Term Limits?
Submitted by kfwadmin on Mon, 08/23/2010 - 9:26pmKent Fiscal Watch is interested to know what we think of setting term limits for politicians. Below are links to two pieces written by KFW members both for and against. Please take the time to read each and answer the poll at the right side of the page. Thanks!
Kent financial statement for 2009 - another big surplus!
Submitted by cnarbey on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 10:08pmYesterday, the Town Accountant posted the 2009 Annual Financial Report on the Finance page of the Town website.
This report was filed with the NY State Comptroller's Department on April 30, so it is another black mark for the Town Board's transparency that this report has remained "buried" until now. Of course, it is another black mark for the
taxpayers of Kent, who did not ask for this report (until I did last Friday) -
evidently we are so rich that we don't give a hoot about how our Town taxes are spent!
Anyway, the Town reported a $672,000 aggregate excess of taxes and other
revenues collected over what it spent. Just in case you don't get it, that's
$672,000 more taxes than the Town needed to operate for the year.
As with the $1+ million surpluses generated in 2007 and 2008, this little gem has been tucked away into the nest egg. Total fund balances were $3.5 million at the end of 2009, so the Town's financial condition is even stronger than before.
This report to the NYS Comptroller always varies from the audited financial
statements and I have never spent the time trying to figure the differences. I
will report more fully when the audited statement is available - if the Town
drags its reporting as it has in the past, that won't be 'til November.
The General Fund (pays for all expenditures of the Town except for Highway,
Capital projects and the Special Districts) had an excess of revenues over
expenditures for the year of $949,079 - pretty heavy overtaxation. Revenues
were $202,000 more than Budget and expenditures were $747,000 less than Budget.
Surprisingly, real estate tax revenue was $298,000 more than Budget (but see the Highway Fund remarks below). I haven't done any analysis of expenses, but I do not see the $250,000 payment to the Kent Manor developer, so I wonder where that is hidden.
The Highway Fund had a deficit (more expenses than revenues) for the year of $315,451. Interestingly, real estate tax revenue for Highway was $309,000 less than Budget - must have some co-relation to the over-Budget reported for the General Fund tax revenue (above).
More to come later - watch this space!
Letter to Editor by Richard France
Submitted by kfwadmin on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 9:49am
EDITORIAL
“PUTNAM COUNTY COURIER”
Robert Bondi – a reformer ? In the words of the great Aretha Franklin, “Who’s zoomin’ who ?”
After all of his years as our County Executive, Mr. Bondi is finally getting around to asking his constituents if they “need or want 120 separate taxing districts in their future,” or 9 superintendents of school, or countless other obscenely wasteful policies. “Sacred cows are no more !” he declares so very self-righteously.
Mr. Bondi was County Executive when I moved to Putnam over a dozen years ago. The waste that he is suddenly decrying was plainly evident at that time, and has become increasingly so ever since. Why, then, is he only now addressing it ? Are slogans such as “Politics be damned !” his way of launching a campaign for – God forbid ! – another four ruinous years in office ? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” By re-packaging himself as a reformer, is Mr. Bondi seeking to fool us yet again ? If so, then he is clearly a believer in P. T. Barnum’s maxim: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
There’s a “serious demeanor” among our elected officials. Is Mr. Bondi implying that, prior to the recent economic crisis, the ever-increasing waste of our tax dollars that he now wants to curtail with all the changes he is suddenly (and suspiciously) proposing was acceptable to him – and, by extension, to our representatives in Albany ?
Those 9 school superintendents whom he seems to have just become aware of cost us approximately $1,000,000 each per year (when you factor in their staffs, offices, vehicles, and so on and so forth). By finally acting responsibly and dividing the county into two districts – Putnam East and Putnam West – 7 of these fiefdoms could – and, indeed, should – be eliminated. That alone would result in an annual savings to our overly-burdened tax-payers of at least $6,000,000.
The Board of Education for the City of New York has identified some 525 teachers who are so egregiously incompetent and/or corrupt that they have been removed from their classrooms. But because of the stranglehold of tenure and the teachers’ union, these people continue to receive their salaries and benefits for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And thanks to the cowardice of their elected officials, who refuse to stand up to the teachers’ union, the tax-payers of New York City shell out nearly $50,000,000 per year just to keep these people in their rubber rooms.
