| Author |
Message |
    
snowmom
Citizen
Username: Snowmom
Post Number: 212
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 6:34 pm: | 
|
foff -yes! whoever is in Latz's camp is by definition, not to be voted for.
G. Agress - your points are excellent. A rapid exodous of empty nesters will not serve this community well. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
quote:Current debate suggests to me that the schools arent meeting the second standard; certainly because transparency is a problem...
In the past 2 years the district sponsored "Budget 101". The presentation is linked on the district's website. It's a pdf, and can be downloaded.
The district also posts current and past budgets on its website. They are also pdfs and can be downloaded.
The district is required to hire an independent acctg. firm to audit its budgets. Anybody can get a copy of an audit.
Board meetings are twice a month. The budget cycle begins in earnest in January. During this period, presentations are held outside of BOE meeting times and the public is invited.
The public has had the opportunity to participate in the district's Strategic Planning initiative, going back to June of 2004. During this period, budget information was/is available to the public, for those who chose to participate.
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 807
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
The BOE has presented the outward appearance of transparency, but the reality is somewhat more opaque. When, for instance, did the BOE invite public comment in setting the vague priorities upon which its budget decisions are based? Compare Super H's list from 3 years ago with the December 2004 resolution for an answer.
How many folks in the community received notice that there will be a budget vote tomorrow night. Better yet, how many knew of the $21 million capital spending vote on Feb. 11, and what the projects involved. In that instance the "transparency" was so lacking that Mayor Profetta abstained from voting because neither the BOE or administration had offered such explanation. Find a News-Record story or MOL thread regarding this spending prior to the vote.
The claim of transparency is not equivalent to inclusive government, and one need only recall the secrecy employed by the BOE last year under Ms. Jasey's direction to reinterpret the music policy for an example of the difference between the two. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Tucker-
The tone of your last post reminds me of the people who complained that the reval was clouded in fog, shrouded in mystery.
At some point, people have to take responsibility for paying attention. Every year people complain about the lack of transparency, yet they rarely, if ever, show up to BOE meetings.
There are many avenues with which the board reaches out to the community. The fact that you, the districts biggest critic, show up to every meeting means the communication is there. And, claiming opacity is also another way of saying you didn't hear what you wanted to hear.
The budget priorities and goals were discussed at two consecutive meetings, and even amended, before being approved at the separate meeting. Besides you and me, and a handful of other people, nobody showed-up, much less bothered to speak up.
The bond issue was publicly noticed. It was discussed during at least two regular board meetings. It is also part of the district's 10-year long-range facilities plan that was initially drafted in 2000, and amended in 2003.
These plans identified all of the projects included in the bond issue, and included the schedule of bonding over the ten-year period that will finance the projects. The bond approval is the most recent part of a process that has been going on for five years.
Every single project in the bond issue was approved by the DOE, after being reviewd and publicly approved by the board. The submissions to the DOE included detailed architectrual plans for every project. This was submitted to the state in 2003 and approved last year.
And, once again, information is on the district website. As you also know, board members are accesible. Board meetings are twice a month, more, during the budget cycle. They are also regularly shown on TV.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
P.S.
According to the N-R, Mayor Profeta was the only one of 6 members of BoSE who claimed he didn't have the information he needed to vote on the bonding.
He was even criticized by one of South Orange's BoSE representative, Steve Steglitz, who said that back-up documentation was available prior to the vote, and the Mayor met with Brian O'Leary the week before to discuss the issue.
|
Jon Riecke
Citizen
Username: Jon_riecke
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
The "Closer to the real-deal budget thread" contains a post from February 23 noting that the budget vote is scheduled for March 7. Surely readers of this forum have known about the upcoming vote. At least one PTA has noticed its members, as well as the usual outlets (district website, newspaper). |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 810
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
While I'm the first to admit little public interest in this year's budget process (although I think we'll see a different level of staff interest tonight), I'm not ready to put the blame for that seeming indifference solely on the public. Posting dates and times for meetings may meet one's definition of transparency but it is not the same as actively encouraging public involvement and participation.
On another thread about this year's budget I concluded a post stating, it seems ridiculous discussing the budget situation in a vacuum that does not include educational outcomes. Certainly the case can be made that SOMSD's white students are doing well compared with the District Factor Group that includes most of the districts that spend more per student than we do. The same cannot be said for many of our black students. So the question must be asked. Are their scores on NJ standardized tests the result of our spending per pupil or our spending on programs that do not address their needs?
