I received and my answers. These are my answers only. I do not speak for the entire Board. If you would like to send an email to me, I can be reached at the link below (comments@newcastlealternative.com) or JeMester@ccsd.ws. Emails you send to my district email or to the Board's email (Board@ccsd.ws) are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. To call me, click on the link on this page. If you block your caller ID, I do not see the number. Leave a message if I am unable to answer.
Q. Will the Board us district funds for the turf field?
A. No. The Board and the district has said repeatedly that we will not use district funds for the turf when we have academic priorities that take precedence.
Q. Then why was the Board voting to sign the contract with the Engineering firm before it had the funds in hand from the turf committee?
A. First, we tabled the motion initially and approved the motion at our September 8th meeting contingent upon having the funds in hand from the TCTC or them demonstrating that it was placed in escrow for the district. Second, the turf committee is a community group and is made up of members of the community, natch. Quite frankly, I trust them to honor the legally binding MOU we signed with them. I do not think we should treat them any differently from other community groups that use our facilities. For example, the PTA currently owes us $40,000 for a program they run. We have not said, "No, you cannot have that program until you paid." That makes no sense for many reasons. One, we asked the PTA to be a conduit for the program. Two, they are a community group whose word is their bond. They told us they would pay and we know they will without doing a D&B report on their credit. Why should we treat the TCTC differently than the PTA?
Another reason why I think we could have and should have signed the agreement prior to having the actual funds in house is that there are other issues that arise that are critical to the timing. As this is district property, the district has to sign the contract. In order to actually undertake the work on our fields, believe it or not, Albany (Dept. of Ed) needs to approve of the work. If you have ever asked for government approval on a construction project, you know that it takes time. A lot of time. So, in order to install turf in the summer of 2012, we need to file in the early fall and we need to submit an engineering study as part of that filing.
Also, if we file in a timely matter and meet certain criteria there is a chance that the state will give us matching funds for up to around 23%. Why not try to get that money? It was taken from us as tax payers. Let us get it back.
Q. Why is the PTA and others in the community saying that you are rushing into this without public input?
A. Again, I have no idea. That simply is not true. There were significant meetings on this two years ago. Again in the spring , the Board of Ed's Facilities Committee announced and held (June 1st) a public meeting on the issue. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. Of those who attended, some were neighbors with concerns, some were community members with other concerns and some were supporters. We stayed and answered every question and gave anyone who wanted to a chance to speak.
In fact, that meeting was announced by the PTA!!! Below is the relevant section from a copy of the email they sent announcing it.
Additionally, the district did not announce the meeting two hours before it began. The PTA sent out their own email. The district posted the meeting on its website and sent out an announcement to everyone on our mailing list that has asked to receive such emails. Ours was sent on Tuesday, a full 52 hours in advance.
And, I personally sent emails to both The Patch and NCN to let them know about the meeting. I certainly would not characterize sending an email to local bloggers to get the word out as anything but full transparency. I cannot control their publication schedule or their editorial decision on what is worthy of being blogged about.
Q. Will the Board us district funds for the turf field?
A. No. The Board and the district has said repeatedly that we will not use district funds for the turf when we have academic priorities that take precedence.
Q. Then why was the Board voting to sign the contract with the Engineering firm before it had the funds in hand from the turf committee?
A. First, we tabled the motion initially and approved the motion at our September 8th meeting contingent upon having the funds in hand from the TCTC or them demonstrating that it was placed in escrow for the district. Second, the turf committee is a community group and is made up of members of the community, natch. Quite frankly, I trust them to honor the legally binding MOU we signed with them. I do not think we should treat them any differently from other community groups that use our facilities. For example, the PTA currently owes us $40,000 for a program they run. We have not said, "No, you cannot have that program until you paid." That makes no sense for many reasons. One, we asked the PTA to be a conduit for the program. Two, they are a community group whose word is their bond. They told us they would pay and we know they will without doing a D&B report on their credit. Why should we treat the TCTC differently than the PTA?
Another reason why I think we could have and should have signed the agreement prior to having the actual funds in house is that there are other issues that arise that are critical to the timing. As this is district property, the district has to sign the contract. In order to actually undertake the work on our fields, believe it or not, Albany (Dept. of Ed) needs to approve of the work. If you have ever asked for government approval on a construction project, you know that it takes time. A lot of time. So, in order to install turf in the summer of 2012, we need to file in the early fall and we need to submit an engineering study as part of that filing.
