Congratulations and thank you to the community for overwhelmingly voting to support this year's school budget. It is a victory for the district and the children of the district.
But, it is only the beginning. We still have systematic problems that need to be addressed. I am quite confident that the district taxpayers and the bargaining units can find local solutions to national problems if we avoid falling back on established party lines and really work to address the issues facing the individual taxpayer and the real interests of the entire rank and file.
Finally, as I have said previously, the message from this budget passage is just that, the budget passed because of academic preservation combined with fiscal responsibility. It is a message on the budget, not on anything else. The need for mandate relief from Albany has not changed. We must work as a community to lobby our representatives for change.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Where Do We Fit In Relative to Our Peers?
A question that has come up several times recently is where do we fit in relative to other schools in Westchester in relation to budget increases and tax increases. I also added the amount of reserves used.
Here is a list of schools with which we are often compared:
School/Budget Increase/Tax Increase*/Reserves Used
Chappaqua/1.88/2.11/$4.25mm
Scarsdale/2.75/3.19/$6.667mm
Bedford/2.15/7.25*/$4.4mm
Edgemont/4.48/2.65/$1.25mm
Katonah/1.59/5.43/$2.754mm
Rye/3.14/2.52/$1.96mm
(For other schools, see their district's website. It is generally listed under the Board of Education link.)
* Used the New Castle number when available for comparison.
Here is a list of schools with which we are often compared:
School/Budget Increase/Tax Increase*/Reserves Used
Chappaqua/1.88/2.11/$4.25mm
Scarsdale/2.75/3.19/$6.667mm
Bedford/2.15/7.25*/$4.4mm
Edgemont/4.48/2.65/$1.25mm
Katonah/1.59/5.43/$2.754mm
Rye/3.14/2.52/$1.96mm
(For other schools, see their district's website. It is generally listed under the Board of Education link.)
* Used the New Castle number when available for comparison.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Budget and Messages?
As always, my usual disclaimers apply. I am writing as an individual. I do not speak for the School Board or anyone else but myself. No district resources were used to write this post. Your mileage may vary (YMMV). Shake well before using, etc.
Recently, the New Castle Citizens For Responsible Education (NCCRE) a group of 5 Chappaqua school district residents published an open letter to the New Castle Community suggesting that residents vote "No" on the CCSD proposed budget on May 17th. Apparently, they are not opposed to the budget per se but they want you to vote "no" to send a message to "the School Board, Administration, School Unions, Union Leadership and Albany legislators that the continued budget and tax increases are not sustainable and that State Mandates must change."
First, their actual message of changing or eliminating state mandates is a good one. So good in fact that despite the group's claim to the contrary, at the CCSD School Board's January 11th meeting, we passed a motion proposed by me based on a similar motion passed by the Westchester-Putnam School Board Association that calls for mandate relief. Here is a link to that resolution. To be clear, I fully and unequivocally support mandate relief.
But, their method for getting this message out is seriously flawed. There is no, and will be no, link to voting "no" on the budget and getting this message out to the community. The only valid assumption about the budget, should the proposed budget get voted down on May 17th, is that the proposed budget was voted down. Complete stop.
The Vote
This entire exercise by the NCCRE is simply an attempt to change the vote from a vote on the merits of the budget to a vote on mandates. I urge you to read the line in the voting booth they are asking you to vote "no" on.
It says:
There is nothing in that language to suggest this is a vote on mandates or messages, it is clearly a vote on the proposed budget.
The Message
The best and appropriate way to send a message is to do so in a clear and unambiguous manner. Changing state mandates, especially ones that are constitutionally protected, will only come with a ground swell of public support that threatens financial well being and the re-election prospects of our legislators in Albany. It will not come from voting down a local budget. In fact, the only message sent from voting down a local budget is that we have a community divided.
Additionally, in the likely event the budget passes, they have set themselves up for the claim by our legislators that the community does not want mandate relief as evidenced by the budget vote. As the vote on the ballot is for the budget not mandate relief and they are not mutually exclusive, it is quite probable that most of the community is like me in supporting both the budget and getting mandate relief from Albany.
The Process
Should the budget get voted down, the Board would then have to decide how to proceed. The Board's choices are to present a new proposed budget and a new contingency budget, to keep them the same and have another vote, or to go straight to the contingency budget. The Board can also decide to change the amount of reserves used to offset any tax rate changes.
In fact, in these times of fiscal austerity the Board cannot know if a budget was voted down because of some tangential message, because we are spending too much, or because residents are upset with the amount of cuts or the increase in class size and want us to raise the budget. There is no one message to take from a rejected budget other than a divided community.
Budget Bargaining
Further, the decision to advocate for a "no" vote is tantamount to bargaining in bad faith. The School Board this year took great pains to craft a budget that reflected a broad swatch of the community. Included in that was input from the NCCRE. At every budget meeting they had a member speak and ask questions. Many of their suggestions were incorporated in the final proposal. In fact, the large amount of reserves committed is a reflection of their input and suggestions.
The five members of the NCCRE themselves in their opening paragraph of the letter state that the contingency budget is only $132,000 less than the proposed budget so a "no" vote does not take away from educational programming or the excellent quality of the Chappaqua School system. If they think the proposed and contingency budgets are good and fair ones, why the "no" vote suggestion?
The NCCRE bargained in what I assumed was good faith for a budget that they could live with and now that they got what they wanted, they are suggesting it get voted down to send some sort of message. That is not bargaining in good faith. They want you to vote "no" for reasons that have nothing to do with the budget itself.
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
This NCCRE plan is a plan that, like my mother used to say to me, is "cutting off your nose to spite your face". The NCCRE members are willing to sacrifice their real estate values to send a message to the teacher's union and their elected officials in Albany despite they themselves having been active participants in negotiating for this proposed budget. They choose to ignore that home buyers in this community are motivated by the school system and that they will not move here if we start voting down budgets that are reasonable ones to begin with. They are willing to vote "no" to send a message that has no immediate effect on taxes or that at best will save them an amount on their yearly taxes that will take them 20 or 30 years to make up based on the resulting loss in real estate value. It makes no sense.
Contingency Budget
Then, in order to convince you to vote "no" these five residents make certain assumptions and claims in their letter that are not necessarily valid. In the same first paragraph mentioned above, they correctly point out that the contingency budget is only $132,000 less than the proposed budget, but there is an implied assumption that if the budget is voted down, that the contingency budget will automatically kick in.
That is an erroneous assumption. If the budget is voted down on May 17th, as stated above, the School Board would have several options including presenting a new Proposed Budget, a new Contingency Budget as well as adjusting the amount of reserves committed to offsetting the tax increase.
"Real Budget Increase"?
In their reasons to vote "no", they try to come up with a concept of "Real Budget Increase" that is erroneously calculated. They have used a projected actual spending number for this year that is incorrect. This year's approved budget was $109,391,348. But, that number is not the amount authorized to be spent. As one of their members repeatedly pointed out at Board budget meetings, the actual spending budget was $110,800,000 as there was a reserve of approximately $1.4 million used on the expense side this year. The "Real Budget Increase" is actually $688,000, or approximately one half of one percent.
They also erroneously try to use the projected surplus as a reduction in spending this year without accounting for a potential surplus next year. They seem to make assumptions only when it suits their purposes and not use them consistently throughout the analysis.
Tax Analysis
They also claim the real property tax increase is 5.2% not 2.11% if reserves aren't used. Well guess what? Reserves are being used. So, the real property tax increase is 2.11%. They are correct in saying that the reserves are previously collected but unspent tax dollars, however, if they want to be intellectually honest in making the claim that the real tax increase is 5.2% because of the use of reserves, they would then need to restate all the previous tax changes (20 years?) to say that the actual tax rate in years when no reserves were used but we spent less than budgeted was lower than it was claimed. I strongly supported returning as much of the reserves to the taxpayers as prudently reasonable. Now, after the Board committed to using more reserves than the Administration initially recommended, the NCCRE is claiming it does not matter what number is used, the tax rate is really 5.2%. Under that theory, we might as well eliminate the use of reserves and make the tax rate increase 5.2% since that is the basis on which they are making their decision.
Causal Relation Confusion
When they make the case that enrollment is declining, staff levels are being reduced yet compensation levels are increasing, they are 100% correct, but I fail to see the correlation to voting down the budget.
In fact, they are making the argument to vote for the budget. In spite of a significant increase in pension expenses and other employee contractual obligations, this budget increase is less than the amount of the increase in expenses. The Board and Administration is being fiscally prudent in maintaining the academic excellence in our schools while limiting the budget increase to an amount that is less than the increase in contractual costs. What are they suggesting the Board do different from what we have done? Nothing, they just want you to vote : “no" to send a message unrelated to the current budget.
Contractual Givebacks
The five members of NCCRE suggest that the Board, in accepting the $1.1 million in givebacks from a union that has seen approximate 7% raises the last three years, could have imposed a unilateral freeze on teacher salary increases while the teachers had a valid contract in place. It appears as if they are suggesting that we should have accepted nothing less than a freeze.
