|
Post by bnjasper on Aug 15, 2011 8:46:30 GMT -5
As someone pointed out earlier on this conversation blog change can also be viewed as opportunity. We now have the opportunity to review the entire "management" structure. Perhaps there is a better way to administer w/o all the bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 15, 2011 18:56:51 GMT -5
bnjaser observed: "We now have the opportunity to review the entire 'management' structure. Perhaps there is a better way to administer w/o all the bureaucracy. " Yes, a golden opportunity has presented itself, if only the Board of Education can seize this chance to review the organization in a timely and planful manner. I hope they can resist the temptation to take the path of least resistance and just go hire two senior administrators and plug them into the same old organizational structure. I was not just musing when I suggested a different, more powerful role for Dana DiCapua, replacing her with a "Business Manager" and then NOT replacing the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction 'position' by changing the roles of two principals to make them the Secondary Leader and the Elementary Leader, respectively. My former suggestions of sharing key administrators with Seaford has been rendered moot by the recent performance of Seaford's senior administrative team and Board of Education. "Carpe diem!"Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by tiredoftaxes on Aug 15, 2011 20:24:12 GMT -5
It would be great if the Wantagh BOE stood up and became a leader in dealing with these money issues in Nassau, but unfortunately, all that will probably happen is that the BOE will take a taxpayer expense paid junket to an east end spa for some head bashing & useless number number crunching....My bet is that they come back and hire even more expensive Doctorates, than the last bunch......
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Aug 16, 2011 8:40:25 GMT -5
With regard to Dana DiCapua, I would question whether she would want that position or not. Also, while Dana is uber-competent about managing the budget, isn't it more of 'take this line item down' vs. a more strategic view of it? Short/long term strategic views are critical. And, an elementary supervisory role? I don't see the necessity or advantages of that given the length of time each of our 3 principals have been in their roles. That's a wasted stipend. I've been basically sitting on my hands with this reaction, but here goes... In thinking about this and talking to others since this news, I have reversed my position. When I first heard, I thought 'great, easy way to reduce a super position'. That was bc I have not seen or felt the benefits of it. I was of the notion 'what have been the deliverables and accountability of the asst super of curric' for the last 10 years (and the BOCES press release didn't cut it, who writes those things?) before "we" think that position/salary is justifiable again. Then I started talking to others outside this d**n Wantagh bubble and learned what could happen (and is supposed to happen) if the right team was in place. We have not had that, therefore IMO we have not had the right team in place. So, if we kept the same structure in an interim team for a year (with goals, deliverables, accountability, proof of performance, etc. etc. etc.), we could use this year as a test case to see if all those positions and structure are worthwhile. A fish or cut bait situation that has a one year trial period. If not (and not handled this way), I will be kicking and screaming... bc our tax $'s are too high for too little in return. But, I am willing to give it a shot if the BOE manages the situation with high expectations and scrutiny (and transparency to the public). Ideally, the public would experience and see the value themselves. Waiting for the rotten tomatoes...
|
|
|
Post by tiredoftaxes on Aug 16, 2011 12:56:03 GMT -5
Goals?? Deliverables?? Accountability??? Nice ideas from private industry...Unfortunately the Wantagh school district is not private industry and is part of a unigue union dominated school system that is broken and needs to be changed across Long Island....With all do respect(and I know you mean well with your comments above), if you really think this stuff can happen in a short time, your probably living in Fantasyland, not Wantagh...And I'm beginning to think that all these nice professional doctors are part of the broken system as well.....
|
|
|
Post by bewlidered on Aug 25, 2011 21:49:14 GMT -5
Regarding salaries, a bit confused here. According to the adopted budget for 2011-2012, the previous Assistant Superintendent was salaried at $137,000. At tonight's BOE meeting, the new Assistant to the Superintendent will be making $162,000. At a previous BOE meeting I am fairly certain that we were told that the administrators were taking a 'freeze' in salary for the upcoming year. Tonight's agenda states that the Assistant Superintendent for Business is to be salaried at $165,000, however the adopted budget indicates that her frozen salary was to be $157,850. If the budget is as tight as we have been told, where in the world did this additional $32,000+ come from???
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 26, 2011 5:21:53 GMT -5
The school board must not have read bnjasper's comment, above. "As someone pointed out earlier on this conversation blog change can also be viewed as opportunity. We now have the opportunity to review the entire "management" structure. Perhaps there is a better way to administer w/o all the bureaucracy." I mean, unless the board has fallen for that "concept" about getting better quality people means spending more money. However, and here is the rub in your post. You were there and you are apparently armed with facts, numbers, and clear memory of past promises made. Why did you not take the opportunity to ask your question directly to the board during the Q&A? To your specific question, there is or will be a budget transfer authorization, possibly even approved at the beginning of last night's meeting, which would detail exactly from where (from which specific budget accounts) they are taking (diverting) the $32,000. Of course, upon learning that answer (which you should now be able to do by asking the Assistant Superintendent for Business (516-679-6309), or emailing the BoE (District Website)), that will lead directly to the next logical question, "Don't we need that money in the accounts for which it was budgeted?" or, the way I would ask it, "How many SMART Boards could we buy and put into classrooms for that $32,000?" At this juncture, I would opine that any clerical person or school nurse could rightfully be really perturbed over this. Say, the short answer, the bottom line, and thank you for indulging my expounding on this topic, is that the money is going to come from the hidden over-budgeting, over-taxing padding of various budget accounts for next year's Fund Balance. That means, $32,000 LESS for the Board to appropriate for tax relief, meaning, to apply as revenue to reduce the 2012-13 tax levy. I really hope the fallacy of that fund balance gimmick shines through clearly: you see, we padded accounts in this year's budget, which padding will increase this year's taxes, so that we have extra money to use to lower next year's tax levy...only, except, but $32,000 of the padding and higher taxes this year will now NOT be used to lower our taxes next year, but instead will be used to enrich highly paid administrators, now. Is this somehow for "The Children"? You got me! If you get the answer, the budgt transfer information, please post it here. Miffed Chris Wendt PS - One place, for certain, the $32,000 is NOT coming from is Full-day Kindergarten, because we do not have Full-day Kindergarten, and, at this rate, we NEVER will.