Yes, I've attended the meetings and read the administration's responses to the BOE questions, but I still do not find the evidence that the programs and services that Super H has recommended we maintain next year at the expense of 40+ staff members and maxing elementary class size have had positive objective results such as narrowing the district's achievement gap.
The program by program analysis has not been performed, and for some of those it has, the results have been challenged as being less than objective.
I look forward to hearing the candidates' views on whether budget priorities should be linked to educational outcomes. Perhaps Mr. Riecke or his candidate Ms. Jasey will provide us with such an opinion. |
Jon Riecke
Citizen
Username: Jon_riecke
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
I certainly wouldn't want to call anyone "my" candidate, nor would I want to provide an "official" viewpoint from any candidate. I'm not James Carville (or Mary Matalin, for that matter)---I can't spin.  I am proud to work on behalf of Ms. Jasey, though.
Personally, I would also like to see more ways that the public could constructively discuss resource and budget issues, which will continue to constrain the district. The PTAs/HSAs and the CBAC have provided such forums in the past.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Tucker-
In the past, when you have questioned the educational outcomes of specific district programs, you have identified Seth Boyden, Project Ahead and the alternative HS as programs that should be eliminated.
You imply and directly assert that the administration has a large number agenda-driven special programs costing lots of money that can be eliminated without replacing them with something else that will also cost money.
Looking at some numbers, let's see what these programs cost.
1. The net cost of the alternative program is about $150,000, maybe less, after putting those kids back into CHS.
2. Seth Boyden busing is about $200,000. If busing were eliminated the district need to redistrict. Two very likely outcomes of this decision would be a very nasty re-districting battle, like Marshall/Jefferson, and the real possibility of NCLB sanctions by returning to neighborhood schools.
With the real costs associated with more remediation/private tutoring, it's doubtful any net savings would be realized, and extra costs could be incurred.
3. Project Ahead is the most costly of "the programs and services that Super H has recommended we maintain next year." It costs about $1.3 million a year. But, even if we adopted the magic bullet programs you cryptically support we cant just simply stop doing Project Ahead because we will still have students who will still need some sort of basic skills and remediation program.
Net savings, without replacing these programs, or factoring in the costs of redistricting, tutoring etc. is about $1.6 million, less than 1/2 of the $3.25 million the district needs to cut.
If you still find their costs objectionable, what will we replace them with? What will be the cost of these replacement programs and will they result in any real net savings?
Another thing you say, which is a distortion of the truth, is that the administration doesn't look towards other alternatives in order to meet district needs, with educational outcomes in mind.
Last year one of the budget analyses proposed eliminating Project Ahead and replacing it with radically reduced K-2 class sizes, either district-wide or in the Title I schools.
Ultimately, the administration concluded that the district couldn't afford it because the elementary schools lacked classroom space, and hiring qualified FTE's would be too expensive.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
P.S.
I find it curious, if not a little hypocritical, to see you criticizing the districts attempts to reduce costs via scheduling efficiencies, and reduced headcount.
This is what you recommend evry year when you release your CBAC reports.
I'm also curioius how you explain your recommendations to the district staff and union leaders who regularly cozy up to you. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 376
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Ahhhhh, yes. . .
It's election time, and the apologists for the bureaucracy are hard at work. Manufacturing excuses and shifting blame right, left and center. Our annual exercise in repetition.
Bring on the usual suspects to say that all is well, all we need is a lot more money to spend on more bureaucrats with higher salaries and bigger bonuses so they won't all move to Millburn, ect.
So, SOM, get ready for higher taxes. Your property taxes have increased at DOUBLE the cost of living for the past fifteen years (the time I have lived here) and show no signs of slowing.
At least, not with the current mentality. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
How did people get educated in the past without spending 86 million dollars? |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 811
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
It's a bit late in this budget season to start debating numbers as the prelim budget passed last night by a 9-0 vote. But, while I certainly do not agree with the numbers used in the above program analysis, should I assume from the silence on educational outcomes that there is some common ground in that area.
From last night's comments, BOE members said, as they have in past years, "next year" we'll look at program effectiveness and prioritize spending based upon a community consensus. We'll see.