First, of course we suggested a freeze to the CCT, it was rejected, but it is unrealistic to expect agreement to a freeze when an employee unit is only voluntarily reopening a contract that has another year to run at higher compensation. Second, with a valid contract in place, the appropriate way to analyze the savings made is versus the contract and in the event of an extension of that contract versus what would be imposed under the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law. In this case, imposed step increases. In this proposed budget, the district is saving $1.1 million versus the existing contract. In the following year, the district will be paying $600,000 less than we would have had to if we came to no agreement on a contract and the Triborough Amendment was imposed. Those are real and significant savings.
The NCCRE would have you believe we live in some theoretical world where a union will rip up an existing contract and offer to give back everything they negotiated on salary AND, not only that, what the law says they are entitled to. To assume this could or would happen is disingenuous on their part.
School Board Public Support
Finally, the NCCRE makes the claim that the School Board "has not publically supported or advocated for mandate relief even though it is recommended by the School District Budget Advisory Group, the Westchester Putnam School Board Association and the New York State School Board Association." As stated above, this ignores the resolutions passed and the Board's public support of both the Westchester-Putnam School Board Association and the New York State School Board Association's public lobbying efforts to address mandates.
The NCCRE is also directly aware of the fact that the Budget Advisory Group recommendations will be on the May 24th School Board agenda. To claim that we are specifically ignoring a recommendation by an advisory group is incorrect. While there is no guarantee we will accept that recommendation, we have made it very clear to them that we will be considering it. While the consideration does come one week after the budget vote, the timing of that is not relevant to this year's budget vote. A decision to accept, reject or modify the recommendation will not have any effect on the budget numbers, even if we had voted on it a month ago.
The group's claim of lack of public support also ignores the very fact that they had representation on the Budget Advisory Committee Mandate subgroup. It was the School Board that established the committee and suggested that one of the subcommittees be focused on addressing mandate relief. If the Board creating a group to address mandate relief with the charge that there were no areas they could not address is not publically supporting mandate relief, then I am not sure how we could ever satisfy them.
The Vote
Let me be clear. The vote on Tuesday May 17th is whether or not to support the academic and fiscally responsible budget proposed by the Board of Ed. Mandate relief is not on the ballot.
I advocate you vote "YES" on the budget and support mandate relief by contacting our legislators in Albany.
Recently, the New Castle Citizens For Responsible Education (NCCRE) a group of 5 Chappaqua school district residents published an open letter to the New Castle Community suggesting that residents vote "No" on the CCSD proposed budget on May 17th. Apparently, they are not opposed to the budget per se but they want you to vote "no" to send a message to "the School Board, Administration, School Unions, Union Leadership and Albany legislators that the continued budget and tax increases are not sustainable and that State Mandates must change."
First, their actual message of changing or eliminating state mandates is a good one. So good in fact that despite the group's claim to the contrary, at the CCSD School Board's January 11th meeting, we passed a motion proposed by me based on a similar motion passed by the Westchester-Putnam School Board Association that calls for mandate relief. Here is a link to that resolution. To be clear, I fully and unequivocally support mandate relief.
But, their method for getting this message out is seriously flawed. There is no, and will be no, link to voting "no" on the budget and getting this message out to the community. The only valid assumption about the budget, should the proposed budget get voted down on May 17th, is that the proposed budget was voted down. Complete stop.
The Vote
This entire exercise by the NCCRE is simply an attempt to change the vote from a vote on the merits of the budget to a vote on mandates. I urge you to read the line in the voting booth they are asking you to vote "no" on.
It says:
"Resolved: That the Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District be and hereby is authorized to expend the sum of $111,448,488 set forth in the School District Budget for the School Year 2011-2012, and that the necessary tax be levied thereof."
There is nothing in that language to suggest this is a vote on mandates or messages, it is clearly a vote on the proposed budget.
The Message
The best and appropriate way to send a message is to do so in a clear and unambiguous manner. Changing state mandates, especially ones that are constitutionally protected, will only come with a ground swell of public support that threatens financial well being and the re-election prospects of our legislators in Albany. It will not come from voting down a local budget. In fact, the only message sent from voting down a local budget is that we have a community divided.
Additionally, in the likely event the budget passes, they have set themselves up for the claim by our legislators that the community does not want mandate relief as evidenced by the budget vote. As the vote on the ballot is for the budget not mandate relief and they are not mutually exclusive, it is quite probable that most of the community is like me in supporting both the budget and getting mandate relief from Albany.
The Process
Should the budget get voted down, the Board would then have to decide how to proceed. The Board's choices are to present a new proposed budget and a new contingency budget, to keep them the same and have another vote, or to go straight to the contingency budget. The Board can also decide to change the amount of reserves used to offset any tax rate changes.
In fact, in these times of fiscal austerity the Board cannot know if a budget was voted down because of some tangential message, because we are spending too much, or because residents are upset with the amount of cuts or the increase in class size and want us to raise the budget. There is no one message to take from a rejected budget other than a divided community.
Budget Bargaining
Further, the decision to advocate for a "no" vote is tantamount to bargaining in bad faith. The School Board this year took great pains to craft a budget that reflected a broad swatch of the community. Included in that was input from the NCCRE. At every budget meeting they had a member speak and ask questions. Many of their suggestions were incorporated in the final proposal. In fact, the large amount of reserves committed is a reflection of their input and suggestions.
The five members of the NCCRE themselves in their opening paragraph of the letter state that the contingency budget is only $132,000 less than the proposed budget so a "no" vote does not take away from educational programming or the excellent quality of the Chappaqua School system. If they think the proposed and contingency budgets are good and fair ones, why the "no" vote suggestion?
The NCCRE bargained in what I assumed was good faith for a budget that they could live with and now that they got what they wanted, they are suggesting it get voted down to send some sort of message. That is not bargaining in good faith. They want you to vote "no" for reasons that have nothing to do with the budget itself.
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
This NCCRE plan is a plan that, like my mother used to say to me, is "cutting off your nose to spite your face". The NCCRE members are willing to sacrifice their real estate values to send a message to the teacher's union and their elected officials in Albany despite they themselves having been active participants in negotiating for this proposed budget. They choose to ignore that home buyers in this community are motivated by the school system and that they will not move here if we start voting down budgets that are reasonable ones to begin with. They are willing to vote "no" to send a message that has no immediate effect on taxes or that at best will save them an amount on their yearly taxes that will take them 20 or 30 years to make up based on the resulting loss in real estate value. It makes no sense.
Contingency Budget
Then, in order to convince you to vote "no" these five residents make certain assumptions and claims in their letter that are not necessarily valid. In the same first paragraph mentioned above, they correctly point out that the contingency budget is only $132,000 less than the proposed budget, but there is an implied assumption that if the budget is voted down, that the contingency budget will automatically kick in.
That is an erroneous assumption. If the budget is voted down on May 17th, as stated above, the School Board would have several options including presenting a new Proposed Budget, a new Contingency Budget as well as adjusting the amount of reserves committed to offsetting the tax increase.
"Real Budget Increase"?
In their reasons to vote "no", they try to come up with a concept of "Real Budget Increase" that is erroneously calculated. They have used a projected actual spending number for this year that is incorrect. This year's approved budget was $109,391,348. But, that number is not the amount authorized to be spent. As one of their members repeatedly pointed out at Board budget meetings, the actual spending budget was $110,800,000 as there was a reserve of approximately $1.4 million used on the expense side this year. The "Real Budget Increase" is actually $688,000, or approximately one half of one percent.
They also erroneously try to use the projected surplus as a reduction in spending this year without accounting for a potential surplus next year. They seem to make assumptions only when it suits their purposes and not use them consistently throughout the analysis.
Tax Analysis
They also claim the real property tax increase is 5.2% not 2.11% if reserves aren't used. Well guess what? Reserves are being used. So, the real property tax increase is 2.11%. They are correct in saying that the reserves are previously collected but unspent tax dollars, however, if they want to be intellectually honest in making the claim that the real tax increase is 5.2% because of the use of reserves, they would then need to restate all the previous tax changes (20 years?) to say that the actual tax rate in years when no reserves were used but we spent less than budgeted was lower than it was claimed. I strongly supported returning as much of the reserves to the taxpayers as prudently reasonable. Now, after the Board committed to using more reserves than the Administration initially recommended, the NCCRE is claiming it does not matter what number is used, the tax rate is really 5.2%. Under that theory, we might as well eliminate the use of reserves and make the tax rate increase 5.2% since that is the basis on which they are making their decision.
Causal Relation Confusion
When they make the case that enrollment is declining, staff levels are being reduced yet compensation levels are increasing, they are 100% correct, but I fail to see the correlation to voting down the budget.
In fact, they are making the argument to vote for the budget. In spite of a significant increase in pension expenses and other employee contractual obligations, this budget increase is less than the amount of the increase in expenses. The Board and Administration is being fiscally prudent in maintaining the academic excellence in our schools while limiting the budget increase to an amount that is less than the increase in contractual costs. What are they suggesting the Board do different from what we have done? Nothing, they just want you to vote : “no" to send a message unrelated to the current budget.
Contractual Givebacks
The five members of NCCRE suggest that the Board, in accepting the $1.1 million in givebacks from a union that has seen approximate 7% raises the last three years, could have imposed a unilateral freeze on teacher salary increases while the teachers had a valid contract in place. It appears as if they are suggesting that we should have accepted nothing less than a freeze.