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Aug 26, 2011 7:57:17 GMT -5
I am sure they can easily find the $32k. For example, the special ed legal budget is most likely inflated, which was pointed out during BAC meetings (and in the reco's to spend that $ on the kids e.g., beef up the arts programs that have been mercilessly slashed) yet remains high and unchanged. Or, an advantageous swing in utilities/fuel could easily make up that difference. And I'm not even awake yet to come up with those two easy possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 26, 2011 13:43:06 GMT -5
Lilly plainly stated: "I am sure they can easily find the $32k. For example, the special ed legal budget.... Or, an advantageous swing in utilities.... And I'm not even awake yet to come up with those two easy possibilities. " So are you a latter-day Ponce de Leon who has discoverd the Fountain of Cash? Do you mean to tell us that, in order to find cash for stuff, all the Board has to do is look closer at their budget? And isn't the answer to my next question $1.8 million!? Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by tiredoftaxes on Aug 29, 2011 21:09:44 GMT -5
Gee, what a tough prediction that I made...I'm refering to my 8/15 post....I guess I was right about the BOE hiring even more expensive professional doctorates...Do you guys really think that any ofthese Doctorates are that nice or stupid??? Its all about money....Sombebody(BOE) was suppose to stand up for the people(taxpayers)...It's time for the BOE to realize that its the taxpayers against the administration(Doctorates & union members)....Until the BOE realizes that and deals with theses personnel situations according, the system will never right itself....These doctorates are playing residents for suckers....And Chris, I know you mean well, but these shennanagans existed for at least the last decade, when you were on the BOE..... P.S. I wonder if the BOE took a trip to an east end spa mulling their decision to boot???
|
|
|
Post by tiredoftaxes on Aug 29, 2011 21:13:02 GMT -5
Further, my opinion, the start would be to make these contracts with management doctorates, a lot more difficult, so that they can't weasel their way out of it....
|
|
|
Post by tiredoftaxes on Aug 29, 2011 21:43:46 GMT -5
Chris, in reply to your 8/26 post asking bewildered why he did't raise questions at BOE meetings,& making phone calls for info...I'd like to know if you are with the overtaxed people of Wantagh, where were you with these questions to the BOE??? We all know you are very knowledgable in this kind of stuff and know the broken school system real well.Some would say, that you probably enhanced it by looking the other way when you were on the Board...Come on Chris, come over to the side of the poor people of Wantagh and become a major Gadfly and stick it to the BOE when you can at the meetings.....We need a leader here.....It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but I thought that was my job....
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 30, 2011 7:51:08 GMT -5
Interesting points you raise. These are better topics for face-to-face conversation rather than batting them around here, especialy when I am one of the few whose identity is known on here, or, whose identity is at least know to me.
You may leave me a Private Message, here, identify yourself and perhaps we can talk. That goes for you, bewildered, or anyone else who wants to talk things over. I am also "in the book" if you want to give me a call. (We do not answer the phone for unidentified callers).
It's your dime, as they say.
Regards Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by bewlidered on Aug 30, 2011 19:46:16 GMT -5
Truth be told, at the BOE mtg I was not in possession of all the details and particulars that I included in my posting. After the mtg I checked into the facts that I ultimately posted. During the meeting while I was tempted to speak out, I did not do so as I did not want to 'mis-speak.' Nevertheless, when I voted "yes" for the budget, I did so because, among many other reasons, I was positively influenced by the decision for the administrators to take a salary freeze. Now I feel as if that is not exactly what has come to pass.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 31, 2011 7:42:49 GMT -5
Thanks for that response.
This is a difficult issue in the sense that the administrative salary freeze was real. Only, it did not work, because two of the top three administrators bailed out, resigned, creating a leadership void that had to be filled, and placing the district at risk of losing the third of the top three administrators, although there was not any 'threat' articulated that I am aware of.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, was the herky-jerky actions and reactions of the Board, caused mostly by the "300-pound gorilla" beating its chest over four teacher layoffs, which decision was reversed, and over sports reductions.
Teachers, the sports program, our administrators, each of the board members are all valuable. Wantagh has issues with how it addresses thorny fiscal issues, and with how it reacts to and treats people. We seem to want it all, we sound like we demand to have our cake and eat it too. And, anyone whose ox gets gored in the name of saving money seems to feel free to run down or run over the BoE with amazingly little respect or decorum.
This coming year may be very good for Seaford, next door, if they can sell that vacant school and shore up their finances. Wantagh does not have a vacant school to sell, and we will be up against it in the coming budget round. The board cannot succeed, fiscally or leadership-wise, in my opinion, with head-fakes and reverse-field running and grand-standing as it appeared was the case during the last budget cycle.
Who is actually going to run this district for us taxpayers this school year? The "300-Pound Gorilla"? The Sports lobby? Disaffected arts aficiondos? Or the Board of Education whom we elected to provide fiscal leadership?
Pondering this could tend to leave any person 'bewildered'!
Regards
Chris Wendt
|
|