|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 20, 2011 5:05:32 GMT -5
Voters in the Smithtown School District, in an un-American "DO-OVER" vote yesterday, passed a referendum to restore busing, no, actually, to increase busing eligibility for students in that district.
They threw out the $800,000 savings resulting from the original proposition to reduce busing eligibility (increasing mileage), which passed with their budget in May.
So, next month, every, repeat EVERY elementary student (K-5) in Smithtown SD can ride the bus to and from school. Every secondary student who lives more that 1 mile from school gets a bus. But here's the secret to passing this latest re-referendum: Private/religious school transportation eligibility has been extended to 20 miles!
The new referendum passed by MORE THAN 3,500 votes, 4,629 votes to 1,114. That's one big, hairy, angry gorilla they got in Smithtown!
To me, tyranny by the minority. This is a result I predicted in the past...if a school board messes with busing.
When is the State Legislature going to require all spending propositions to be voted on only at the May budget vote and school board election date? When is the State Legislature going to outlaw all "DO-OVER" voting in school districts?
Probably when I move to a state that already has that.
Still chuckling at the mass stupidity, the hysteria in Smithtown.
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 21, 2011 9:15:07 GMT -5
Well, Newsday did an Op-Ed on this decision. In the print edition, they paraphrased my earlier headline as, "Wanting our Cake and Eating it Too" (Page A30, today). Here's their editorial. www.newsday.com/opinion/tough-choices-for-taxpayers-1.3187093Unfortunately they didn't get it quite right. I mean not precisely correct. I was right when I wrote that Smithtown schools will NOT have to cut anything out of their budget to pay for the $800,000 increase in busing costs. But they will have to (just) lower their cash reserves to cover this. Newsday is all a-twitter wondering, needlessly, about what Smithtown will have to take away from 'The Children' to pay for the busing extravaganza. Nuthin' is the answer to that tempest in a teapot. On it. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Sept 21, 2011 11:09:01 GMT -5
This was the most confusing paragraph, from yesterday's Newsday article. Maybe it is my directionality confusion:
"The new rules, which took effect at the beginning of the school year two weeks ago, stripped busing from elementary students who live less than a half-mile from school; extended -- to 11/2 miles from 1 mile -- the distance that middle school and high school students must live from school to get bused, and reduced -- to 15 miles from 20 miles -- the maximum distance that private school students must live from school to receive district busing."
It seems to me that they went from one extreme to another and back again e.g. all elementary kids get bussed, including those who may live across the street from a school? Surely, the referendum could have been worded more clearly too. And, the $800k coming from district cash reserves? I'll go with you there on the stupidity comment. It's a broken system we have.
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Sept 29, 2011 6:31:57 GMT -5
Yesterday, the Smithtown super announced his retirement at the end of the school year.
Seems folks are not unhappy to see him go acc to Newsday comments and there were complaints beyond the school bus situation handling. They are also a bit outraged at paying recruiter fees to find a new one.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 29, 2011 9:45:47 GMT -5
Here is the article, a good read. www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/smithtown-superintendent-stepping-down-1.3207813Some takeaways: - Long-term, bottom-up employment in District - 37 years (since he was 16!)
- Fostered good morale during his 5 years as superintendent
- $219,555 salary after 5 years
- 10,860 Students (3x Wantagh's 3,495 students)
- 2 High Schools, 3 Middle Schools, 9 Elementary Schools
- Gave 9-months notice of his resignation and fully complied with his contract
That is an interesting comparison between Smithtown and Wantagh. Who is actually "eating cake" and whose cake are they eating? Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Sept 29, 2011 11:49:21 GMT -5
I'm confused about your last two sentences. Why is that a comparison to Wantagh and why is it interesting? The changing directionality in the cake saying confused me a few days ago, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 30, 2011 14:37:18 GMT -5
Lilly inquired: "Why is that a comparison to Wantagh", and, "...why is it interesting?" It is a comparison to Wantagh, well, because that's what I compared Smithtown with. It is interesting to me on a couple of levels, hopefully you will find it to be, also. Using data from the NYSED website for 2011-12 we learn the following about Superintendent Compensation and Enrollment in these districts: - District........Super Comp...Enrollment
- Smithtown...$273,541.......10,860 Students
- Wantagh......$275,714.........3,446 Students
- Seaford ......$249,431.........2,568 Students
- Plainedge.....$306,865.........3,474 Students
Compensation includes base salary, benefits, and "other" perks. Consolidated data for Wantagh, Seaford, and Plainedge rolls up to the following total Superintendent Compensation and Enrollment numbers: - District............Super Comp...Enrollment
- Consolidated....$832,010.........9,488 Students (Wantagh+Seaford+Plainedge School Districts)
- Smithtown.......$273,541.......10,860 Students
If you combined Wantagh, Seaford and Plainedge school districts together, you would still have fewer students than Smithtown has, but three times the number and more than three times the cost of the lone Superintendent in Smithtown. "Synergy" essentially refers to duplicative or excess cost which could be eliminated if you did an administrative consolidation (NOT a merger) of the Superintendencies of Wantagh, Seaford, and Plainedge. There is ($582,579) worth of synergy in these numbers among Wantagh, Seaford and Plainedge, meaning, potential savings from eliminating two of the Superintendent positions in those three little districts. Another interesting way to look at this is to ask, why do Wantagh, Seaford and Plainedge school districts each have a superintendent costing a quarter of a MILLION DOLLARS, in round numbers? One possibly interesting answer certainly should be: "This is NUTS!" Interesting? I think so. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by tiredoftaxes on Sept 30, 2011 19:49:43 GMT -5
Chris,
Nice analysis...If you add in all the duplication of services provided by the assistant superindentents as well, I would bet the administrative synergy savings would be dramatically higher....But the good ole boys club for superintendents at the local level would never allow this type of consolidation to occur....
|
|