First, of course we suggested a freeze to the CCT, it was rejected, but it is unrealistic to expect agreement to a freeze when an employee unit is only voluntarily reopening a contract that has another year to run at higher compensation. Second, with a valid contract in place, the appropriate way to analyze the savings made is versus the contract and in the event of an extension of that contract versus what would be imposed under the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law. In this case, imposed step increases. In this proposed budget, the district is saving $1.1 million versus the existing contract. In the following year, the district will be paying $600,000 less than we would have had to if we came to no agreement on a contract and the Triborough Amendment was imposed. Those are real and significant savings.
The NCCRE would have you believe we live in some theoretical world where a union will rip up an existing contract and offer to give back everything they negotiated on salary AND, not only that, what the law says they are entitled to. To assume this could or would happen is disingenuous on their part.
School Board Public Support
Finally, the NCCRE makes the claim that the School Board "has not publically supported or advocated for mandate relief even though it is recommended by the School District Budget Advisory Group, the Westchester Putnam School Board Association and the New York State School Board Association." As stated above, this ignores the resolutions passed and the Board's public support of both the Westchester-Putnam School Board Association and the New York State School Board Association's public lobbying efforts to address mandates.
The NCCRE is also directly aware of the fact that the Budget Advisory Group recommendations will be on the May 24th School Board agenda. To claim that we are specifically ignoring a recommendation by an advisory group is incorrect. While there is no guarantee we will accept that recommendation, we have made it very clear to them that we will be considering it. While the consideration does come one week after the budget vote, the timing of that is not relevant to this year's budget vote. A decision to accept, reject or modify the recommendation will not have any effect on the budget numbers, even if we had voted on it a month ago.
The group's claim of lack of public support also ignores the very fact that they had representation on the Budget Advisory Committee Mandate subgroup. It was the School Board that established the committee and suggested that one of the subcommittees be focused on addressing mandate relief. If the Board creating a group to address mandate relief with the charge that there were no areas they could not address is not publically supporting mandate relief, then I am not sure how we could ever satisfy them.
The Vote
Let me be clear. The vote on Tuesday May 17th is whether or not to support the academic and fiscally responsible budget proposed by the Board of Ed. Mandate relief is not on the ballot.
I advocate you vote "YES" on the budget and support mandate relief by contacting our legislators in Albany.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
LWV-PTA Meeting Tonight 03/09/11
The League of Women Voters in partnership with the CCSD PTA is holding an informal informational meeting tonight at 7:30 in the Teacher's Lounge at HGHS for those considering running for the Board of Education or seeking more information about the process.
There will be former Board Members (Shapiro and Davis) and current Board Members (Mester and Kiesel)providing background and answering questions.
With the recent announcement by long-time Board Member Janet Benton that she will not be seeking a 5th term, it is more critical than ever that the district residents are represented by an informed, dedicated member of the community.
If you are at all considering running for the Board or simply think to yourself, "Hey, I could do better than them" please come to tonight's meeting.
There will be former Board Members (Shapiro and Davis) and current Board Members (Mester and Kiesel)providing background and answering questions.
With the recent announcement by long-time Board Member Janet Benton that she will not be seeking a 5th term, it is more critical than ever that the district residents are represented by an informed, dedicated member of the community.
If you are at all considering running for the Board or simply think to yourself, "Hey, I could do better than them" please come to tonight's meeting.
Monday, March 7, 2011
More Regarding Anonymous Posting
.
Found this interesting article and blue print for comment posting to websites and blogs. Accountability is the key word.
JSM
.
Found this interesting article and blue print for comment posting to websites and blogs. Accountability is the key word.
JSM
.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Questions and Follow-Up
I have been asked some questions multiple times. I am posting those questions and the answers here. If I get enough interest and emailed questions (comments@newcastlealternative.com) I will try to make it a regular feature of answering mailbag questions.
(The usual disclaimers are relevant here. I am speaking as an individual board member (with one exception noted below in the first answer); I do not speak for the board. The opinions expressed here are my own. YMMV, etc.)
Did the CCT (teacher's union) know that with the amount of givebacks there would still be job losses? Will they take a pay freeze this year?
The official board response is: "We remain thankful that the CCT was willing to reopen an existing contract and save the District more than 1MM dollars [this year] despite having no obligation to do so. While we offered the idea of a full freeze to save more positions, we were unable to reach such an agreement, and do not want to second-guess the 1MM savings that was achieved."
Why did you vote for the new deal with the teachers that extended the contract a year and "only" had $1.7 million in give backs?
I will give the short answer here. I am writing up the longer detailed analysis to be posted to this blog as soon as I finish. First, the CCT was under NO obligation to give us back anything. Certainly, there was some community pressure and depending on your point of view a moral obligation, but legally there was nothing we could do to compel a giveback. As noted in the question above, we certainly would have preferred to have preserved all jobs by having a salary freeze, but that was not our decision to make beyond our proposing it to the union. Also, even with a salary freeze, the pension benefits obligation for next year are going up by over $3 million. That would take an amendment to the state constitution to change.
Having said that, know that opening an existing contract and giving anything back is virtually without precedent. Second, without leverage of any real substance we got a strong union to voluntarily open the last year of an admittedly generous contract and if you take the two year obligation versus the contract and what they would be entitled to under the Triborough amendment to the Taylor laws, we beat that too in the second extended year. Third, by only going out 1 additional year, we kept the board's flexibility in the event that Triborough is amended, repealed or suspended.
Or, looked at it another way, if we had not come to this agreement and the existing contract was honored we would have had to lay off an additional 10-12 teachers beyond what is currently proposed. That would have certainly effected the program for the worse. Then, even if Triborough was repealed the second year and we could impose a freeze, it would have saved us $3.5 million the second year, the amount of step raises. By coming to the agreement we did, we preserved programs and LOCKED in savings that amount to 50% of what may be the maximum amount saved over the two year period of the agreement.
For those residents who only care about the bottom line and not about what programs we would need to cut, by opposing this deal, they want us to make a bet that it is a greater than 50-50 chance that Triborough is changed such that it allows us to impose a salary freeze in the event there is no agreement. It is my opinion that even in this current political and economic climate, that betting on our legislature in Albany whose second most political contributions come from teacher unions (healthcare unions are first) to throw Triborough out the window is a bad bet. It is certainly not a bet I am willing to take with taxpayer money and certainly not a bet that is worth gutting our program for this year with the 50-50 hope of saving next year. I disagree with those who say we should have waited for Triborough to be "thrown out". I think there is a less than 50% chance that happens or happens in a way that the district will not benefit from it.
This deal preserves the academic integrity of our program and locks in savings to the taxpayers of $1.7 million over the two year period versus what the district would have been legally responsible for.
Yes, of course, we would have liked to have reached a deal that had a salary freeze over a few year period (or more), but the reality of the situation is that we could not get that agreement. The accusation and implications that we didn't even try or could have done better are off base. Just as off base are the implications that the teachers have acted in any way less than honorable. Remember, they tore up an existing contract and gave up legal rights under the Triborough amendment in order to help the community.
As this board has been saying for the past two years and again this year, real change has to come from our legislators. This is playing out all over the country. Mandates, regulations and work rules have to change in Albany.
How do we save specific teacher jobs?
The short answer is that it is very difficult to do so. When reducing positions due to enrollment declines or program changes, we are bound by a state mandated LIFO system for layoffs. Last in, first out. The long answer is not much different, but involves what we call the waterfall affect. With LIFO, when reducing a program, it is not necessarily the teacher that taught the class who is laid off. It would be the person who has the least seniority who is qualified to teach that subject (and does not have seniority teaching another subject for which he/she is qualified/certified) who is let go. Certain subject areas become tricky. For example, foreign language is a subject in which you can be generally certified. If we eliminate a language such as Swahili, it may not be the Swahili teacher who is laid off. If the person with the lowest seniority in the FL department teachers Japanese, that Japanese teacher would be laid off and the Swahili teacher, even if he/she does not speak Japanese would be entitled under work rules to teach Japanese.
Do you have 5 year projections or do you just look year at this year and kick the can until next year?
YES, we have projections. The administration will be presenting them at one of our next few meetings. I will also take that spreadsheet and make my own projections if they differ from the administrations. Know that it is very difficult to make projections as much of the assumptions are out of our control. How much we will be contributing to the pension fund is one example as is the amount of state aid. We can make projections on salaries for several scenarios and show the residents the different possibilities. It is also very difficult to estimate tax rates in that we have no control over assessments.
(The usual disclaimers are relevant here. I am speaking as an individual board member (with one exception noted below in the first answer); I do not speak for the board. The opinions expressed here are my own. YMMV, etc.)
Did the CCT (teacher's union) know that with the amount of givebacks there would still be job losses? Will they take a pay freeze this year?
The official board response is: "We remain thankful that the CCT was willing to reopen an existing contract and save the District more than 1MM dollars [this year] despite having no obligation to do so. While we offered the idea of a full freeze to save more positions, we were unable to reach such an agreement, and do not want to second-guess the 1MM savings that was achieved."
Why did you vote for the new deal with the teachers that extended the contract a year and "only" had $1.7 million in give backs?