In the interim, it's a good question for this year's BOE candidates. And, one can always ask Messrs. O'Leary and Miller and Ms. Jasey why last year's promises to undertake the same approach didn't materialize.
In addition, I think the staff is looking for an explanation of why 40+ more of their members are to be disposed of in a year when administrators received some healthy raises. In this environment, will SOMEA be looking for less?
On a personal note - I'd like to know from Mr. Arensburg how the Livingston Teachers Union would react to this BOE decision process. Of course the outcomes there are somewhat different, but the fiscal discipline created by S1701 is the same. So, what programs are being cut or did the union agree to let the staff and class size bear the brunt of the budget reductions? |
mjc
Citizen
Username: Mjc
Post Number: 333
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
lumpy, I've wondered about that, too. What do you see that we could simplify or eliminate, when you look at education in "the old days?" (This is a serious question, not rhetorical. I'd like to know what anyone thinks of. Seems to me a lot of accretion takes place - programs and policies are added, but not so often subtracted, so that over time more and more stuff accumulates. Maybe a whole new look at the system, "zero-based" if you will, would help.)
Here are a couple of things I though of that have changed in schools since I was there, 40-50 years ago. 
Books, pencils, pens, paper have to have been much less expensive than computers/TVs and the associated software, supplies, wiring, lab space, support staff. The "durable" stuff we did have (projectors, typewriters) didn't become obsolete and have to be replaced as often as modern tech stuff. Didn't even have copiers, other than little mimeograph machines.
Fewer services were expected from the schools, including that people with more than minor physical or mental difficulties simply weren't served at all.
Where I lived, hardly anyone rode a bus, other than public buses.
I don't see how we can avoid the technology costs (though hopefully the district will learn to use what we have effectively).
A social decision has been made that young people with disabilities will not be relegated to attics and institutions. Whether school district budgets that depend on local taxes are the best way of funding some of the related services is a good question, I think.
There has to be a lot of other stuff - what? |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
quote:In addition, I think the staff is looking for an explanation of why 40+ more of their members are to be disposed of in a year when administrators received some healthy raises. In this environment, will SOMEA be looking for less?
Wrong!
ASCA received the same raises that SOMEA received in their contract of 3 years ago 5.5% in the first year. They received this raise for the '04/05' school year.
The aggregate central office raise was 5.2%, with most people getting 3% and four getting significantly more to bring them to market rate and to compensate for increased duties, over a 12 month/year contract.
In the additional years of the contract ASCA receives 2.5%, which is .51% below CAP, in 05'/06', when headcount is reduced. (BTW, did you notice administrative costs per student declined for the second year in a row?)
In addition, both contracts use the same methodology. The percentage of the total contract, 5.5%, represents the increase over the aggregate amount the bargaining unit received the year before, spread over the salary guide.
With step increases and, in the case of SOMEA, movement across the columns of the guide, many people received personal raises above this amount.
Looking at the SOMEA contract many teachers received raises in excess of 20% this year. With all the show of support that custodial services received last night, did you hear anyone offering to give them back last night?
So, Tucker, in addition to spreading disinformation are you suggesting SOMEA accept 2.5% increases over the term of their contract?
How do you explain this to your SOMEA buddies?
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
quote:It's a bit late in this budget season to start debating numbers as the prelim budget passed last night by a 9-0 vote. But, while I certainly do not agree with the numbers used in the above program analysis, should I assume from the silence on educational outcomes that there is some common ground in that area.
1) Since you brought up your favorite targets, once again, without further analysis, at the 11th hour, your post deserved a response.
2) I'm not happy when any student doesn't meet their potential. I wouldn't be teaching if I didn't believe all students can show growth. It's naive to believe that this growth is wqual for all students.
As stated before, the achievement gap isn't unique to our district. Compared to other districts that have similar demographics, we do as well, and in some areas better than others. No other district has solved the achievement gap, either.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7849
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Wharfrat wrote:
As stated before, the achievement gap isn't unique to our district. Compared to other districts that have similar demographics, we do as well, and in some areas better than others. No other district has solved the achievement gap, either.
Wharf, examples please? } |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 813
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Find the administrator with the 5.2% increase. Yes, I know that the merit pay was rolled into the 2004-05 salaries - and is thus baked into all future pay levels. I also know that repeated requests both here and through OPRA have failed to result in the breakdown of salary and merit pay levels by employee. When the BOE is ready to provide that (before the election?) we can have a more informed discussion about real levels of increase.