Also, if we file in a timely matter and meet certain criteria there is a chance that the state will give us matching funds for up to around 23%. Why not try to get that money? It was taken from us as tax payers. Let us get it back.
Q. Why is the PTA and others in the community saying that you are rushing into this without public input?
A. Again, I have no idea. That simply is not true. There were significant meetings on this two years ago. Again in the spring , the Board of Ed's Facilities Committee announced and held (June 1st) a public meeting on the issue. There were approximately 30 people in attendance. Of those who attended, some were neighbors with concerns, some were community members with other concerns and some were supporters. We stayed and answered every question and gave anyone who wanted to a chance to speak.
In fact, that meeting was announced by the PTA!!! Below is the relevant section from a copy of the email they sent announcing it.
For the PTA to claim that we are doing anything hastily is simply incorrect and disingenuous. The PTA tried to make some point that the September 8th meeting was not on their precious district calendar, but the September 1st one was and they chose not to attend. In fact, in response to concerns a Board member expressed, the motion was tabled until those concerns could be addressed one week later.
Additionally, the district did not announce the meeting two hours before it began. The PTA sent out their own email. The district posted the meeting on its website and sent out an announcement to everyone on our mailing list that has asked to receive such emails. Ours was sent on Tuesday, a full 52 hours in advance.
And, I personally sent emails to both The Patch and NCN to let them know about the meeting. I certainly would not characterize sending an email to local bloggers to get the word out as anything but full transparency. I cannot control their publication schedule or their editorial decision on what is worthy of being blogged about.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Whose Schedule is It?
At the CCSD School Board's May 24th meeting, I made a simple suggestion to move our Board meetings next year to Wednesdays instead of Tuesdays. For as long as I can remember, and probably longer than that, CCSD School Board meetings have been held on Tuesdays. No one I asked can give me a reason why, other than that is the way it always is/was.
I asked to move the meetings for two reasons. One, so our meetings do not conflict with the Town Board meetings. Anyone interested in local governance like I am cannot actively participate in both Town Board meetings and School Board meetings. While you can watch them both online at your convenience, if you wish to attend both and/or participate in both, you are forced to make a choice of one over the other. While I concede regular attendance at both board meetings is limited, that is besides the point. This is about good governance.
I also think that having the meetings on the same day sends the wrong symbolic message to the community. As it is, correct or incorrect, the message we send to the community with our meetings scheduled on the same day is that we do not work together and we do not care about the conflict.
I want to change that perception. Coming off the recent conflict over the former Reader's Digest property, this would be a great first step toward repairing the relationship between the two boards. The two boards share many of the same interests, have many (but not all) of the same constituents, and are both part of the same community; we need to act like the good neighbors we are.
Changing the meeting day to Wednesday also sends a positive message to the community of change. Over the past few years, the School Board has changed with the times. We are a proactive dynamic Board that is able to be both academically supportive and fiscally responsible. But, perception may not yet have caught up with reality.
Change continues this year in the district. We will have two new Board members. Of the remaining three Board members, one is completing his rookie year, another her second year and I am finishing my fourth year. Next year, the average term of a sitting Board Member will be 1.4 years. We will also have a new Superintendent and a new Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum as well as a new head of Human Resources.
A change to Wednesdays signals a new way of doing things, that we are willing to be flexible, dynamic, and break conventions.
Two, moving the meetings to Wednesdays would be a significant positive change for me personally. I do not think it necessary or appropriate to give the details of my personal reasons, but suffice it to say that the change would materially benefit my family life, my professional life and my personal life. Not changing will also have a measurable negative affect on my situation.
While serving on the School Board is a privilege, it is not without its burdens. Between Board meetings, exec sessions, committee work, interviews, school walk thrus, retreats, meetings with constituents, and meetings with administrators and staff the time commitment is immense. It is not a role one takes on for any sane reason other than a true commitment to the community and its children. That may sound corny, but it is true. Every Board Member I have ever served with or known personally, regardless of where they stand on individual issues, serves because of a commitment to education, to the children of the community and to their neighbors. It is certainly not for the pay or the perks.
So, while it may sound self serving and may even be self serving, to the extent possible, I strongly believe that we should make serving on the Board less of a burden where ever possible. Accommodating Board Members when possible will help retain experienced Board Members and will not be a limiting factor in attracting new volunteers. To the extent we can make it easier on any one of us without making it harder on any of us, we should. We already do everything possible to accommodate those on the Board who work full time. Why not accommodate those with evening conflicts too? We should try even if that means more work in the short run for the Administration or other groups that may be affected.