I will give the short answer here. I am writing up the longer detailed analysis to be posted to this blog as soon as I finish. First, the CCT was under NO obligation to give us back anything. Certainly, there was some community pressure and depending on your point of view a moral obligation, but legally there was nothing we could do to compel a giveback. As noted in the question above, we certainly would have preferred to have preserved all jobs by having a salary freeze, but that was not our decision to make beyond our proposing it to the union. Also, even with a salary freeze, the pension benefits obligation for next year are going up by over $3 million. That would take an amendment to the state constitution to change.
Having said that, know that opening an existing contract and giving anything back is virtually without precedent. Second, without leverage of any real substance we got a strong union to voluntarily open the last year of an admittedly generous contract and if you take the two year obligation versus the contract and what they would be entitled to under the Triborough amendment to the Taylor laws, we beat that too in the second extended year. Third, by only going out 1 additional year, we kept the board's flexibility in the event that Triborough is amended, repealed or suspended.
Or, looked at it another way, if we had not come to this agreement and the existing contract was honored we would have had to lay off an additional 10-12 teachers beyond what is currently proposed. That would have certainly effected the program for the worse. Then, even if Triborough was repealed the second year and we could impose a freeze, it would have saved us $3.5 million the second year, the amount of step raises. By coming to the agreement we did, we preserved programs and LOCKED in savings that amount to 50% of what may be the maximum amount saved over the two year period of the agreement.
For those residents who only care about the bottom line and not about what programs we would need to cut, by opposing this deal, they want us to make a bet that it is a greater than 50-50 chance that Triborough is changed such that it allows us to impose a salary freeze in the event there is no agreement. It is my opinion that even in this current political and economic climate, that betting on our legislature in Albany whose second most political contributions come from teacher unions (healthcare unions are first) to throw Triborough out the window is a bad bet. It is certainly not a bet I am willing to take with taxpayer money and certainly not a bet that is worth gutting our program for this year with the 50-50 hope of saving next year. I disagree with those who say we should have waited for Triborough to be "thrown out". I think there is a less than 50% chance that happens or happens in a way that the district will not benefit from it.
This deal preserves the academic integrity of our program and locks in savings to the taxpayers of $1.7 million over the two year period versus what the district would have been legally responsible for.
Yes, of course, we would have liked to have reached a deal that had a salary freeze over a few year period (or more), but the reality of the situation is that we could not get that agreement. The accusation and implications that we didn't even try or could have done better are off base. Just as off base are the implications that the teachers have acted in any way less than honorable. Remember, they tore up an existing contract and gave up legal rights under the Triborough amendment in order to help the community.
As this board has been saying for the past two years and again this year, real change has to come from our legislators. This is playing out all over the country. Mandates, regulations and work rules have to change in Albany.
How do we save specific teacher jobs?
The short answer is that it is very difficult to do so. When reducing positions due to enrollment declines or program changes, we are bound by a state mandated LIFO system for layoffs. Last in, first out. The long answer is not much different, but involves what we call the waterfall affect. With LIFO, when reducing a program, it is not necessarily the teacher that taught the class who is laid off. It would be the person who has the least seniority who is qualified to teach that subject (and does not have seniority teaching another subject for which he/she is qualified/certified) who is let go. Certain subject areas become tricky. For example, foreign language is a subject in which you can be generally certified. If we eliminate a language such as Swahili, it may not be the Swahili teacher who is laid off. If the person with the lowest seniority in the FL department teachers Japanese, that Japanese teacher would be laid off and the Swahili teacher, even if he/she does not speak Japanese would be entitled under work rules to teach Japanese.
Do you have 5 year projections or do you just look year at this year and kick the can until next year?
YES, we have projections. The administration will be presenting them at one of our next few meetings. I will also take that spreadsheet and make my own projections if they differ from the administrations. Know that it is very difficult to make projections as much of the assumptions are out of our control. How much we will be contributing to the pension fund is one example as is the amount of state aid. We can make projections on salaries for several scenarios and show the residents the different possibilities. It is also very difficult to estimate tax rates in that we have no control over assessments.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Update on Tuesday Feb 15th Meeting
For those looking for the video of our Tuesday meeting, it will be posted tomorrow (Friday). With the change in location, we used older analog technology that needs to first be converted to a digital format and then delivered to MCCMC. With a four hour meeting, and conversion taking a couple of hours per hour to convert, it has caused a much longer post time than we would like.
The Patch has posted an article to its site with a summary and review, and I expect NCN will post its own interpretation to its blog Friday morning.
JSM
The Patch has posted an article to its site with a summary and review, and I expect NCN will post its own interpretation to its blog Friday morning.
JSM
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Budget Preview
The administration sent the budget presentation to the Patch, the Journal News, Examiner and NCN about an hour ago. The administration proposal calls for a 1.78% budget increase, increased class sizes in order to maintain as much of the program as possible and over 30 staff cuts between instructional and non instructional.
Details tonight.
Email me at comments@newcastlealternative to submit a question for tonight's meeting. I will be able to receive them during meeting. Anonymous ok.
Details tonight.
Email me at comments@newcastlealternative to submit a question for tonight's meeting. I will be able to receive them during meeting. Anonymous ok.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Tuesday Feb 15th Board Meeting Tweets and Anonymous Questions
I have been asked why there is no way to comment anonymously at Board meetings. The complaint is that there is a fear of retribution.
I have a possible solution. I intend to bring my laptop and try to Tweet the major points made. My Twitter handle is JSMCCSDBOE. (BIG HUGE Disclaimer: I am new at Tweeting and I want to focus on the presentation myself, so I may miss Tweeting a lot.)
If you are in the audience and do not want to ask a question yourself, send an email to me, comments@newcastlealternative.com during the meeting and I will try to ask it for you. All questions will be considered anonymous unless you "opt-in" and ask for it to not be anonymous. You do not even have to sign your name. I will do my best to ask them at the meeting. No guarantees, but I will pledge my best efforts.
Feel free to send the questions in advance too if the question is more general and not directly tied to what is presented.
Also, know that item 2.2 on the agenda is my proposal to add my district email address and a personal phone number to my entry on the member page. I feel strongly that residents should have the ability to contact me directly if they so desire rather than going through the general board@ccsd.ws email. I believe in transparency. To email any Board member or for that matter any staff in the district that has district email, use the first two letters of the first name with the last name @ccsd.ws For example, Jerry Garcia would be JeGarcia@ccsd.ws
JSM
13436
I have a possible solution. I intend to bring my laptop and try to Tweet the major points made. My Twitter handle is JSMCCSDBOE. (BIG HUGE Disclaimer: I am new at Tweeting and I want to focus on the presentation myself, so I may miss Tweeting a lot.)
If you are in the audience and do not want to ask a question yourself, send an email to me, comments@newcastlealternative.com during the meeting and I will try to ask it for you. All questions will be considered anonymous unless you "opt-in" and ask for it to not be anonymous. You do not even have to sign your name. I will do my best to ask them at the meeting. No guarantees, but I will pledge my best efforts.
Feel free to send the questions in advance too if the question is more general and not directly tied to what is presented.
Also, know that item 2.2 on the agenda is my proposal to add my district email address and a personal phone number to my entry on the member page. I feel strongly that residents should have the ability to contact me directly if they so desire rather than going through the general board@ccsd.ws email. I believe in transparency. To email any Board member or for that matter any staff in the district that has district email, use the first two letters of the first name with the last name @ccsd.ws For example, Jerry Garcia would be JeGarcia@ccsd.ws
JSM
13436
Saturday, February 12, 2011
This Tuesday's Meeting on the Budget
In anticipation of this Tuesday's budget proposal meeting, I ask two questions. Please feel free to comment here or at Tuesday's meeting. I have heard from some residents who want a zero budget increase. The question for them is, is that at any cost regardless of its effect on the academic programs? Is it simply a financial decision without regard to the ramifications or is there some academic component to your request? To those who say we should preserve all academic programs regardless of cost, is there no price too high? Is there any concern over cost and any thought to justifying a cost benefit analysis of some programs that could be cut?
I will be looking for those who not only point out problems and make demands, but I will be focusing on those who follow up problems with possible solutions. It is easy to sit back and say 0% or 5% budget over budget change, but to actually point out feasible ways to accomplish your goal is the hard part.
I also suggest that all sides in the budget debate remember that they can make their thoughts heard and their opinions known with dignity and civility. I would love to have what Jeffrey Weiss coined a civilog or a civil dialog.
JSM
13436
I will be looking for those who not only point out problems and make demands, but I will be focusing on those who follow up problems with possible solutions. It is easy to sit back and say 0% or 5% budget over budget change, but to actually point out feasible ways to accomplish your goal is the hard part.
I also suggest that all sides in the budget debate remember that they can make their thoughts heard and their opinions known with dignity and civility. I would love to have what Jeffrey Weiss coined a civilog or a civil dialog.