In addition to the $6,000,000 savings by eliminating these excess superintendents, how many more millions of our tax dollars are being squandered on incompetent and/or corrupt teachers and staff members here in Putnam County ?
Mr. Bondi and his opportunistic but do-nothing side-kick, Gregory Ball, want to know “what the grassroots level is thinking.” To Mr. Bondi, I answer: “Get thee gone !” You only come down to Putnam from your farm up-state a (very) few days each week as it is, and only then to sign papers – which is all the authority you have left. We, the people who have been saddled with your bloated salary (plus perks, plus pension, plus, plus, plus) and reckless policies deserve a damned sight more responsible County Executive than we’ve had in you.
And to Senator Leibell, for whom I voted, and Assemblyman Ball, whose demagogic tactics sicken me, I issue a challenge: Turn Mr. Bondi’s (stated) goal of “a new system of governance” into a reality. Stand up to the special interest groups by eliminating the staggering waste of our tax dollars: consolidate those 120 taxing districts into an efficient and manageable number; eliminate those 7 needless superintendents of school; introduce legislation in Albany that holds every teacher and administrator responsible for their behavior for the duration of their careers; and make the many other “wholesale changes” that Mr. Bondi insists are “staring us straight in the face” – by which I assume he includes the two of you as well as those of us whose votes are responsible for the offices that you currently hold, and may seek to hold in the future.
No more excuses. No more passing the buck. We elected you to defend our interests, not to use as gullible stepping-stones that further your personal ambitions.
Finally, to the Tea Party, I say: Focus your new-found political muscle on holding Albany’s feet to the fire until the people we send there either stand with their constituents (instead of the special interest groups who’ve been lining their pockets) – or stand down as our elected officials.
Dr. Richard France
Lake Carmel
Letter to the Editor
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 9:47am
Dear Editor,
I am a subscriber and regular reader, a resident of the Town of Kent,and a founding member of Kent Fiscal Watch.
I read with interest and sad amusement Ms. Panny's article in the July 15th edition about the Kent Town Board in which she quotes Supervisor Doherty lamenting the lack of public attendance at the workshops and meetings. It is precisely due to Ms. Doherty's policies that the meetings are no longer attended.
(1) She has effectively removed the ability of public participation with her own rules that delay public comments on agenda items until they have no impact on the Board members (purportedly there to represent us) and comment is strictly limited to agenda items.
(2) Citizens are not permitted to establish agenda items.
(3) The meetings are scripted in advance, meaning that the method of developing the script (prior agreement) is in violation of the Open Meetings Law of NY State.
(4) The meetings are conducted in legalese rather than spoken English...the Town Attorney and other highly compensated individuals are always present to answer any questions that may arise on the rare occasions of the workshops.
(5) The workshops are supposed to be the crucible for regulations that follow in the meetings...in other words, where mattters are developed for a final vote. Ms. Doherty has removed the cameras from these workshops so that any public broadcast will be free of disagreement, giving her and her team the appearance of a "professional" demeanor. Apparently the Team Doherty pols don't know that democracy is messy.
(6) Since 2009 or earlier, when a contract was confirmed with Verizon, our town has had the franchised right to a public TV channel for FIOS customers (like Channel 8 on Comcast) for which this Supervisor has refused to take the appropriate actions, leaving FIOS customers without a public access voice and under-informed.
The only remedy to this silencing of dissent would be term limits. This is a discussion we have yet to have, as it will never make it unto the agenda of the Town Board. For those who wish to discuss it, come to a Kent Fiscal Watch meeting (Thursday, July 22nd, 8:00PM at the Lake Carmel Community
Center) or submit your opinions to our website, www.kentfiscalwatch.org
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Mitchell
CCSD Special Budget Meeting for Tuesday, April 6
Submitted by kfwadmin on Fri, 03/26/2010 - 2:14pmIn today's issue of the Schoolhouse News:
The Board of Education has scheduled a Special Budget Meeting for Tuesday, April 6 in the Carmel High School Library at 7:30 p.m.
Also, as of today, there's quite a lot of info regarding the proposed budget in various pdfs on the district's website. The documents can be found here.
So far as we can tell, the only place this meeting is announced is in the Schoolhouse News. I certainly can't find information about it on the District's website.
