|
|
MPSA Meeting Reviews
To see past meeting reviews please scroll down.
Meeting Date: 12/14/2009
Review:
Theatre of the Absurd aka Manhasset School District Board Meeting
Those who could not attend the informational meeting on December 14 surely missed a great night at the theatre.
Act One began when the leading lady, rumored to be a former labor lawyer, read a statement:
Taylor law!!!
What is that???
Never heard of it.
Is there a Taylor Law?
Having read her prepared statement, she removed herself from the spotlight, and sat on stage right with a colleague, positioning herself to view the proceedings so she could make side comments and feign astonishment at various questions posed by residents.
The Superintendent, the venerable, wise Doctor Shine now began his glacial walk to the podium. Finally arriving at the lectern, he reminded the attendees of the delicate nature of confidential proceedings and assured residents that all legitimate questions had already been answered in prior correspondence with the community. The former teacher and nominal Superintendent now lectured the audience:
We expect you to behave in a civil manner
We have a history of being a civil community
We will not tolerate poor manners
His message was greeted by applause from the sycophants sitting in the side aisles. Apparently former Board members that can’t give up the limelight, outraged husbands ready to defend their spouse’s honor and various groupies seemed to applaud on cue. Did I miss the applause sign?
Act Two opened with a few notable statements and some questions from residents who will pay the bill for the folly. One gentleman announced his managerial skills, having worked with unions when he owned a carting company that subsequently went public. After reviewing his resume, he eventually got to the point when he asked the Board to resign. Naturally, the present members of the Board refused, but an outraged spouse responded that he, the spouse, was a lawyer, obviously unaware of the public’s low esteem of lawyers, and if the carting company owner didn’t like the Board, vote them out. The side aisle sycophants applauded. Where is that applause sign???
Several women asked some serious questions regarding the Taylor law and one gentleman lamenting his $17,000 property taxes asked who was responsible for the multi million dollar fiasco. Unfortunately, neither the venerable, wise Doctor Shine, nor the nominal Superintendent knew who was responsible. The Board members sitting on stage right certainly did not know who was responsible. No one knows and no one is responsible. These things happen.
The local press’s editor was busy writing, hard pressed to make the Board look good in the next edition of the paper, but never fear, she has had experience in making incompetents look good. She is up to the task.
The venerable, wise Doctor Shine ended the evening and all left. This was an entertaining evening and residents who could not make it, should come to the theatre next time. There is sure to be an encore when the next round of litigation begins over “comparable jobs” and such.
Meeting Date: 08/18/2009
Review:
Manhasset School District Loses Transportation Lawsuit
This decision was handed down in July. The Manhasst Board of Education has not advertised this decision, nor is it mentioned on their website. One can only wonder why our local newspaper, the Manhasset Press, does not consider this PERB decision, which will cost Manhasset taxpayers millions of dollars, worthy of mention. It is one more example of incompetent management combined with union demands driving us out of our homes.
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
_________________________________________
In the Matter of
MANHASSET EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT
PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION, NYSUT, AFT,
AFL-CIO,
Charging Party,
CASE NO. U-26091
- and -
MANHASSET UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
_
________________________________________
CONRAD W. LOWER, Labor Relations Specialist, for Charging Party
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (PETER A. WALKER and LORI M. MEYERS of
counsel), for Respondent
BOARD DECISION AND ORDER
This case comes to the Board from an order of remittitur from the Appellate
Division, Third Department confirming our decision,1 finding that the Manhasset Union
Free School District (District) violated §209-a.1(d) of the Public Employees’ Fair
Employment Act (Act), but directing the Board, under the unique facts and circumstances
of the present case, to reexamine our remedial order to meet specifically identified
potential contingencies that may prevent or delay the District’s compliance, to wit: the
possible need for taxpayer approval for the purchase of buses to enable the District to
1 Manhasset Union Free Sch Dist, 41 PERB 3005 (2008), confirmed sub nom. and
mod, in part, Manhasset Union Free Sch Dist v New York State Pub Empl Rel Bd, 61
AD3d 1231, 42 PERB 7004 (3d Dept 2009).
Case No. U-26091 -2-
restore the at-issue unit work and the District’s current contractual obligations with respect
to that work.
Following remittal from the Appellate Division, the District filed a letter with the
Board dated June 1, 2009, requesting a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of remedy
on the grounds that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) refused to accept evidence on
remedy and that there “may be additional and other reasons why PERB’s original
remedy was unreasonable and contrary to law.” On June 2, 2009, the Board requested
the parties to submit an offer of proof identifying any disputed facts requiring an
evidentiary hearing and any legal issues requiring additional briefing in light of the
Appellate Division’s decision.
In response to the Board’s request, the District filed an offer on June 18, 2009,
contending that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, at the present time, to determine
which displaced Manhasset Educational Support Personnel Association, NYSUT, AFT,
AFL-CIO (Association) bargaining unit members are entitled to reinstatement and to
determine the amount of back wages and benefits that are due and owing to each
displaced Association bargaining unit member as the result of the District’s violation of
§209-a.1(d) of the Act. On June 18, 2009, the Association filed its offer asserting that
the factual issues raised by the District can be raised and determined in the context of a
compliance proceeding.
Following careful examination of the offers made by the respective parties, we
deny the District’s request for an evidentiary hearing at the present time. To the extent
that the District now contends that the ALJ erred in excluding evidence related to
remedy, it waived that issue when it failed to include the issue among its 59 exceptions
Case No. U-26091 -3-
to the ALJ’s decision.2 Furthermore, it is a well-established general Board practice to
address factual issues with respect to the proper application of a remedial order to
particular individuals during a compliance proceeding following judicial enforcement of a
PERB remedial order pursuant to §213(a) of the Act.3 The District expressly
acknowledged this procedural reality in its brief to the Appellate Division.4
In its decision, the Appellate Division cited to County of Chautauqua,5 where the
Board affirmed an ALJ’s proposed remedial order in a subcontracting case where the
respondent had sold the necessary equipment to perform the at-issue work and,
therefore, may not have been able to restore the unit work that had been unlawfully
transferred. To meet the facts and circumstances discerned from the record in that
case, our remedial order directed that if the employer was unable to restore the at-issue
unit work, it should make comparable unit work available to all displaced unit employees
without loss of unit work to any current employees or, if no comparable unit work is
available, to pay the displaced unit employees all lost wages and benefits until such
time as the unit work becomes available.