JSM
13436
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Official District Announcement
Here is the announcement sent out by the District regarding Tuesday's Budget Meeting:
CCSD 2011-2012 Budget Proposal - 2-15-2011- HGHS AUDITORIUM
The Chappaqua Board of Education will meet on February 15 to focus on the 2011-2012 Superintendent’s Budget Proposal, with particular attention to school programs and staffing. To encourage public participation, the meeting will be held in the Horace Greeley High School Auditorium, starting at 8:15pm. Subsequent meetings in March and April will delve further into budget details, leading to the Board’s responsibility to formally adopt a budget proposal on April 12, which in turn is subject to voter referendum on May 17, 2011.
Already thus far in the budget-building season, the Board and administration have confirmed that significant reductions from the level of a “straight-line” budget will be necessary, and proposed support staff reductions have been announced. A reopening of the current Chappaqua teachers’ contract, which will save the District over $1MM in 2011-2012, has also been publicly announced. Even so, further announcements of proposed reductions in teaching positions are expected on February 15.
The Board’s strategic question guides this whole process: How can the District ensure continuing excellence in academic and extracurricular programs while developing a budget that is fiscally responsible?
CCSD 2011-2012 Budget Proposal - 2-15-2011- HGHS AUDITORIUM
The Chappaqua Board of Education will meet on February 15 to focus on the 2011-2012 Superintendent’s Budget Proposal, with particular attention to school programs and staffing. To encourage public participation, the meeting will be held in the Horace Greeley High School Auditorium, starting at 8:15pm. Subsequent meetings in March and April will delve further into budget details, leading to the Board’s responsibility to formally adopt a budget proposal on April 12, which in turn is subject to voter referendum on May 17, 2011.
Already thus far in the budget-building season, the Board and administration have confirmed that significant reductions from the level of a “straight-line” budget will be necessary, and proposed support staff reductions have been announced. A reopening of the current Chappaqua teachers’ contract, which will save the District over $1MM in 2011-2012, has also been publicly announced. Even so, further announcements of proposed reductions in teaching positions are expected on February 15.
The Board’s strategic question guides this whole process: How can the District ensure continuing excellence in academic and extracurricular programs while developing a budget that is fiscally responsible?
2011-2012 Initial Budget Proposal on February 15th
Reminder that this coming Tuesday February 15th Interim Superintendent John Chambers and his administrative staff will present to the Board and the community a proposed budget for the 2011-2012 school year. This is a first look at the budget (expense) side of the proposal. It will also be a first chance to comment directly on the budget. Public input is an important part of the process of finalizing a proposal for the voters in May. Please come out and be heard!!
Oddly Enough
I just finished reading, Odd Jobs, a great page turner of a thriller by a first time novelist. I read the book in two evenings. Could not put it down. Very impressed by the pacing, the detailed story and the interspersing of humor within a thriller context. Written in the first person, the main character is both sympathetic as well as willing to do whatever necessary to reach his goal. I highly recommend the book. Since I am not a regualr book reviewer, I will leave out much more as I do not want to spoil the book, but if you like thrillers, take the time to read this book.
So why am I telling you this? Well, this first time novelist is a bond trader who lives here in Chappaqua. His name is Ben Lieberman. Here is a link to the book on Amazon. Here is a link to Ben's website and here is a link to an interview he did when he won the Tommy Award for excellence as a first time novelist. (Ben Lieberman author of Odd Jobs)
Ben and I are acquaintances, having several friends in common. We may have met several times. One of my children is friendly with one of his. Despite our tenuous connection, Ben spent 10 minutes with me in the parking lot of the A&P discussing his book. I had heard he had written the novel and saw him on line in the store. I merely intended to congratulate him for getting published when we started to talk about the book. His enthusiasm for the book and for the process of writing a novel for the first time is contagious. At the time, I had not yet read the book but had read several interviews and reviews. His willingness to discuss the concept behind the title and the editing process as well as the entire publicity and marketing "campaign" that is required was so interesting and fascinating.
We also discussed the premise behind the title to the book, Odd Jobs. Ben, using his own experience as well as from many many conversations remarked how the "od jobs" we all have had at one point in our life has had a profound impact on who or what we eventually become. It is a terrific observation Ben makes. I spent one summer in the customer complaint department of Sieman's Furniture. As a 17 year old, I did not even know some of the words that were coming out of the caller's mouths. I am very sure that I cannot put the broken furniture in the place they suggested.
I spent another summer working in a factory as the assistant to the gofer. His name was as far as I could get, Tony "Coca-Cola". By day, when I was with Tony, he did handy work around the factory floor, ran errands, picked up and sorted the mail as well as any other undocumented small job around the factory. It took me three days to get the guts to ask him the question that was burning in my head since the moment I met him. I finally blurted out, "Hey Tony, how come you are driving a Cadillac and talk about your pool and wear all that jewelry when you are the gofer around here?" "Kid", he replied, "this is my day job. On the weekends I have another job. I pick up envelopes. Each week I go to a list of addresses given to me by my boss, ask for the envelope and go on my way to the next pickup. If they have the envelope, great. If they don't, the next week when I go try to get the envelope, 9 times out of 10, the guy who I am getting the envelope from has either a leg or arm cast and several bruises."
"Tony, you work for the f*cking mob!" I shouted in surprise. "Kid, you're real smart. You're going places with that quick thinking of yours. Now, stop thinking and start doing. Turn the f*cking label machine on, huh?" Toward the end of the summer, he did offer to take me to his weekend job. I declined. Oh, and when I told Tony I really wanted to get tickets to this one concert, but it was sold out, two days later he handed me an envelope with four good tickets to the show. When I asked how he got them and what I owed him, he responded, "I was talking to my boss about you kid when I told him about the concert. Next day, Big Joey hands me the tickets to give to you. You never ask Big Joey where he gets things, but he must have noticed the surprised look on my face because he said to me, 'What are you looking at? I found them on the ground.' Here kid, enjoy."
Here is a quote from Ben's website:
So why am I telling you this? Well, this first time novelist is a bond trader who lives here in Chappaqua. His name is Ben Lieberman. Here is a link to the book on Amazon. Here is a link to Ben's website and here is a link to an interview he did when he won the Tommy Award for excellence as a first time novelist. (Ben Lieberman author of Odd Jobs)
Ben and I are acquaintances, having several friends in common. We may have met several times. One of my children is friendly with one of his. Despite our tenuous connection, Ben spent 10 minutes with me in the parking lot of the A&P discussing his book. I had heard he had written the novel and saw him on line in the store. I merely intended to congratulate him for getting published when we started to talk about the book. His enthusiasm for the book and for the process of writing a novel for the first time is contagious. At the time, I had not yet read the book but had read several interviews and reviews. His willingness to discuss the concept behind the title and the editing process as well as the entire publicity and marketing "campaign" that is required was so interesting and fascinating.
We also discussed the premise behind the title to the book, Odd Jobs. Ben, using his own experience as well as from many many conversations remarked how the "od jobs" we all have had at one point in our life has had a profound impact on who or what we eventually become. It is a terrific observation Ben makes. I spent one summer in the customer complaint department of Sieman's Furniture. As a 17 year old, I did not even know some of the words that were coming out of the caller's mouths. I am very sure that I cannot put the broken furniture in the place they suggested.
I spent another summer working in a factory as the assistant to the gofer. His name was as far as I could get, Tony "Coca-Cola". By day, when I was with Tony, he did handy work around the factory floor, ran errands, picked up and sorted the mail as well as any other undocumented small job around the factory. It took me three days to get the guts to ask him the question that was burning in my head since the moment I met him. I finally blurted out, "Hey Tony, how come you are driving a Cadillac and talk about your pool and wear all that jewelry when you are the gofer around here?" "Kid", he replied, "this is my day job. On the weekends I have another job. I pick up envelopes. Each week I go to a list of addresses given to me by my boss, ask for the envelope and go on my way to the next pickup. If they have the envelope, great. If they don't, the next week when I go try to get the envelope, 9 times out of 10, the guy who I am getting the envelope from has either a leg or arm cast and several bruises."
"Tony, you work for the f*cking mob!" I shouted in surprise. "Kid, you're real smart. You're going places with that quick thinking of yours. Now, stop thinking and start doing. Turn the f*cking label machine on, huh?" Toward the end of the summer, he did offer to take me to his weekend job. I declined. Oh, and when I told Tony I really wanted to get tickets to this one concert, but it was sold out, two days later he handed me an envelope with four good tickets to the show. When I asked how he got them and what I owed him, he responded, "I was talking to my boss about you kid when I told him about the concert. Next day, Big Joey hands me the tickets to give to you. You never ask Big Joey where he gets things, but he must have noticed the surprised look on my face because he said to me, 'What are you looking at? I found them on the ground.' Here kid, enjoy."
Here is a quote from Ben's website:
People who read the novel often ask how much of this is from my own personal experiences. I usually say for sure one thing - I never killed anybody. I leave the rest up to them."
Monday, February 7, 2011
Another Twit!! Or Tweeter. Or Something
On January 26th, I posted about my Twitter account. Quite frankly, I have very few followers and I am Tweeting in the proverbial forest hoping someone hears me. @JSMCCSDBoE. But I am ok with that. Feel free to follow my tweets.
But, this post is not about me, it is about one of the other local Chappaqua blogs, NewCastleNOW. They have joined the ranks of those with Twitter accounts and send out their first Tweet this morning announcing the Monday update to their blog. While they only have three followers right now including me, this is a step in the right direction!! Follow them at @NCNowTweet.