As to the ASCA increases, Mr. Frazer has already admitted that the school level administrators' 3 year contract was front-end loaded to circumvent the provisions of S1701. Since the SOMEA salary increase assumption in the 05-06 budget has not been disclosed, we do not know how much has been built in by the administration for the teachers. The question is whether the staff will accept less than the administrators, especially after another 40+ have just been disposed of. I'm guessing SOMEA would be happy to take a 5% per annum increase, but I'm also guessing that it is not the amount built into the budget.
Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 8:37 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its 18 October the BOE approved salary increases for central office and ASCA members. The first number is the 03-04 salary followed by the 04-05.
----------------
Gerald Archibald
District Network Manager
$74,880 $80,983
Patricia Barker
Director of Planning &
Assessment
$103,812 $120,000
Manjit Basra
Data Analyst
$84,324 $91,196
Ellen Bass
Legal Counsel
$98,000 $120,000
James Corino
Assistant Superintendent Administration
$125,000 $139,500
Thomas Cunningham
Director of Transportation
& Custodial Services
$69,628 ?
Peter Daquila
Assistant Business Manager
$85,000 $87,550
Marilyn Davenport
Assistant Superintendent
Grades K-8
$135,130 $146,143
Peter Horoschak
Superintendent
$160,264 $185,000
Pat Johnson
Director of Food Services
$65,000 $66,950
Judith Levy
Communications Coordinator
$58,959 $63,764
James Memoli
Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum & Instruction
$135,940 $149,019
Karla Milanette
School Business Administrator/
Board Secretary
$123,187 $139,500
Diane Pazkkowski
Director of ETTC
$98,549 $101,505
ASCA
Angelica Allen
Marshall Principal
$97,116 $106,827
Kim Beane
K-8 Supervisor LA
$87,704 $96,579
Candice Beattys
9-12 Supervisor Math
$107,618 $114,559
Frank Bender
Alternative Program
$86,798
Pat Browne
Tuscan Principal
$118,696 $126,376
Maryrose Caulfield-Sloan
Jefferson Principal
$100,354 $110,273
David Curtin
Athletic Director CHS
$84,941 $93,768
Angelo DeMattia (retiring December)
District Chair Math
$109,118 $116,809
Maria Eppolite
Director of Spec. Ed.
$87,704 $101,408
Cindy Esperson
Director of Guidance K-12
$111,155 $118,324
Kris Harrison
MMS Principal
$97,116 $114,858
Michael Healy
Assistant Principal CHS
$114,438 $121,819
James Jennings
Assistant Principal SOMS
$81,736 $90,446
Alan Levin
District Chair Science
$110,618 $117,809
Lovie Lilly
Assistant Principal CHS
$114,438 $121,819
Janice McGowan
Assistant Principal CHS
$92,046 $101,527
Marge Mingin
Director IRC/LMS/TV
$114,742 $122,264
Renee Pollack
CHS Principal $131,004 $139,454
Thomas Porto
Director World Languages
$107,618 $114,559
Chris Preston
K-8 Supervisor Soc. St.
$87,704 $96,579
Bill Rhinehart (retiring December)
Clinton Principal
$115,196 $122,626
Ella Rideau
Assistant Principal SOMS
$98,752 $108,407
Nick Santoro
Director Fine Arts
$107,618 $114,559
Donna Ship
Principal - South Mountain
$106,827
Kirk Smith
SOMS Principal
$123,858 $131,847
John Veninger
Seth Boyden Principal
$80,236 $93,044
Karla Wiggins
Assistant Principal MMS
$84,822 $94,232
Dean Witty
Director Phys. Ed/Health
$84,679 $93,361
Robert Young
District Chair/ English
$109,618 $116,809
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 814
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
The basic issue -
The district's achievement gap was first documented in November of 1997. Super H arrived in March/April 1998. Have the programs he and his BOE supporters initiated in the ensuing years narrowed the gap? Where is the program by program analysis to demonstrate that effectiveness?
Brian O'Leary and Mila Jasey have served on the BOE throughout this period. What have they to say about the success (or failure) of the programs they have voted, the money they've spent and the administrators they've hired? |
Concerned07040
Citizen
Username: Concerned07040
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
When discussing salaries of administrators, it's relevant to keep the following in mind [and this is coming from a non-mathematically minded person]
the higher your base pay, the greater your increase.