2 Rules of Procedure (Rules), §213.2(b)(4); CSEA v New York State Pub Empl Rel Bd,
73 NY2d 796, 21 PERB 7017 (1988); Town of Orangetown, 40 PERB 3008 (2007),
confirmed sub nom. Town of Orangetown v New York State Pub Empl Rel Bd, 40 PERB
7008 (Sup Ct Albany Co 2007); County of Sullivan and Sullivan County Sheriff, 41
PERB 3006 (2008).
3 See, City of Poughkeepsie v Newman, 95 AD2d 101, 16 PERB 7021 (3d Dept 1983),
app dismissed, 60 NY2d 859, 16 PERB 7027 (1983), lv denied 62 NY2d 602, 17 PERB
7009 (1984); Uniondale Union Free Sch Dist, 21 PERB 3044 (1988).
4 See, Manhasset Union Free Sch Dist v New York State Pub Empl Rel Bd, Appellant’s
Brief, p. 56.
5 21 PERB 4588 (1988), aff, 22 PERB 3016 (1989).
Case No. U-26091 -4-
Upon remittitur from the Appellate Division, and after further review of the facts
and circumstances in the present case, we conclude that the remedial approach in
County of Chautauqua would best effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act and,
therefore, we have modified our remedial order accordingly. Nothing in this decision
should be construed as constituting a modification of our remedial policies and practices
under the Act.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the District shall forthwith:
1. Cease and desist from unilaterally transferring to nonunit employees the
work of employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Manhasset
Educational Support Personnel Association (Association) including unit
work consisting of the transporting of students from home to public school,
to athletic and field events, and summer school, and the providing of
maintenance and repair for District equipment;
2. Restore all such subcontracted transportation services unit work to unit
employees;
3. Reinstate unit members with back wages and benefits suffered as a result
of the subcontracting of the unit work, with interest at the maximum legal
rate, less interim earnings;
4. In the event that restoration of the unit work to unit employees is impossible
due to taxpayer disapproval of the purchase of buses and other equipment
necessary to restore the unit work, make comparable work available to all
displaced unit members, without loss of work to any current unit
employees, or pay the displaced unit employees all back wages and
benefits, with interest at the maximum legal rate, less interim earnings, until
such time as comparable unit work becomes available;
5. In the event that restoration of unit work is delayed due to present District
contractual obligations, pay the displaced unit employees all back wages
and benefits, with interest at the maximum legal rate, less interim earnings,
as the result of the subcontracting of the work until such time as the unit
work is restored;
6. Negotiate in good faith with the Association concerning the terms and
conditions of employment of unit employees; and
Case No. U-26091 -5-
7. Sign and post the attached notice at all locations customarily used to
communicate with unit employees.
DATED: July 23, 2009
Albany, New York
NOTICE TO ALL
EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO
THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE
NEW YORK STATE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
and in order to effectuate the policies of the
NEW YORK STATE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' FAIR EMPLOYMENT ACT
we hereby notify all employees of the Manhasset Union Free School District in the unit
represented by the Manhasset Educational Support Personnel Association, NYSUT, AFT,
AFL-CIO, that the Manhasset Union Free School District forthwith will:
1. Refrain from unilaterally transferring to nonunit employees the work of employees in the bargaining
unit represented by the Manhasset Educational Support Personnel Association (Association)
including unit work consisting of the transporting of students from home to public school, to athletic
and field events, and summer school, and the providing of maintenance and repair for District
equipment;
2. Restore all such subcontracted transportation services unit work to unit employees and reinstate
unit employees with back wages and benefits suffered as a result of the subcontracting of the unit
work, with interest at the maximum legal rate, less interim earnings;
3. In the event that restoration of the unit work to unit employees is impossible due to taxpayer
disapproval of the purchase of buses and other equipment necessary to restore the unit work,
make comparable work available to all displaced unit members, without loss of work to any current
unit employees, or pay the displaced unit employees all back wages and benefits, with interest at
the maximum legal rate, less interim earnings, until such time as comparable unit work becomes
available
4. In the event that restoration of unit work is delayed due to present District contractual obligations,
pay the displaced unit employees all back wages and benefits, with interest at the maximum legal
rate, less interim earnings, as the result of the subcontracting of the work until such time as unit
work is restored;
5. Negotiate in good faith with the Association concerning the terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees.
Dated . . . . . . . . . . By . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(on behalf of Manhasset Union Free School District)
This Notice must remain posted for 30 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Meeting Date: 04/30/2009
Review:
School Budget increase of 0.78% sounds too good to be true!
The following Letter to the Editor was in the April 30, 2009 Manhasset Press
A Closer Look at the School Budget
The announcement that this year's School Budget will be only a 0.87 % increase compared with last year's increase of 4.72 % sounds too good to be true. In dollar terms this year's Budget increase is $700,509 while last year's increase was $3,615,361. In both cases the public was assured that the academic program would remain the same class sizes would follow the same guidelines and extracurricular activities would be unchanged. So why did it cost $3.6 million more in last year's budget and only $0.7 million more in this year's budget to maintain essentially the same school program?
The answer is that without knowing it the public has been paying millions of dollars in taxes to pay for items that have little or nothing to do with the regular school program. The largest of these expenditures are what are called Accrued Liabilities and Budget Surplus.