(Also, to be fair to the Patch, Tom has been tweeting from @Chapkiscopatch for months now.)
Timely updates for all!!
But, this post is not about me, it is about one of the other local Chappaqua blogs, NewCastleNOW. They have joined the ranks of those with Twitter accounts and send out their first Tweet this morning announcing the Monday update to their blog. While they only have three followers right now including me, this is a step in the right direction!! Follow them at @NCNowTweet.
(Also, to be fair to the Patch, Tom has been tweeting from @Chapkiscopatch for months now.)
Timely updates for all!!
AOL aka The Patch Buys Huff Po
Tonight, word leaked that AOL is buying the Huffington Post for $315 million. The big winner is the Patch. Content is king. The Patch will now have access to the second most read news website behind the DrudgeReport.
As I have said repeatedly, content and comments are king. The Huff Po articles often have literally thousands of comments. The Patch has already started posting articles across local editions when the story is more regional relevant than locally by town. Now, the Patch will have a national flavor as well.
Why do I care? This will have a tremendous impact on local news gathering. The Patch is a dynamic blog, posting news as it becomes available not waiting on a deadline or publication time line. The Patch has already started publishing real news stories such as sports scores, pictures and analysis, school stories and local current events including the police blotter. They do reviews of local businesses and cover local government.
If I want to know how many points A'mare had last night, I read the NY Post. If I want to know how many Matt Townsend had I read the Patch. This deal will expand local coverage, give access to much more varied editorial content and drive readership.
The difference between the Patch and NCN will be even more highlighted. It is the difference between a weekly like Time and a daily like the NY Times. They both have their place and niche, but they do have much different niches. The Patch is dynamic, updating multiple times a day. NCN posts 2x per week. Even the moderation of their comments can take hours if not half days. The Patch publishes comments upon submission. That allows for real dialogue between commenters.
I predict that either NCN changes its model to be more dynamic or it changes to more of an editorial and in depth news type blog a la Newsweek. I predict that local ad revenue will flow to the site that people will check multiple times per day for updates rather than multiple times per week.
I suspect that NCN will change but thrive at what they do well which is write editorial articles and cover fewer issues more in depth. Do you want to know that Summit Greenfield filed an amended FEIS, read the Patch. Want to know the implications of the filing, read NCN.
As I have said repeatedly, content and comments are king. The Huff Po articles often have literally thousands of comments. The Patch has already started posting articles across local editions when the story is more regional relevant than locally by town. Now, the Patch will have a national flavor as well.
Why do I care? This will have a tremendous impact on local news gathering. The Patch is a dynamic blog, posting news as it becomes available not waiting on a deadline or publication time line. The Patch has already started publishing real news stories such as sports scores, pictures and analysis, school stories and local current events including the police blotter. They do reviews of local businesses and cover local government.
If I want to know how many points A'mare had last night, I read the NY Post. If I want to know how many Matt Townsend had I read the Patch. This deal will expand local coverage, give access to much more varied editorial content and drive readership.
The difference between the Patch and NCN will be even more highlighted. It is the difference between a weekly like Time and a daily like the NY Times. They both have their place and niche, but they do have much different niches. The Patch is dynamic, updating multiple times a day. NCN posts 2x per week. Even the moderation of their comments can take hours if not half days. The Patch publishes comments upon submission. That allows for real dialogue between commenters.
I predict that either NCN changes its model to be more dynamic or it changes to more of an editorial and in depth news type blog a la Newsweek. I predict that local ad revenue will flow to the site that people will check multiple times per day for updates rather than multiple times per week.
I suspect that NCN will change but thrive at what they do well which is write editorial articles and cover fewer issues more in depth. Do you want to know that Summit Greenfield filed an amended FEIS, read the Patch. Want to know the implications of the filing, read NCN.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Follow-Up Re: Anonymous Posting
Interestingly enough, yesterday, several days after my post, NewCastleNOW had an editorial post to their blog about anonymous comments. They attempt to justify their policy of allowing anonymous comments just as I explain my policy of no anonymous comments.
First let me say that it is their sandbox, so it is their right to make their rules. I just have to decide if I want to play in their sandbox, just as Patty and Tim have to recognize that they cannot play here anonymously. I choose not to participate in a forum that allows anonymous comments, but I certainly understand those who choose to play by their rules. Just don't come crying foul when the rules work against you. Either method (anonymous or no anonymous) is valid. But, the justification for allowing anonymous comments is nothing more than, I want to allow them to give anyone a chance to comment. That does not come without risks generally in the form of people spewing vitriol.
I point out that despite Sue Pender's claim, this is not a first amendment issue. This blog and their blog and the NY Times and the NY Post are all private websites that have no obligation whatsoever to allow everyone and anyone to post. In fact, it is the first amendment that gives them the right to set the rules and limit posting. Further, the claim is inconsistent with their practice. While they will allow any comment, they do not accept all Letters to the Editor and all Op-Ed type pieces. I speak from experience.
NewCastleNOW is not just a conduit for "free speech". They have editorial final say as they SHOULD. Their practice is to exercise that editorial right as they see fit. Again, they should. But the first amendment claim is invalid.
Too often people confuse their wants with their rights. They hide behind some concept of free speech and claim it is their right to say whatever they want wherever they want. Civility? Nope, I have free speech. Back on November 18th in this post to my blog I commented on civility and anonymous posting. NewCastleAlternative (NCA), NewCastleNOW, the Patch, etc. have no obligation to allow anonymous commenting. It is a proactive choice.
Ok, maybe it was poorly worded using the first amendment, but they want to give everybody a forum to express their opinions. Seems like a valid goal that should be applauded, right? It is. But then it gets murky again. Another reason given for allowing anonymous comments is that as "journalists" they err on the side of open communication. An anonymous comment, no matter how legitimate the idea in the comment, is the opposite of open. It is hidden behind secrecy. Transparency is what provides for open debate, not secrecy.
In her example, Ms. Pender says,
Really?
Let's parse that statement. Start with the first word. If they are anonymous, how does Pender know they are residents? She assumes they are. I applaud her for her positive outlook on life assuming that everyone is who they imply they are, but I ain't buying it. In fact, on her blog, commenters are often accused of not being who they say they are. Ask "Westender". I had a person try to comment anonymously on my blog who later admitted that he (and I assume it is a he, but I have no idea) did not even live in the district (any more).
Then she wants us to believe that town board and the developer should assume these are all residents simply expressing their opinions. How can a public official (or SG) know if the person commenting is a constituent or is someone from outside pushing their own agenda? There is no way to know with anonymity. As a school board member, I put significantly more weight on comments that are made face to face, at a public meeting or in writing if it is signed. I would like to think that Rob Greenstein's petition with near 1,000 signatures in opposition to residential development at the former Readers Digest site carries much more weight with the Town Board than the anonymous posters on a blog. (Rob Greenstein is the poster boy for signed commenting!)
Second, NCN is certainly not the only place a resident who wishes to remain anonymous can make their voices heard as she implies. To claim that the School Board (and Town Board) would not hear these voices otherwise is flat out wrong. For example, someone wishing to remain anonymous could open a new email address (they are free and require no proof of identity) and send one to the Town Board or the School Board. We get them. We also get emails from people who sign them yet ask to remain anonymous. We honor those requests.
Third, look at the hypothetical example about why a person would wish to remain anonymous that Pender uses. The example used indicates the level of ethics expected of its readers by NCN. Ms. Pender thinks it is ok to be anonymous so you can post something that may be opposed to the interests of your employer? That concept is ethically challenged. Folks, it is not ok to anonymously act to undermine your employer. The concept of fiduciary is out the window on that one.
But again, probably just poorly worded. I do not think that example was their intention. I certainly appreciate situations where in business you wish to remain neutral and not have clients form opinions or make decisions based on your opinions or politics posted on the web. You are in a bind. You are forced to either not post, post under a pseudonym or post anonymously. But that is not the same as "providing information that very well may be contrary to the best interests of their employers." Again, maybe just poorly worded with good intent.
Finally, with anonymous comments, you are left with having to plead to your users to be civil or start censoring posts. Why? Because there is no accountability that comes with commenting under your own name.
Requiring commenting under your own name provides the real ingredients to open discussion; transparency and accountability. Anyone wishing to remain anonymous can still get their voices heard by going directly to the board.
This blog and NCN are playing the same game, just under slightly different rules. National League and American League. Designated Hitter or not, still baseball. You the players have to choose which blog policy you are more comfortable playing under: transparency and accountability versus anonymity.
JSM
13436
First let me say that it is their sandbox, so it is their right to make their rules. I just have to decide if I want to play in their sandbox, just as Patty and Tim have to recognize that they cannot play here anonymously. I choose not to participate in a forum that allows anonymous comments, but I certainly understand those who choose to play by their rules. Just don't come crying foul when the rules work against you. Either method (anonymous or no anonymous) is valid. But, the justification for allowing anonymous comments is nothing more than, I want to allow them to give anyone a chance to comment. That does not come without risks generally in the form of people spewing vitriol.