If you watch the tape of the meeting, none of the remaining Board Members nor the two incoming Board members have an issue with moving the meetings to Wednesday. I can also say that subsequent to the meeting all checked their schedules and still have no issue themselves with moving to Wednesdays.
But, there is opposition within the school community to the change. No one I spoke to thinks it is a bad idea. All opposition to the change revolves around logistics/work involved in making the change.
Quite frankly, while I am sympathetic to the amount of effort needed to successfully make this change and have volunteered to take on that task, we should make the decision based on what is right, not on the amount of work needed. Making the expedient decision over the right decision will send the wrong signal to the community and will negate the hard work this Board and this Administration has done in becoming more flexible, more transparent and more community accessible, or to put it in more 21st century terms, more user friendly.
We should never let the threat of hard work prevent doing what is right.
I asked to move the meetings for two reasons. One, so our meetings do not conflict with the Town Board meetings. Anyone interested in local governance like I am cannot actively participate in both Town Board meetings and School Board meetings. While you can watch them both online at your convenience, if you wish to attend both and/or participate in both, you are forced to make a choice of one over the other. While I concede regular attendance at both board meetings is limited, that is besides the point. This is about good governance.
I also think that having the meetings on the same day sends the wrong symbolic message to the community. As it is, correct or incorrect, the message we send to the community with our meetings scheduled on the same day is that we do not work together and we do not care about the conflict.
I want to change that perception. Coming off the recent conflict over the former Reader's Digest property, this would be a great first step toward repairing the relationship between the two boards. The two boards share many of the same interests, have many (but not all) of the same constituents, and are both part of the same community; we need to act like the good neighbors we are.
Changing the meeting day to Wednesday also sends a positive message to the community of change. Over the past few years, the School Board has changed with the times. We are a proactive dynamic Board that is able to be both academically supportive and fiscally responsible. But, perception may not yet have caught up with reality.
Change continues this year in the district. We will have two new Board members. Of the remaining three Board members, one is completing his rookie year, another her second year and I am finishing my fourth year. Next year, the average term of a sitting Board Member will be 1.4 years. We will also have a new Superintendent and a new Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum as well as a new head of Human Resources.
A change to Wednesdays signals a new way of doing things, that we are willing to be flexible, dynamic, and break conventions.
Two, moving the meetings to Wednesdays would be a significant positive change for me personally. I do not think it necessary or appropriate to give the details of my personal reasons, but suffice it to say that the change would materially benefit my family life, my professional life and my personal life. Not changing will also have a measurable negative affect on my situation.
While serving on the School Board is a privilege, it is not without its burdens. Between Board meetings, exec sessions, committee work, interviews, school walk thrus, retreats, meetings with constituents, and meetings with administrators and staff the time commitment is immense. It is not a role one takes on for any sane reason other than a true commitment to the community and its children. That may sound corny, but it is true. Every Board Member I have ever served with or known personally, regardless of where they stand on individual issues, serves because of a commitment to education, to the children of the community and to their neighbors. It is certainly not for the pay or the perks.
So, while it may sound self serving and may even be self serving, to the extent possible, I strongly believe that we should make serving on the Board less of a burden where ever possible. Accommodating Board Members when possible will help retain experienced Board Members and will not be a limiting factor in attracting new volunteers. To the extent we can make it easier on any one of us without making it harder on any of us, we should. We already do everything possible to accommodate those on the Board who work full time. Why not accommodate those with evening conflicts too? We should try even if that means more work in the short run for the Administration or other groups that may be affected.
If you watch the tape of the meeting, none of the remaining Board Members nor the two incoming Board members have an issue with moving the meetings to Wednesday. I can also say that subsequent to the meeting all checked their schedules and still have no issue themselves with moving to Wednesdays.
But, there is opposition within the school community to the change. No one I spoke to thinks it is a bad idea. All opposition to the change revolves around logistics/work involved in making the change.
Quite frankly, while I am sympathetic to the amount of effort needed to successfully make this change and have volunteered to take on that task, we should make the decision based on what is right, not on the amount of work needed. Making the expedient decision over the right decision will send the wrong signal to the community and will negate the hard work this Board and this Administration has done in becoming more flexible, more transparent and more community accessible, or to put it in more 21st century terms, more user friendly.
We should never let the threat of hard work prevent doing what is right.