Budget surpluses come about when Budget expenditures are over estimated and budget revenues are under estimated. To a small degree this occurs in most budgets in order to insure against a budget deficit. However Manhasset has taken this practice to a whole new level. For instance the Auditor’s Report for 07-08 {the last year that complete figures are available] shows that revenues where under estimated by $1,090,632 and Expenditures where over estimated by$1,867,415. Combined they produce a $2.9 million dollar surplus!
Accrued Liabilities are created by putting a line in the Budget with that name and funding it at zero. Other expenditures in the Budget are overestimated. At the end of the year money is transferred from the over estimated budget lines to the Accrued liabilities line. This year's Budget shows that in the same 07-08 budget Accrued liabilities where actually funded at $1,754,363. If you go back and look at the 07-08 budget document you will see that Accrued liabilities where budgeted at zero.
If you add the Accrued Liabilities to the Budget surplus you get $4.6 million money which most taxpayers thought was going to educate our kids.
What the School District did in this year's Budget is dramatically reduce the overestimating of expenditures and the funding of Accrued Liabilities to bring home a minimal Budget increase.
Of course the accounting games that they are playing are the antithesis of transparency. They are deceptive at best and I have even heard some people go so far as to call them fraud.
It seems the District has forgotten what happened in Roslyn and what is going around us with so much fraud and deceit being uncovered. One would think that given this atmosphere they would be bending over backwards to be open and transparent. But as you can see they are headed the other way.
Meeting Date: 04/01/2009
Review:
Manhasset School District Costs are out of control.
The costs are significantly higher than the other school districts on LI.
www.longislandschools.com/nassau-county-schools.aspx
www.longislandschools.com/districts/manhasset-school-district.html
www.longislandschools.com/districts/garden-city-school-district.html
www.longislandschools.com/districts/great-neck-school-district.html
www.longislandschools.com/districts/port-washington-school-district.html
Some examples of the high cost are as follows:
Manhasset
Average Salary $ 101,000
Cost per Student $ 23,000
Number of Students 3000
Garden City
Average Salary $ 79,000
Cost per Student $ 17,000
Number of Students 4200
Great Neck
Average Salary $ 87,000
Cost per Student $ 22,000
Number of Students 4400
Port Washington
Average Salary $ 83,000
Cost per Student $ 19,000
Numberof Students 6000
There are a large number of Administrators in Manhasset. There is also a large number of Teachers in Administration Positions that don't teach. There are more Administrative positions than necessary in such a small School District.
Manhasset has 8 District Subject Coordinators, which cost over $1 million per year in salaries. None of the other districts in Nassau have these positions.
The Teachers in the Manhasset School District are extraordinarily well paid.They work 2/3 of the Year (180 Days) & also get paid for all non-teaching activities during the workday.
To see a list af Salaries go to the HOME page of our Website and Download
the Excel File.
Meeting Date: 03/02/2009
Review:
We received several observations & comments on our Teacher’s Salaries email.
If you include Benefits and future Pension costs you will see why our School Taxes are out of control.
Salary
Average salary $101,339.
Median salary $104,278
Salary Plus Benefits
Average salary including benefits $149,404
Median salary including benefits $153,736
Pension Costs
Today if a teacher retires after 30 years at $126,000 then average pension is $88,200 (assuming 70% payout).
If a Teacher receives a Pension for 25 years the cost will be $2,205,000. The teacher will make more in retirement than they made while working. This plus the Medical Benefits they receive in retirement you will see clearly why School Taxes are out of control.
Meeting Date: 08/03/2008
Review:
Empire Center Launches Transparency Website
www.SeeThroughNY.net
http://www.empirecenter.org/2008/07/SeeThruAnnouncement73108.cfm
New Yorkers will get a clearer view than ever of how their state and local tax dollars are being spent, thanks to a new transparency website launched today by the Empire Center for New York State Policy.
The website – www.SeeThroughNY.net – initially offers searchable databases of the following public information:
· the entire payroll of more than 263,000 state government employees, cross-referenced by name, title, branch of government and agency;
· current teachers’ union contracts and superintendent of schools’ contracts for nearly all of New York State’s 733 school and BOCES districts;
· operating expenditures by both houses of the New York State Legislature; and
· the Legislature’s pork-barrel “member items” spending for 2008-09.
The site will expand in the near future to include more payrolls, expenditures, contracts and other information from a variety of New York government entities, according to Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center.
“SeeThroughNY is designed to become the hub of a statewide network through which taxpayers can share, analyze and compare data from local governments and school districts throughout New York,” McMahon said.
McMahon noted that 2008 already has seen the launching of two government-run transparency websites in New York. Project Sunlight (www.sunlightny.com), sponsored by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, includes information related to campaign finance, legislation, lobbying activity, and recipients of state government contracts. Open Book New York (www.osc.state.ny.us/openbook/index.htm), launched in June by Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, provides an up-to-date listing of state vendor contracts, along with expenditure summaries for state agencies.
“Project Sunlight and Open Book were significant steps forward for transparency and accountability in New York, but we still have a long way to go,” McMahon said.
SeeThroughNY is the first state and local transparency site to be independently sponsored and maintained by a private, non-partisan organization. The payroll, school district contract, and legislative expenditure data on SeeThroughNY has never before been available to New Yorkers in a searchable format on the Internet.
The Empire Center is a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, one of the nation’s leading non-profit think tanks, which supports all of the Center’s work.
Meeting Date: 07/14/2008
Review:
Join the New York Property Tax Cap Coalition
http://www.taxcapnow.org/join/
New York State needs a property tax cap now!
Join the grassroots coalition in support of a statewide property tax cap in New York: the New York Property Tax Cap Coalition!
Meeting Date: 07/07/2008
Review:
New York State needs a property tax cap now!
New York State's local taxes are the highest in America - 79% above the national average.
Outside of New York City, 62% of property taxes are school property taxes.
Property tax levies are rising at more than twice the rate of inflation and salary growth.