I point out that despite Sue Pender's claim, this is not a first amendment issue. This blog and their blog and the NY Times and the NY Post are all private websites that have no obligation whatsoever to allow everyone and anyone to post. In fact, it is the first amendment that gives them the right to set the rules and limit posting. Further, the claim is inconsistent with their practice. While they will allow any comment, they do not accept all Letters to the Editor and all Op-Ed type pieces. I speak from experience.
NewCastleNOW is not just a conduit for "free speech". They have editorial final say as they SHOULD. Their practice is to exercise that editorial right as they see fit. Again, they should. But the first amendment claim is invalid.
Too often people confuse their wants with their rights. They hide behind some concept of free speech and claim it is their right to say whatever they want wherever they want. Civility? Nope, I have free speech. Back on November 18th in this post to my blog I commented on civility and anonymous posting. NewCastleAlternative (NCA), NewCastleNOW, the Patch, etc. have no obligation to allow anonymous commenting. It is a proactive choice.
Ok, maybe it was poorly worded using the first amendment, but they want to give everybody a forum to express their opinions. Seems like a valid goal that should be applauded, right? It is. But then it gets murky again. Another reason given for allowing anonymous comments is that as "journalists" they err on the side of open communication. An anonymous comment, no matter how legitimate the idea in the comment, is the opposite of open. It is hidden behind secrecy. Transparency is what provides for open debate, not secrecy.
In her example, Ms. Pender says,
"Residents have anonymously expressed their frustration and anxiety about Chappaqua Crossing, both pro and con. That information, that residents are frustrated and anxious, is valuable to both the town board and the developer for making historic decisions that will impact New Castle forever. Many of these voices would not be heard but for the opportunity to speak anonymously."
Really?
Let's parse that statement. Start with the first word. If they are anonymous, how does Pender know they are residents? She assumes they are. I applaud her for her positive outlook on life assuming that everyone is who they imply they are, but I ain't buying it. In fact, on her blog, commenters are often accused of not being who they say they are. Ask "Westender". I had a person try to comment anonymously on my blog who later admitted that he (and I assume it is a he, but I have no idea) did not even live in the district (any more).
Then she wants us to believe that town board and the developer should assume these are all residents simply expressing their opinions. How can a public official (or SG) know if the person commenting is a constituent or is someone from outside pushing their own agenda? There is no way to know with anonymity. As a school board member, I put significantly more weight on comments that are made face to face, at a public meeting or in writing if it is signed. I would like to think that Rob Greenstein's petition with near 1,000 signatures in opposition to residential development at the former Readers Digest site carries much more weight with the Town Board than the anonymous posters on a blog. (Rob Greenstein is the poster boy for signed commenting!)
Second, NCN is certainly not the only place a resident who wishes to remain anonymous can make their voices heard as she implies. To claim that the School Board (and Town Board) would not hear these voices otherwise is flat out wrong. For example, someone wishing to remain anonymous could open a new email address (they are free and require no proof of identity) and send one to the Town Board or the School Board. We get them. We also get emails from people who sign them yet ask to remain anonymous. We honor those requests.
Third, look at the hypothetical example about why a person would wish to remain anonymous that Pender uses. The example used indicates the level of ethics expected of its readers by NCN. Ms. Pender thinks it is ok to be anonymous so you can post something that may be opposed to the interests of your employer? That concept is ethically challenged. Folks, it is not ok to anonymously act to undermine your employer. The concept of fiduciary is out the window on that one.
But again, probably just poorly worded. I do not think that example was their intention. I certainly appreciate situations where in business you wish to remain neutral and not have clients form opinions or make decisions based on your opinions or politics posted on the web. You are in a bind. You are forced to either not post, post under a pseudonym or post anonymously. But that is not the same as "providing information that very well may be contrary to the best interests of their employers." Again, maybe just poorly worded with good intent.
Finally, with anonymous comments, you are left with having to plead to your users to be civil or start censoring posts. Why? Because there is no accountability that comes with commenting under your own name.
Requiring commenting under your own name provides the real ingredients to open discussion; transparency and accountability. Anyone wishing to remain anonymous can still get their voices heard by going directly to the board.
This blog and NCN are playing the same game, just under slightly different rules. National League and American League. Designated Hitter or not, still baseball. You the players have to choose which blog policy you are more comfortable playing under: transparency and accountability versus anonymity.
JSM
13436
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Value of Anonymous Comments?
Here is a link to my comment policy. I think it is straightforward and clear. And appropriate. My blog, my rules. If you want a place to comment anonymously, there are plenty out there including another local blog, NewCastleNOW. I will stipulate up front that I have seen some very insightful and well thought out anonymous comments and some really stupid signed ones. That to me is not the issue.
"Patty", who has sent anonymous comments to this blog several times has suggested that I should allow anonymous comments. Her reasoning was,
"Tim", another commenter who wishes to remain anonymous wrote, "
(I agree with Tim that if you do not want to be Googled, you should definitely not comment or use your real name. It was one of the most disturbing things to me when I first volunteered for the Board of Ed. I was very uncomfortable with how unprivate it made me. So don't comment here or anywhere else that requires a real name. I also do not understand why if you have a question or comment but wish to remain anonymous you don't just send me an email from an anonymous email address. I have said I would engage those.)
A friend pointed me to this article by Jeffrey Weiss which I think has a very good take on the issue.
Here is an article in the New York Times addressing the issue. More and more sites are not allowing anonymous comments. One reason to allow anonymous comments is to drive traffic to your site. While I post to be informative and hope someone reads it, I do not do it for any ad money or to drive traffic to my site. I have no ads.
I would like to engage the community in a discussion regarding anonymous comments. Please feel free to give your thoughts on anonymous internet posting when discussing specific items in a community such as ours. I usually do not post anonymous comments here, but I will for the purposes of this discussion although I reserve the right to moderate comments if they are off topic. Other local blogs such as NewCastleNOW or The Patch will post virtually any comment. They seem to thrive on anonymous comments. I have spoken with many people who will not read those blogs and/or not participate in their comments because they are anonymous and allow personal attacks.
I happen to believe that I should stand behind any comment I make. I do not see why I should be concerned about other people finding it on the internet. If I believe in what I say, I have no issue with anyone reading it. I do admit that I make mistakes and change my mind. I have written things I later would not write. I am human.
Using your real name is a method of creating built in accountability. You are unlikely to write something under your name that you would not want associated with your name. I call it the NY Post hurdle. I try not to say anything or do anything in public that I would not want on the cover of the NY Post. (Jeffrey Weiss' article used "Would you post this comment if your mother knew you were posting it?") Accountability and responsibility for your own words and actions. Simple concept.
While I agree that an idea is an idea regardless of who signs it, I also think that the source of the comment is relevant. In addition, anonymous posting leads to personal attacks and unnecessary vitriol. I am not sure how or why I would be ostracized in the community if what I say is honest and true. Not sure I care what others think if what I am saying is honest and true.
Finally, commenting is not a right on someone else's blog. If you are truly worried about "all that can go wrong on the internet" and don't want to post yet want to say something, send me a private email. I pledge confidentiality if you request it. But either way I want to hear from you.
JSM
"Patty", who has sent anonymous comments to this blog several times has suggested that I should allow anonymous comments. Her reasoning was,
"In today’s world of the world wide web , internet, and internet searches, anything published goes immediately viral. Post my name to a comment and someone does a Google search and my name appears. Comments are often altered or taken out of context. Those with dissenting views are capable of profiling the writer or worse ostracizing them in the community. What does it matter if I post my name, make up a name (which I could have done), or post anonymously? Is this about sharing ideas and opinions? If so, why should my comment and opinion be invalidated because I choose to protect my identity from all that could go wrong in the world on the internet?..."
"Tim", another commenter who wishes to remain anonymous wrote, "
I didn’t realize you did a background check and bio search. Tim is a nickname and I don’t actually live in New Castle - I lived there years ago. The beauty of the internet is that it connects and links us all regardless of current location. You either encourage dialogue and free flow of ideas or you do not. If I gave you my full name and the nearby town I live in would that make my comments any more or less meaningful? Must I currently reside or is it ok that I once lived there and still have an interest as I have friends living there? I have been very cautious about participating in the many social networks out there for the very reason you just demonstrated> I don’t want people Googling me and getting in my business. It concerns me that people post on Facebook, Twitter, 123people and their picture, address, phone number and personal information is there for the world to see. Your effort to seek me out validates my concern. As I said, you either encourage dialogue and idea sharing or you don’t. It should not matter if I post my full name or that my profile is blocked. I made a few points and asked you a few questions about this give back you all seem to be celebrating. Does withholding my full name make my comments any less relevant? Hey – it’s your blog – do what you want. Most allow comments to be posted by anyone with initials, made up name, or anonymously..
(I agree with Tim that if you do not want to be Googled, you should definitely not comment or use your real name. It was one of the most disturbing things to me when I first volunteered for the Board of Ed. I was very uncomfortable with how unprivate it made me. So don't comment here or anywhere else that requires a real name. I also do not understand why if you have a question or comment but wish to remain anonymous you don't just send me an email from an anonymous email address. I have said I would engage those.)
A friend pointed me to this article by Jeffrey Weiss which I think has a very good take on the issue.