Carmel Central School District Board March 9, 2010 Board Meeting
Submitted by JDKJJK on Wed, 03/10/2010 - 1:02pmI attended last night’s meeting of the Carmel Central School Board. On the agenda was the third in a series of presentations on the proposed 2010/11 school budget. The meeting was taped and will be broadcast on the local Comcast channel. However, I have provided a summary of last nights meeting for those who may not get a chance to view the broadcast.
Attendance at last night’s meeting, as well as the meeting held on March 2nd, was very impressive. There were very few vacant seats.
Also impressive was number of public comments, unlike previous board meetings there were at least 10 individuals who made comments before the board.
The majority of the comments were from parents who were justifiably concerned about the proposed reductions and the proposed realignment of
Several of the comments seemed to indicate a desire to retain the status quo and there was concern addressed about the elimination of Teacher’s Assistant positions and a Guidance Counselor.
There was also concern addressed about the elimination of certain programs, which from the speaker’s comments and Assistant Superintendant Irvin’s response, indicated that these programs were implemented to help reduce the number of students who, in the future, may require more costly Special Education intervention.
Mr. Irvin agreed that he still believed that these programs were indeed useful for achieving cost avoidance in the future. However, the proposed cuts were necessary based upon the current financial pressure facing the community and that with this in mind the Board could not look at possible future potential savings.
While I applaud the Board’s decisions on reducing overall costs, I must admit I was not satisfied with Mr. Irvin’s comments. If the programs slated for elimination substantially reduce the District’s long-term costs then I believe it should be possible to quantify future savings. If the Board cannot quantify substantial future savings from these programs then the Board’s decision to eliminate these programs correct.
As to the other comments, while a majority of the parents voiced their support for the Teacher’s there was a palpable frustration at the means and methods utilized to determine where the and how the proposed cuts were made.
One speaker, who by his initial comments, I originally perceived as opposed to the budget cuts. However, in a later interaction with Board member Steve Port this same individual demonstrated his frustration at the fact that teacher’s were not held to performance standards.
Several speakers raised the lack of accountability for schoolteachers and while no names were mentioned, there was a general feeling that certain individuals should not be teaching.
Along these same lines, there were questions about the methodology employed for the reduction of staff. Assistant Superintendant Irvin explained the seniority system, and he informed the audience that the current tenure system is covered under NYS Education Law.
Another Speaker voiced her concerns about the proposed cuts and she stated that she believed that the Board should be looking at alternatives such as consolidating back office operations.
There was also one speaker, who defended the teachers. However, she also voiced her opinion that the Board should be looking at negotiating a wage freeze for the Administrative staff and the Teachers. She believed that the Teachers would be amenable to a wage freeze if it meant saving jobs.
In response to the proposal for a consolidation of back office operations, I informed the audience that the authority to consolidate back office operations rests entirely with the School Board. I further explained that under the current rules the Board would have to approach another District and negotiate a consolidation of back office operations. I also informed the audience that Assemblywoman Galef has a legislative proposal to empower the local BOCES with authority to determine administrative consolidations.
Board member
Finally, as to the issue of a wage freeze, I have consistently proposed this to the School Board at both meetings and via emails. I believe prior to the beginning of the current school year I sent Superintendant Ryan an email and asked him if had approached the Teachers Association and requested to renegotiate the terms of the current agreement. I did receive a response frpm Superintendant Ryan. Superintendant Ryan stated that the Board was looking at all possible measures to reduce costs. However, I never did receive an answer as to whether the Board ever formally requested that the Teacher’s Association reopen negotiations. The Board was equally silent on this issue last night.
Jim Kirk
Additional Link for State and Local Information
Submitted by JDKJJK on Sat, 01/16/2010 - 2:16amWhile seethroughNY.net is a valuable link, the following link provides additional information on NY State municipal contracts. I have also provided a link to Arbitration decisions and Fact-Finding results (e.g. teachers decisions (second link)).
Just one note of caution the Contract link appears to have a glitch that generates a warning asking if you wish the scripts to stop running as they may cause your computer to become unresponsive. I have clicked yes and the page I was seeking became available without any additional problems. If you are uncomfortable with receiving the error message, do not proceed with the connection. If attempts to close the website through clicking the "X" box are unsuccessful you can end the program by pressing Alt+Control+Delete simultaneously, which will start your computer's Task Manager. You can then utilize Task Manager to end the program.
The second link appears to work without difficulty.
Jim Kirk
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbcontracts/