Every day more of our neighbors, college graduates and grandparents become ex-New Yorkers—moving to more affordable states and breaking up our families and communities.
A solution is in sight. Governor David Paterson has a plan to cap school property tax levies in New York State. This cap would limit the growth in school property tax levies to 4 percent or to 120 percent of the rate of inflation, whichever is less.
Join the grassroots coalition in support of a statewide property tax cap in New York: the New York Property Tax Cap Coalition!
http://www.taxcapnow.org/join/
Meeting Date: 06/25/2008
Review:
New Yok Supports a TAX CAP
Your e-mails and calls are working.
Now is the time to contact the new Senate Majority Leader, Dean Skelos, who understands our situation and has been with us in the past.
Dean Skelos
Albany Office: 518-455-3171
Rockville Centre: 516-766-8383
SCHOOL TAX CAP BACKED BY NEW YORK VOTERS
By FREDRIC U. DICKER - NY POST
June 17, 2008 -- ALBANY - Nearly three-quarters of New York voters back Gov. Paterson's plan to cap the runaway growth of school property taxes, with the support spanning all sections of the state, a new poll yesterday showed.
The Siena College survey found 74 percent of New Yorkers, including 66 percent of city residents, endorse Paterson's proposal to limit property tax growth to no more than 4 percent yearly.
Eighty percent in the suburbs and 79 percent of upstaters back the plan.
Meeting Date: 06/19/2008
Review:
Article in the NY Post -- This sounds just like the School Board Elections in Manhasset
GETTING SCHOOLED
LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT SOARING PROPERTY TAXES
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/realestate/getting_schooled_116114.htm
June 19, 2008 –
By Tina Traster
I t was no surprise when my husband lost his bid for a seat on our local school board. Not one for pressing the flesh or kissing babies, he ran an incisive campaign aimed at getting voters to understand the correlation between soaring property taxes and rising teachers' salaries and benefits.
He was not roundly rejected - he got nearly 300 votes - but the three candidates endorsed by the Nyack Teachers' Union swept to victory. No surprise there.
The union threw its weight behind one incumbent, a former music teacher and a squeaky banker type who rarely attended a Tuesday night school-board meeting. I believe they were betting their chips on candidates who would please them at the negotiating table this fall when the teachers' contract is up for renewal.
Accurately gauging the uneasy economic mood in our community, the local union worked harder this year than it had in recent elections to get the budget passed and to convince voters to support their candidates. It spent $5,000 to pepper the area with signs, stuff mailboxes with postcards and run phone banks.
The union chose school-board candidates who are "pro-education" - a catchphrase that's heard on the campaign trail frequently. As if someone who wants fiscal balance is "anti-education."
Candidates who are courting union support avoid talking about teachers' contracts on the campaign trail. This is especially true of incumbents, who must defend a precedent of 7 percent annual budget increases. Instead, they rail against state mandates, special education and transportation costs - the so-called culprits for soaring property taxes.
The New York State United Teachers union bolstered local affiliates with a $1 million television ad campaign urging voters to approve school budgets on May 20.
They did a good job pulling heartstrings in a 30-second spot that started with a voiceover that says "times are tough" and then had a senior citizen, a soccer mom and a businesswoman launch paper airplanes that asked voters to "pass on" the opportunity to children through a "yes" vote.
What they really urged voters to do is to keep the teachers' annual salary increases and benefits on track.
What I didn't know until I looked behind the numbers was that half of Nyack's 279 teachers in our tiny district earn between $90,000 and $130,000 for working 185 days per year. Stipends for everything from athletic coaching to heading up the origami club enable teachers to boost their income.
Everybody deserves to be paid what he or she is worth. But when times are tough, we in the private sector share the pain. We accept smaller raises or none at all. We cope when our health benefits are whittled down or we have to pay a higher premium. Most of us are grateful just to stay gainfully employed when we witness waves of layoffs, mergers and bankruptcies.
School districts seem to operate outside the parameters of logic. New York's property taxes lead the nation and are 79 percent above the national average. Suburbanites constantly complain about their taxes, with school taxes being the greatest portion of the burden.
Aware of the somber mood during the past budget season, districts in the Hudson Valley toed the line and kept proposals more modest, with 5 percent proposed increases rather than the typical 7 percent or 8 percent over the past decade.
A 5 percent tax hike in Nyack was approved - in fact, 92 percent of the districts in the region voted yes on budgets, slightly fewer than in recent years. But here's the rub: Nearly the entire increase will be used to fund contractual salary and benefit increases. State mandates, transportation, fuel costs and debt service will eat up the rest.
What's blatantly absent - and what my husband reminded voters of repeatedly during his shoot-the-messenger campaign - is that lower tax increases of 5 percent leave nothing left over for academic or extracurricular programs. In the end, it's the students who lose out.
If Gov. Paterson and the legislature get behind a 4 percent property-tax cap on school budgets, school-board members who go to the bargaining table with union members will need a 101 in contract negotiations.
Over time - and I would predict not too many years off - it will become obvious that teachers' salary and benefits packages are not sustainable. If covering their contractual increases exceeds a 4 percent cap, voters would have discretion to approve or deny a higher budget. Or, the squeeze could result in layoffs, hiring freezes and larger class sizes. So nobody wins.
This is precisely why the New York State United Teachers union in Albany is lobbying hard to defeat the property-tax cap, calling it "bad policy" that will erode the quality of public education. What it really erodes is the cushy security suburban teachers have enjoyed for many years.
It is time the phrase "pro-education" implied fiscal balance, not just handsome salary and benefits packages. A property-tax cap may seem like a rigid way for local districts to run their affairs, but if it brings more fairness to the table, then it's a great bargain.