Here is an article in the New York Times addressing the issue. More and more sites are not allowing anonymous comments. One reason to allow anonymous comments is to drive traffic to your site. While I post to be informative and hope someone reads it, I do not do it for any ad money or to drive traffic to my site. I have no ads.
I would like to engage the community in a discussion regarding anonymous comments. Please feel free to give your thoughts on anonymous internet posting when discussing specific items in a community such as ours. I usually do not post anonymous comments here, but I will for the purposes of this discussion although I reserve the right to moderate comments if they are off topic. Other local blogs such as NewCastleNOW or The Patch will post virtually any comment. They seem to thrive on anonymous comments. I have spoken with many people who will not read those blogs and/or not participate in their comments because they are anonymous and allow personal attacks.
I happen to believe that I should stand behind any comment I make. I do not see why I should be concerned about other people finding it on the internet. If I believe in what I say, I have no issue with anyone reading it. I do admit that I make mistakes and change my mind. I have written things I later would not write. I am human.
Using your real name is a method of creating built in accountability. You are unlikely to write something under your name that you would not want associated with your name. I call it the NY Post hurdle. I try not to say anything or do anything in public that I would not want on the cover of the NY Post. (Jeffrey Weiss' article used "Would you post this comment if your mother knew you were posting it?") Accountability and responsibility for your own words and actions. Simple concept.
While I agree that an idea is an idea regardless of who signs it, I also think that the source of the comment is relevant. In addition, anonymous posting leads to personal attacks and unnecessary vitriol. I am not sure how or why I would be ostracized in the community if what I say is honest and true. Not sure I care what others think if what I am saying is honest and true.
Finally, commenting is not a right on someone else's blog. If you are truly worried about "all that can go wrong on the internet" and don't want to post yet want to say something, send me a private email. I pledge confidentiality if you request it. But either way I want to hear from you.
JSM
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Are You Called a Twit if You Use Twitter?
Fwiw, I am going to try to use the Twitter account @JSMCCSDBoE to post alerts and quick updates. First Tweet today for the weather related announcement. (No afternoon HS exams, regular dismissal time, all after-school activities cancelled and at this time a 2 hour delay called for January 27th).
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Great News for the District, Its Children, Its Staff and The Taxpayers
Moments ago, the Board of Ed along with the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (CCT)announced a mutual agreement to amend the last year of the CCT current contract and extend the contract for an additional year.
While Janet Benton the Board President spoke for the entire Board at the meeting and I am reiterating much of what she said, I prepared the following brief statement:
I just wanted to make a very brief statement regarding the agreement reached between the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers and the CCSD. First, as Janet mentioned in our statement, I want to thank Ellen and Ray for their leadership and John, John, Tom and Lyn for the efforts on behalf of the district.
This decision to open the contract is extremely rare and should be recognized as a tremendous good will gesture on the part of the teachers. But more than a good will gesture this agreement saves the district money versus the contract this year and versus Triborough next year. It is a significant give back to the taxpayers. It encompasses every area that the CCT could address locally; salary, both raises and step raises as well as the health care contribution. The agreement also has saved both jobs and programs that in the absence of the agreement would have been cut.
Finally, this agreement while preserving flexibility for the district in future negotiations, also significantly contributes to the Board's dual goals, maintain and expand our academic excellence while proposing reasonable and sustainable budgets to the community.
As a friend of mine told me last year, there are no bad guys in this debate. There are just three parties (residents with children, empty nesters and district staff) that have a problem and need to work it out. This agreement is a good first step.
JSM
13436
Note: Below is a copy of Janet Benton's remarks on behalf of the entire Board of Education.
I am pleased to announce that the Board of Education and the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (CCT) have come to an agreement to amend the current teacher contract, resulting in a savings of over $1 million in the 2011-12 operating budget. The CCT overwhelmingly approved the agreement in a vote last Thursday and the Board of Education will take action on the Memoranda of Understanding tonight.
At the request of the Board, Interim Superintendent John Chambers and Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Tom Cardellichio met with CCT President Ellen Pincus and Vice President Ray Lucia to discuss reopening the existing contract.
While the CCT was under no legal obligation to reopen, their leadership readily agreed to engage in talks. They spent many hours in open, honest, and respectful discussion with our district administrators to craft this agreement. With their positive vote, the CCT membership stepped forward as true partners in this district to give back $1 million to help save jobs, limit class size increases, and preserve the high quality educational program that we have built together.
The Board would like to offer special recognition to Ellen and Ray. Thank you for your commitment to our schools, our children, and our community and for your leadership in bringing this agreement to your membership for approval.
We also thank John Chambers, Lyn McKay, Tom Cardellichio, and John Chow for their expertise, creativity, commitment and patience in guiding these contract discussions a successful conclusion.
The agreement provides modifications to three key elements in the teachers’ contract: salary increases are reduced; step advancement is slowed; and health insurance contributions are increased. The agreement extends the CCT contract one additional year, providing time for a new Superintendent of Schools to become established in the position before new contract negotiations begin.
For 2011-2012, the new agreement will reduce base pay increases from the previously agreed 3.5% to 2.5%, postpone step increases to mid-year, and bring health insurance premium contributions to 10% on July 1, 2011 rather than January 1, 2012. In 2012-2013, the teachers’ base pay increase will be 2%, with step increases again postponed to mid-year, and health insurance premium contributions moved to 11%.
The Board of Education is deeply committed to ensuring continued excellence in our academic and extracurricular programs while developing a fiscally responsible budget. We believe that the spirit of partnership and respect embodied in this new agreement demonstrates how we can all work together to achieve this goal.
q4
While Janet Benton the Board President spoke for the entire Board at the meeting and I am reiterating much of what she said, I prepared the following brief statement:
I just wanted to make a very brief statement regarding the agreement reached between the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers and the CCSD. First, as Janet mentioned in our statement, I want to thank Ellen and Ray for their leadership and John, John, Tom and Lyn for the efforts on behalf of the district.
This decision to open the contract is extremely rare and should be recognized as a tremendous good will gesture on the part of the teachers. But more than a good will gesture this agreement saves the district money versus the contract this year and versus Triborough next year. It is a significant give back to the taxpayers. It encompasses every area that the CCT could address locally; salary, both raises and step raises as well as the health care contribution. The agreement also has saved both jobs and programs that in the absence of the agreement would have been cut.
Finally, this agreement while preserving flexibility for the district in future negotiations, also significantly contributes to the Board's dual goals, maintain and expand our academic excellence while proposing reasonable and sustainable budgets to the community.
As a friend of mine told me last year, there are no bad guys in this debate. There are just three parties (residents with children, empty nesters and district staff) that have a problem and need to work it out. This agreement is a good first step.
JSM
13436
Note: Below is a copy of Janet Benton's remarks on behalf of the entire Board of Education.
I am pleased to announce that the Board of Education and the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (CCT) have come to an agreement to amend the current teacher contract, resulting in a savings of over $1 million in the 2011-12 operating budget. The CCT overwhelmingly approved the agreement in a vote last Thursday and the Board of Education will take action on the Memoranda of Understanding tonight.
At the request of the Board, Interim Superintendent John Chambers and Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Tom Cardellichio met with CCT President Ellen Pincus and Vice President Ray Lucia to discuss reopening the existing contract.
While the CCT was under no legal obligation to reopen, their leadership readily agreed to engage in talks. They spent many hours in open, honest, and respectful discussion with our district administrators to craft this agreement. With their positive vote, the CCT membership stepped forward as true partners in this district to give back $1 million to help save jobs, limit class size increases, and preserve the high quality educational program that we have built together.
The Board would like to offer special recognition to Ellen and Ray. Thank you for your commitment to our schools, our children, and our community and for your leadership in bringing this agreement to your membership for approval.
We also thank John Chambers, Lyn McKay, Tom Cardellichio, and John Chow for their expertise, creativity, commitment and patience in guiding these contract discussions a successful conclusion.
The agreement provides modifications to three key elements in the teachers’ contract: salary increases are reduced; step advancement is slowed; and health insurance contributions are increased. The agreement extends the CCT contract one additional year, providing time for a new Superintendent of Schools to become established in the position before new contract negotiations begin.
For 2011-2012, the new agreement will reduce base pay increases from the previously agreed 3.5% to 2.5%, postpone step increases to mid-year, and bring health insurance premium contributions to 10% on July 1, 2011 rather than January 1, 2012. In 2012-2013, the teachers’ base pay increase will be 2%, with step increases again postponed to mid-year, and health insurance premium contributions moved to 11%.
The Board of Education is deeply committed to ensuring continued excellence in our academic and extracurricular programs while developing a fiscally responsible budget. We believe that the spirit of partnership and respect embodied in this new agreement demonstrates how we can all work together to achieve this goal.
q4
Monday, January 24, 2011
Snow Days. Again?
Many many of you have asked about snow days, how many do we have left before we cut vacations days, how are they determined and my kid's (and friends) how do we get more?
Interim Superintendent John Chambers posted a letter today on the CCSD website that answers these questions and more including why was last Friday a snow day.
Click here to read the note.
JSM
Interim Superintendent John Chambers posted a letter today on the CCSD website that answers these questions and more including why was last Friday a snow day.
Click here to read the note.
JSM