64.9 F
Rye
Tuesday, August 9, 2022
Home Schools Board of Ed Budget and Candidate Vote Today, Tuesday May 19th

Board of Ed Budget and Candidate Vote Today, Tuesday May 19th

The Board of Education will hold an election on Board of Education candidates and on the 2009-2010 school year budget today, Tuesday, May 19, 2009. The single polling place for this vote is the Rye Middle School gym. The polling place is open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. All Rye City School District residents who are registered are able to vote.

Who are you voting for and why? Leave a comment below.

The Board of Education candidates (for three open spots) are:

The candidates are:

Gwen Hughes

Susan Hendler

Joshua C. Nathan

Christopher E. Repetto

Laura M. Slack

Ray Schmitt

Steven Tuch

9 COMMENTS

  1. Will our society ever get back to an era where teachers are valued and hedge fund managers, stock traders and all the other Great Depression producing jobs are scorned? Judging from the comments on this blog, I doubt it.

  2. Axis of Evil –

    What exactly are you saying? Anyone and everyone who worked in the financial services industry is guilty of producing the “Great Depression”? Everyone who works hard to procure a better lifestyle for themselves and their loved ones should be held to scorn? We should shun the successful? The ideal person is one who does not strive to be the best?
    And do you think we’d be in this mess if teachers took a bit more time with their charges to educate them to the importance of personal responsibility, and not to rely solely on the advice of others when assuming risk?
    You may want to re-examine your logic, and would certainly benefit from some additional education. It is always convenient to pick a scapegoat and blame them for every current misfortune, but in so doing, you sow the seeds of even more misery.

  3. In its “Special Budget and Election Issue” asking taxpayers to vote today, Mr. Nathan provides no discussion of the school board’s litigation with The Osborn. I ask other readers to check this with me because I may be in error but I can’t find anything. I don’t think I’m wrong in stating that this is a material matter involving the taxpayers and the board. Is there really no mention in this “special issue?” Why?

    Here’s what a little Googling turned up on the subject from The Journal News. If these matters are in fact buried in the accounting line items then I have a confidence problem with any and all associated with a report like this.

    “Westchester should learn from Osborn suit

    April 16, 2009.

    Westchester County’s litigation costs are expected to jump to $3 million – seven times what was allocated two years ago. Every taxpayer hopes that every effort is made by both parties (“Westchester fights $150M housing desegregation suit,” Sunday article) to reach a fair settlement through seriously continuing discussions, absent lawyers.

    The Rye city school district has spent more than $8 million in litigation costs since 2001-02 on a tax certiorari lawsuit from The Osborn Homes, only to be condemned to reimburse Osborn $2.7 million in August 2007. Money is still flowing to lawyers and accountants on appeals. Yet the sum at stake is at most a tenth of the county’s $150 million.

    At least the county openly allocates budget money to this lawsuit. By contrast, RCSD never showed any “Osborn Legal” cost in any budget submitted to voters since 2001; the millions only show up 17 months after the vote, in the annual audit, which few voters read. Instead, “Osborn Legal” millions were funded through “Standard Conservative Accounting Margins” hidden in the three largest budget items: salaries, benefits and under-budgeted revenues.

    This stealth funding corrupts the whole budget process. Besides rewarding the superintendent with a whopping 14 percent salary raise to $263,768 ($313,000 including benefits) in the 2008 recession year, the board refuses adamantly to entertain any discussion with Osborn and the City of Rye, which both appear eager for a settlement, as reported by a group of four citizens, including a former mayor.

    The county’s $3 million is only the beginning. Forewarned is forearmed.

    Bertrand de Frondeville

    Rye”

  4. Mr. Ted,

    I believe it is important for you to state that Mr. de Frondeville is supporting the current board, Josh Nathan, Laura Slack and finance committee member (with Mr. deFrondeville) Raymond Schmitt, as well as this year’s budget. This is notable due to Mr. deFrondeville’s standing in the community.
    Although Mr. deFrondeville has been openly critical of this school board’s decisions in the past, as I have, we both know that electing trustees who get their marching orders from the teacher’s union will have a far more negative effect on Rye’s fiscal health.
    This is particularly so with candidates as unqualified as we are offered.
    Stick with this board, which is moving at least in the right direction, and then resume your loyal opposition, if that be the case, at a later time.

  5. Axis, we all respect most RCSD teachers, despite their leaders’ greed, disrespect, and angst about a respect they deny others.

    Tedc: Thank you quoting my letter on the Osborn Tax Cert law suit to JNews in extenso. As noted by nowaynohow, you should have also quoted my Rye Record’s Reader’s Forum on this vote for a budget and 3 trustee positions. I give available details on the latest board offer which any fact lover will find most generous in today’s circumstances, esp. for tenurable jobs at 183 days/year, as well as on the lavish expired contract imprudently granted in better times, most of which remains in force by an unfunded state mandate, as a further disincentive for the union to be more reasonable. I also concluded that, despite disagreements, past and probably future, with Josh Nathan and Laura Slack (even Ray Schmitt on Budget committees), I urged voters not to elect Susan Hendler, C.Repetto, G. Hughes or S. Tuch who support union positions one way or another, on top of various individual deficiencies for the job. Be well!
    Bertrand de Frondeville

  6. Mr. de Frondeville,
    I respect your integrity,honesty,
    and most of all your efforts and your willingness to come to the front line with your name on every word you put out there. Thank You, Your a true Gentleman.

  7. Thank you Jim, it was nice to meet you last night. Now that the good citizens of Rye have clearly spoken, let’s heal the wounds to move forward on some valid issues raised before and during this all too raucous campaign.

    For example, let’s open a channel on the Osborn Tax Certiorari litigation and needed settlement, since Tedc was kind enough to bring it up. As you may know, I am one of the “Fantastic Fours” (Rye Record Robin Jovanovich’s label) who, under judge and former Mayor John Carey, have for a year pressed all 3 parties to
    – (i) drop all current appeals and
    – (ii)get together without lawyers to discuss a possible settlement on a sustainable annual payment in lieu of taxes (P.I.L.O.T.), as was developed under Carey when mayor. We will soon be back in more detail to discuss our travails…
    Be well, bertrand de frondeville

  8. Thank you Mr. de Frondeville. This entire Osborn litigation matter has been a cancer on our community and handled atrociously by the Board from its first salvo.

    The fact that the litigation financial impact is apparently “buried” in the “Special Budget and Election Issue” sent to voters is nothing short of outright deceptive. This litigation is material, has a past, current and future financial impact, and is totally obfuscated in this written widely mailed presentation designed to inform voters. This is outrageous.

    Your partner Mayor Carey will likely recall when the Rye City taxpayers were going to be taxed to fund the construction and annual operation of a senior center/ home on the site of the John B. Rich Nursery on Milton Road – now a non taxpaying soccer field. What didn’t we have to build it? Who ended up providing an alternate solution for our seniors? Who got us off the hook for that whopper of a bill that promised to come year in and year out? And what kind of punishment would be fitting for any entity that dared to do such a thing?

    Long term institutional memory runs thin in communities with high transitory ownership rates and it frequently allows those with predatory municipal litigation “products” – or in this case a tax certiorari ambush strategy – to flourish by exploiting weak, disconnected, constantly changing local leadership. And as we’re learning now, the fees extracted through these “products” are breathtaking and back breaking to the taxpayers who are then told “oh yea and by the way, we’ve signed you up to pay the bills.”

    So “God Speed” Mr. de Frondeville. I hope you and The Judge can put an end to these costly capers. Board of Ed – shame on you.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here