Meeting Date: 06/04/2008
Review:
SUPPORT TAX CAP LEGISLATION
MPSA HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN THE STRUGGLE FOR SCHOOL TAX RELIEF, WHICH CAN BE ACHIEVED ONLY THROUGH A TAX CAP ON THE TAX LEVY. MR. SUOZZI HAS ISSUED HIS REPORT ON TAX RELIEF AND ESSENTIALLY HE AGREES WITH US. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET BEHIND MR. SUOZZI’S PROPOSAL FOR A TAX CAP. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES LISTED BELOW AND EXPRESS YOUR SUPPORT FOR A TAX CAP. IF THIS OPPORTUNITY IS LOST, WE WILL SEE NO TAX RELIEF FOR MANY YEARS.
It has become apparent that those who pay the bills, the taxpayers, are subject to unconscionable school taxes that have increased at least twice the inflation rate over the past five years. The increases are unsustainable and have done great damage to our communities. One out of four Long Island college graduates leaves the State. They are followed by business seeking an educated labor force and a tax friendly environment. Our seniors living on pensions are exoding en masse looking for affordable tax friendly States. It is obvious that the impact of exorbitant school taxes fracture the fabric of our communities. As we watch the ever increasing “for sale” and “for rent” signs on our streets, the educational establishment’s mantra, “it’s for the children”, begins to ring hollow.
It is painfully clear to anyone who takes the time to review the issue that huge sums of money are being spent but it does not translate into student achievement. Apparently, the educational establishment despite its self-righteous slogans, is interested in increasing salaries and benefits for their own members regardless of their members competency in the classroom. In fact, the NYSUT was instrumental in the shameful vote, which banned test scores from being factored into granting teacher tenure. When most vacant teaching positions engender hundreds of applications from State certified teachers seeking the position, why can’t we hold teachers accountable for their work in their classrooms as evidenced by their student’s achievement
The NYSUT claim that New York Public Schools are succeeding as a result of a multi billion dollar annual investment in education is based on an ‘Education Week” study that scores New York on issues such as school finance, parental education and K-12 achievement in which the State scored a C-. The one study, which the educational establishment never cites, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the gold standard of testing, clearly demonstrates a lack of progress in real classroom achievement. Only in fourth grade mathematics did New York students post a solid gain, from a scale score of 238 in 2005 to 243 in 2007. In eighth grade mathematics, fourth grade and eighth grade reading, there was no significant progress, despite ranking first in the nation in spending per elementary and high school student. Obviously the money does not improve test scores. Obviously the money is spent on 6% annual salary raises and lavish benefits for educational personnel regardless of their merit.
The NYSUT has stated that New Yorkers have and want to keep local control. In light of a 10% voter turnout, the argument is difficult to defend. Most people understand the futility of voting against a school budget where the deck is stacked against them: where they have no real voice in the process. The NYSUT and their allies have been successful in passing pro union legislation, e.g. two votes if a budget fails; contingency budgets that are on a par and often more than proposed budgets; a vote in May rather than November. Although, People may not be voting in school budgets, don’t think they are not voting. In reality, they are voting with their feet and the process of de population in New York State will continue unless the legislature acts quickly.
The simple answer to our problem is a tax cap. It will stop the bleeding and restore sanity to the process. It will force school districts and unions to behave in a rational manner when they negotiate and sign union contracts. In the final analysis, it is the district that caves to the unions and signs off of exorbitant salaries and benefits. A tax cap will end the entire finger pointing and blaming. Any tax cap such as the successful Massachusetts cap of 2½ % must be ironclad with a 2/3 override. The people can no longer tolerate smoke and mirrors. If New York fails to impose a mandatory tax cap on the tax levy increase, our entire community that will suffer. The only hope is that the Legislature will recognize that tax caps are the only “blunt instrument” as that will work.
State Senator Craig Johnson
District Office Albany Office
151 Herricks Road 604 Legislative Office Bldg
Suite 202 Albany, NY 122407
Garden City, NY 11040 P: 518-455-2622
P: 516-746-5923
F: 516-746-5926
State Senate Leader Joseph Bruno
District Office Albany Office
368 Broadway Room 909 Legislative Office Bldg.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Albany, NY 12247
518-583-1001 518-455-3191
Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel
DISTRICT OFFICE
45 North Station Plaza
Suite 203
Great Neck, NY 11021
516-482-6966
ALBANY OFFICE
LOB 324
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-5192
Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver
DISTRICT OFFICE
250 Broadway
Suite 2307
New York, NY 10007
212-312-1420
ALBANY OFFICE
LOB 932
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-3791
NEWSDAY ARTICLE
GOV PATERSON SUPPORTS THE TAX CAP
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/education/ny-stprop0604,0,7708129.story
Meeting Date: 05/10/2008
Review:
MANHASSET SCHOOL BUDGET CRISIS 10.71% INCREASE
· THE SCHOOL BOARD ANNOUNCED A 4.71% INCREASE IN THE SCHOOL BUDGET, BUT FAILED TO ANNOUNCE THE INCREASE IS IN ADDTION TO APPROXIMATELY A 6%* SURPLUS FROM PRIOR YEARS, BRINGING THE ESTIMATED 2008-2009 BUDGET INCREASE UP TO 10.71% *see prior years audited financials for full disclosure on surpluses and reserves
· THE SCHOOL BOARD GAVE THE SUPERINTENDENTA $40,000 OR 19% SALARY INCREASE IN 2007, MAKING HIS SALARY GREATER THAN GOVERNOR PATERSON, MAYOR BLOOMBERG AND NYC SCHOOL CHANCELLOR KLEIN
· THE SCHOOL BOARD ANNOUNCED A NEW UNION CONTRACT WITH 3.35% YEARLY INCREASE IN SALARIES, BUT FAILED TO ANNOUNCE THE 3.35% WAS IN ADDITION TO AUTOMATIC RAISES, E.G., FOURTH YEAR TEACHER’S AUTOMATIC RAISE IS 7% IN ADDITION TO THE 3.35% WHICH WOULD BRING THEIR TOTAL RAISE TO 10.35% FOR THE YEAR. SHOULD SAME TEACHERS EARN A MASTERS DEGREE, ANOTHER 23% IS ADDED FOR A TOTAL ANNUAL RAISE OF 33%. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FOR EVERY VACANT POSITION, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF NYS CERTIFIED APPLICANTS.