There are no teachers with base salaries over $80,000. There are many teachers who are in the $35-40,000 range. Therefore, their raises, no matter what the percentage, will be lower than those received by Central Office staff.
I'm glad someone has admitted the merit pay was front-loaded into the ASCA contract. However, was there ever a public accounting of how much merit pay was received? AND...what did the recipients do to deserve it in the first place???
Concerned07040 |
common sense
Citizen
Username: Common_sense
Post Number: 43
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
I will guarantee you that although we say pay was front loaded, similar raises will occur every year becuase they will assume that we forgot that pay was front loaded.
PS - theses are good salaries +long vacations and good benefits - anyone out there in privatae getting these kind of pay raises ? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 95
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
I dare say that the 40+ layed off personnel are far more important to our children then the bloated adminstators who huff and puff and spout double talk management speak but can never quantify any achievements.
The fact is that the schools are in far worse shape today then they were in 2000. All the rationalization and excuses and finger pointing and glad handing cannot change that fact. We are in a tough situation monetarily with all the NCLB and other governmental requirements but we are also in a self made crisis due to horrible decisions made in past years that continue to bog us down and force undesirable decisions to be made. Our administrators, our leadership, has failed to lead. The curve is all down. Where are the accomplishments? When can we expect that our money will not be washed away on high salaried administators that do not pull their weight no matter how many hours they pour into their jobs. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5767
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
I learned that the teachers will be getting the same percentage or higher raises than the administrators. Actually, I'm not sure about the higher, but I know they are not lower in percentage increase. |
Redheadgirl
Citizen
Username: Redheadgirl
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
John Veninger
Seth Boyden Principal
$80,236 $93,044
Why is the principal of the crown jewel elementary school getting paid the least among the principals. What is up with that? Seth Boyden PTA, why aren't you up in arms about this? |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Redheadgirl, are you serious or just another pot-stirrer? John, great principal that he is, has only been a principal for a year and a half. I imagine that makes him the least experienced and therefore the least paid.
And what is this nonsense about "crown jewel"? If you want to describe SB as a school that's been turned around when it was on the fast track to total segregation and abject failure, then yes, I'd agree. There are no crown jewels in this district but in every building there are people who work hard to make the schools great for the kids. John is one of them and we're very happy to have him.
Cathy |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Fringe-
While singling out SOMA, you fail, or intentionmally neglect to state that all districts negotiating contracts in the last calendar year front loaded their agreements in order to circumvent 1701 provisions. You know this was done in order to provide larger budgets going forward in order to deal with 1701's unrealistic caps.
You are also comparing apples and oranges. The ASCA raise, 5.5%, you are complaining about is for 04-05, which is the same 5.5% that SOMEA is getting in the final year, 04/05, of their contract. Also, remember that ASCA members worked for two years under the provisions of their old contract. They recieved raises in those two years much less than what they received this year. If you want to play the numbers game and average out their raises over the last three years, they received much less than 5.5% per annum, over this three year period.
Next year, ASCA gets 2.5%. If you are suggesting that SOMEA gets a salary increase parity in the first year of their new contract, then you are suggesting they receive a 2.5% increase, with the expectation that they will do much more work, over a longer school year. |
Redheadgirl
Citizen
Username: Redheadgirl
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Touchy, touchy, Cathy. No I wasn't trying to stir the pot. What I hear from a lot of people is how great Seth B is especially compared to how it was years ago. That's what I meant by crown jewel. That's not to slight the other elem schools. I didn't know that John Veninger is new and inexperienced, accounting for his low salary. I was just reacting to the fact that the principal of a much-heralded school is getting paid significantly less than everyone else!
Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. All you naysayers out there, put your time where your mouth is. Go run for the board yourself if you don't like what the schools and the board are doing. Or move to Livingston! I heard they have nice test scores there. (and ugly houses.)
I have never seen a bigger bunch of chicken littles in my life. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3417
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Speaking for yourself apparently... |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Livingston is nice enough for wharfy to work there instead of CHS, ugly houses and all. |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 75
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
"all districts negotiating contracts in the last calendar year front loaded their agreements in order to circumvent 1701 provisions"
That doesn't make it good policy.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page