· THE SCHOOL BOARD FAILED TO DISCLOSE TAX PROJECTIONS NEEDED TO FUND RETIREE HEALTHCARE LIABILITIES OF OVER $280,000,000 AND GROWING AT 10% PER YEAR. HEALTHCARE ALONE, MAY CONSUME 20% OF THE BUDGET. SCHOOL DISTRICTS SUCH AS JERICHO (THE NUMBER ONE DISTRICT ON LONG ISLAND) AGGRESSIVELY REDUCED THEIR COST BY REQUIRING RETIREE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 50%, WHILE MANHASSET REQUIRES A 19% CONTRIBUTION
· THE MANHASSET SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT IS $27,000 YEARLY. WITH OVER 75% OF THE COST EARMARKED FOR SALARIES AND BENEFITS, MANHASSET HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST COSTS IS THE STATE WITH NO END IN SIGHT.
NO GOALS, NO VISION, NO FIVE-YEAR PLAN
JUST OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING
Meeting Date: 04/24/2008
Review:
MPSA on School Lawsuits
At least $15,000,000 in potential settlements,
Where is the transparency?
Where is the Insurance?
As a result of a total communication breakdown between the school board and homeowners, there are many unanswered questions involving how our school taxes are being spent, none more important than lawsuits.
MPSA reported at its last meeting, the school board has "privately" been moving budgeted tax dollars for school activities into reserves and accruals anticipating two crushing legal defeats the first, the school boards decision to outsource busing, appears in violation of the union contract, and the second a personal injury lawsuit.
When we say "privately", we mean the school board vote. Many homeowners do not realize that there are two votes that determine how certain school funds are spent. The annual budget which homeowners vote each May is generally understood. Then there is also a school board vote, unbeknownst to most, where the school board themselves are allowed to move budget surpluses from school activities to categories that homeowners never voted on, in this case lawsuits.
It appears, the school board has purposely overstated the budget to generate a surplus, then moved the surplus to fund lawsuits, without anyone knowing unless you just so happen to read the audited financial statements. The school boards arrogant argument is, this is our privilege, and we do not need homeowners consent-and they are right, at least legally but not if they truly are committed to transparency and accountable to homeowners.
Perhaps the most troubling lawsuit is the 1990 personal injury lawsuit that may amount to $18,000,000(school district provided) that was hidden from the homeowners for over15 years. MPSA found the case in the New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County. MPSA has raised the question-virtually all personal injury claims are insurable events so why isn't the insurance carrier funding the entire claim?
The other troubling lawsuit is the ill-fated outsourcing of union bus drivers to a private contractor back in 2005. In fairness to the school district, if they were able to violate the terms and conditions of the Union contract it would have resulted in a fair amount of savings. Most in the community thought the school district had no chance from the get-go and it seems so did the courts! The school board has disclosed to homeowners the unfavorable April 3, 2008 PERB decision. Because the school board is silent on the potential cost, MPSA had to do its own research and we were told that the legal cost to defend plus settlement of three years back pay (that is growing each day), plus accrued interest, plus lost employee benefits for 40 workers plus having to purchase a new fleet of buses and vans is estimated at $10,000,000 best guess). We understand the school board will further litigate the matter-stay tune.
Click the link below to download a pdf of the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) Decision.
http://www.perb.state.ny.us/pdf/u-26091.pdf
Meeting Date: 04/18/08
Review:
Real School Budget Increase Is 10.71 Percent
MPSA projects a 10.71 percent annual school budget increase when compared to the actual prior year audited financial statements.
Most homeowners are unaware that the school district's recent budget increase announcement is misleading because it is a comparison to the prior year budget, not the prior year actual audited results. Further, the budget is not subject to an independent audit; as such the annual announced budget increase is readily manipulated, as happened, details follow.
MPSA has identified over the past two years through the review of the audited financial statements that the budget grossly overstated the real cost to operate the school district by approximately $4 million or 6 percent on average for each year. The school district referred to this 6 percent as the "rainy day fund."
If the school board is truly committed to transparency and accountability they should disclose the accuracy of past budgets prior to the May 20 budget vote. Further, if the school board was committed to lowering taxes, they would eliminate from the current budget the portion allocated for the "rainy day fund."
Meeting Date: 04/04/2008
Review:
Union Contract Provides a Raise on a Raise
When the school district announced the Union Contract agreement of 3.35 percent, it failed to announce that the 3.35 percent salary increase was a raise on a raise. Once again the announced salary increase was grossly misleading and perhaps another example of the school district's lack of transparency that keeps homeowners in the dark. The real cost to the taxpayer may be in excess of 6-10 percent each year over the life of the four-year contract. Knowing the real cost of the negotiated union contract is key to understanding our future.
Most residents think competent teachers deserve a decent salary for their good efforts and I happen to agree with this thought. However, many residents don't know teachers' future annual raises over the next 30 years are scheduled out for them thanks to a very savvy, ironclad union contract that provides raises based on 1) longevity - more years more salary increases up to 7 percent per year, and 2) college credits and degrees - more credits and degrees translate into raises of 20 percent or more. The new contract's 3.35 percent salary increase is simply in addition to the already existing scheduled raises that are given regardless of merit and in spite of the fact that the district is inundated with resumes from New York State certified teachers looking for positions. In short, teachers get automatic, irrevocable and ever increasing raises which have nothing to do with merit. Nor do tenured teachers get fired for incompetence.
Long-term teachers also receive 70 percent of their highest annual salary as an annual pension for life. The pension compounds the cost of the annual salary raises, since the higher the salary, the higher the pension. On top of the contract's raise on the scheduled raises, the taxpayer pays healthcare cost, which the school district has admitted will increase by 10 percent a year for each of the next four years. Apparently, teachers are provided lifetime healthcare at a taxpayer cost of about $1,000,000 per teacher.
Homeowners have become fairly astute and understand that as teacher's compensation increases so do their taxes in fairly equal proportions. As such, the school board's announcement of a 3.35 percent annual salary increase for the next four years may have inadvertently provided false hope that future tax increases may in the 3.35 percent range. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Meeting Date: 03/28/2008
Review:
MPSA on School Spending--Trust Does Matter
The community's trust in the school board has certainly been compromised given the $40,000 or 19 percent superintendent's annual salary cover-up, and many other similar situations such as the school board's announcement of a 3.35 percent annual salary increase for the teacher's union when in fact the real raise was 3.35 percent over and above existing and guaranteed raises as set forth in the union contract. Such existing and guaranteed annual raises have ranged from 0-27 percent in any given year and are now 3.35 percent to 30.35 percent thanks to the very generous new contract.
Trust is everything between the homeowner and the school board, as homeowners are not in a position to question the many financial representations set forth by the school board. We believe The New York Times article was on target with respect to taxpayer's skepticism of local taxes: "The problem is not that people do not care, it's that they don't know," and let's face it, the school board has a history of keeping taxpayers in the dark on the most important spending decisions such as salaries and benefits.
The goal of MPSA (Manhasset Proponents for School Accountability) is to make sure every Manhasset homeowner understands and knows how school taxes are really spent. For those not familiar with MPSA, MPSA is a community organization consisting of business leaders and educators, independent of the school district, with a mission that prioritizes both academic excellence and fiscally responsible budgets. MPSA has a website at manhassetpsa.com.
MPSA has long warned that the school board is on an unsustainable spending spree that simply increases the cost of education and not the quality. For too many years the school board has refused to change its habits even in the face of the worst economic downturn in which the economy is grinding to a halt.
MPSA believes the May 20 annual budget which homeowners will be asked to support, is a defining moment for the community as many believe the school board was less than truthful and transparent in its financial disclosures of last year's budget, and did little, if anything, to bring spending in line with inflation.
Meeting Date: 03/21/2008
Review:
Letter to the Editor
The Unfortunate Manhasset Taxpayer
The Manhasset School Board's generosity is becoming legendary among Long Island administrators. The Manhasset School superintendent's recent 19 percent salary increase makes his salary greater than the salaries of the NYS governor, the NYC mayor and NYC School Chancellor Klien. It should be noted that Manhasset holds the distinction of having two superintendents; the second superintendent earns approximately $800 per diem. If the school board is so generous to its superintendents, why then should they hold back when negotiating a contract with the teachers union? A cursory examination of the union contract reveals that the school board, as is their custom, did not hold back with the taxpayer's money.
The unfortunate reality for the taxpayer is that the well-publicized 3.35 percent yearly salary increase negotiated by the union and the board is the opposite of reality and represents only the tip of the iceberg. The real raise is much higher. For example, a hypothetical third grade teacher with a bachelor's degree gets an irrevocable automatic raise of 7 percent upon completion of the fourth year in the district. The new contract adds another 3.35 percent to the 7 percent bringing the total raise for the year to an astounding 10.35 percent.
If, during the same year, the teacher got a master's degree in elementary education, there is another raise of 23.35 percent on top of the 10.35 percent. The actual raise for this elementary teacher with four years seniority would be an astounding 33.7 percent raise in one year alone.
What the school board has omitted from the well-publicized announcement touting a 3.35 percent annual raise is the fact that the 3.35 percent annual raise is in addition to the annual automatic raises teachers get based on seniority.
Meeting Date: 02/28/2008
Review:
School Board Has Responsibility to Taxpayer
The public outcry to the 19 percent increase in the superintendent's salary prompted the Manhasset School Board to issue a self-serving press release seven months after the fact, in an attempt to explain the scandalous $40,000 raise to someone of such short service. Their attempt to justify their actions clearly illustrates a lack of understanding that they are stewards of public funds. Even though the school board has an arsenal of letter writers and access to public relations consultants, the press release fell short of its intended purpose, which was to exonerate the board from any wrongdoing. In fact, the press release only emphasized the board's lack of transparency and accountability to the public.
Apparently the board does not comprehend the simple fact that the money they give away is public money and they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to openly discuss the merits of a 19 percent annual rise for their administrator. When they decided not to go public in July 2007, they demonstrated poor judgment and poor use of public funds. They did not improve the quality of education "for the children." They only increased the cost for the entire community. One can only wonder what else had been swept under the rug.
The magnitude of the raise given the declining economy, the attempt to blame Albany for the spending crisis when the school board approved the raise, the failure of the board to disclose the raise in a meaningful and timely manner are indicative of financial irresponsibility. I trust his will become an issue for any school board member considering re-election on May 20.
MPSA will continue to investigate examples of the board's largesse with public money. We invite the public to visit the MPSA website in manhassetpsa.com for additional information.
Meeting Date: 01/26/2008
Review:
Superintendent's $40,000 Annual Salary Raise Approved by School Board
MPSA, an independent group of business, education and civic leaders, is to be praised for debating local school board spending decisions and their effect on our current and future school taxes. They, along with parents, want the best education for their children, and they have always been respectful of the educational establishment, including the school board, administration, teachers, the unions and their allies in Albany. Their solutions do not diminish or reduce the quality of education, only the excesses that continually plague our school board in recent years.
Every reasonable person, including our current governor, now agrees that our school taxes have ballooned out of control mainly due to unchecked spending year-in and year-out. Given our current spending trajectory, homeowners have to accept annual school taxes will double every eight years, negatively impacting our entire community.
Informed Manhasset homeowners, many who work on Wall Street, know full well that our school board is charged with keeping spending in line with inflation. Giving our current superintendent a $40,000 or 19 percent pay raise in just one year is a total disregard for the school board's fiduciary responsibility.
No doubt the defenders of the school establishment will "shoot the messenger" for questioning this decision. I can already hear their mantra "for the children," but it rings hollow. Homeowners, parents and residents need to accept the fact that it is the Manhasset Board of Education and not State politicians who approved this latest salary increase.
The "Spin" to shift the blame for the school tax crisis from our local school board to State politicians has to stop. In all fairness we acknowledge there are a number of budget items that are outside our school board's control and this is not an easy job. However, our school board also needs to be honest with our community and accept full responsibly for this raise that was, in fact, totally within their control.
MPSA continues to act in the interest of the Manhasset taxpayer when they focus on local school district spending and fiscal transparency.
Meeting Date: 12/12/2007
Review:
Concern over Manhasset School District Fiscal Matters
On December 12th MPSA held its monthly meeting to discuss the school district fiscal matters that included the recent administrative pay raises, the large surplus in last year's budget and the District's decision not to provide homeowners a five year business plan that details future spending.
The group agreed that the administrative raises seemed excessive citing the 19% or $40,000 raise given to the Superintendent bringing his salary to $250,000 per year.
The large surplus in the 06-07 budget ($3 million) raised concern as it indicates that the District is taxing its homeowners more than is necessary particularly in view of the very large amount of funds the district has on hand.
Most alarming to the group was the District’s decision not to provide the public with a five-year business plan. MPSA has long been a supporter of the school district conducting its operations in a transparent and accountable manner and was deeply disappointed at this development. It was pointed out that the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Finance has recommended such a plan for at least the last five years.
Homeowners are deeply concerned with the ever-increasing burden of school taxes and want to be able to plan for the future with a certain degree of predictability. MPSA believes it is imperative that the school district discloses its long term spending plans. It would then become readily apparent that it has to stop the self-inflicted runaway spending that even one of the most affluent communities cannot afford!
Meeting Date: 11/30/2007
Review:
MPSA - School Tax Status Quo is Unacceptable
MPSA held its first meeting of the new school year and agreed that in the best interest of the community, the school board needs to curb the spending trajectory which is at two-to-three times the inflation rate. School spending increases clearly have accelerated to a point that exceeds household income, in particular those senior homeowners on fixed income. At this rate, school taxes may double every eight years causing many homeowners with a current school tax of $14,000 per year to double to $28,000 in eight years and become $56,000 in sixteen years. While senior citizens have clearly have been adversely affected by the school tax dilemma, the next generation, the baby boomers, many of which are planning for retirement, now realize their first two-three million of retirement savings will be needed solely to fund future school taxes.
MPSA immediate goal is to stay the course of debating the school tax issues in a professional manner respecting the hard work of the school board, administration, teachers, staff and families that use the public school system. MPSA believes the majority of voters now identifies with and supports our core values of wanting and caring about the quality of the education for our children while at the same time managing the bottom line so that taxes increase at or below the rate of inflation. Under MPSA guidelines taxes should be no greater than inflation. Taxes should double every 20 years not every 8 years as may occur under the current school districts leadership.
Briefly, for those unfamiliar with MPSA, MPSA is a community organization, independent of the school district, started last year to unify and empower like-minded voters critical of excessive public school spending. MPSA leaders are business executives and educators experienced in managing cost, union negotiations, curriculum as mandated by NYS and all aspects of classroom activities. MPSA believes school taxes should be better managed and annual increases should be at or below the rate of inflation. MPSA represents the many in Manhasset who believe that the Board of Education’s tax and spend policies are detrimental to the entire community.
Meeting Date: 11/08/2007
Review:
MPSA has emerged as the voice for like-minded Manhasset homeowners that want academic excellence for students in addition to fiscal responsibility with annual budgets on par or below the regional inflation rate. MPSA is part of a Long Island grass roots network that has been instrumental in promoting several bills in the State Legislature that address our concerns. Bill number 8775, sponsored by Assemblyman Fitzpatrick would cap school spending at the inflation rate or 4%, whichever is less. Another bill which passed the State Senate but awaits an Assembly sponsor is number 6119. It would shift the school tax burden from property owners to an income based New York State tax. Even Legislators are beginning to understand the detrimental effect of ever increasing school taxes on communities and many understand that academic excellence cannot be achieved through spending since tenure laws promote and perpetuate academic mediocrity. Both bills are worthy of your attention.
To learn more about MPSA or tell us your concerns please let up know by emailing us your comments.
Meeting Date: 02/01/2007
Review:
Long Term Business Plan
MPSA a proponent to long term planning for school district operations believes there is overwhelming community supports for the School District to adopt through School Policy a Long Term Business Plan. At a minimum, such a Policy would provide homeowners guidance what to expect in terms of future tax increases for the next five years; and the underlying school activities affecting such tax increases. In addition to community support, there appears to be support by the school districts own CAC for Finance (see April 27, 2006 Manhasset Press) and Superintendent (see November 4, 2005 Manhasset Press).
Infrastructure building spending, subject to a 2/7/07 Referendum, should be clearly based on information affecting the long-term view of school activities. As such, given the school districts independent consultant’s long term enrollment study, which clearly states over the next decade school enrollment will approximate 2800 students while there will be capacity for 3562, thus 762 or 20% of all seats will be empty; one would expect there be little argument for building spending related to “increasing enrollment”. Yet the School Board is still discussing building expansion.
Most reasonable homeowners would agree the lack of long term planning and related lack of information has led to unnecessary confusion and disagreements among homeowners. The October 2006 Munsey Park and Norgate Propositions is an example of the adverse affect on the community that resulted from the lack of long term planning.
MPSA encourages the Community to support our efforts requiring the School District, through School Policy, adoption of a Long Term Business Plan in which both academics and spending is addressed for the next five years.
|
