Following last night's marathon All-Star Game in the Bronx, attention shifts crosstown to Queens, where Shea Stadium will be hosting the Piano Man for two concerts.
What does this have to do with education? Nothing, other than to show what can be accomplished with eager students, dedicated teachers, and a great community.
Tell me you didn't think that was awesome!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
How Do you Make an Emperor Talk?
Answer: By the book
OK. It's not anywhere near the standard criteria for a joke, but thanks to the emailer who sent this link to the public records access board policy. It even has the handy-dandy request form attached. We can lift up the rock that the Emperor seems to like to hide under.
I came across the following, which brought to mind some interesting questions.
http://www.mv.org/files/70807/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206704%20APPR%203-29-06.pdf
Public records policy
“The Board recognizes that individual Board members have no right greater than that of the general public to obtain public information from the District. The possibility exists that a Board member may need information for research that is not relevant to current Board business. Understanding that Board members must respect the time constraints of District staff, the information will be distributed to the Board member within three (3) business days. All other Board members will be notified of the request and distribution and may request that copies be provided to then entire Board.”
It seems that, from time to time, Mr. Hellmann has gathered information and the rest of the board is not aware that he has done so. Is it possible that the administrative office is not, or has been directed to not, provide the rest of the board with notification when he requests public information under this policy?
Further, I read the following:
“All audio and video tapes of public Board meetings will be destroyed in August each year, prior to the start of the next academic year, upon approval of the minutes for the last Board meeting in the previous academic year.”
I was unaware of this portion of the policy. I can understand the need to conserve storage space by not having volumes of audio and video. However, I would think that, as part of the public record, these should be kept for a minimum of 7 years. Further, with today’s technology, they could easily be digitized and stored on the districts computer storage for little or no cost (as well as be available for distribution at no cost). Has anyone considered this? Is anyone concerned with the loss of nuanced public records that have not been fully transcribed ?
OK. It's not anywhere near the standard criteria for a joke, but thanks to the emailer who sent this link to the public records access board policy. It even has the handy-dandy request form attached. We can lift up the rock that the Emperor seems to like to hide under.
I came across the following, which brought to mind some interesting questions.
http://www.mv.org/files/70807/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206704%20APPR%203-29-06.pdf
Public records policy
“The Board recognizes that individual Board members have no right greater than that of the general public to obtain public information from the District. The possibility exists that a Board member may need information for research that is not relevant to current Board business. Understanding that Board members must respect the time constraints of District staff, the information will be distributed to the Board member within three (3) business days. All other Board members will be notified of the request and distribution and may request that copies be provided to then entire Board.”
It seems that, from time to time, Mr. Hellmann has gathered information and the rest of the board is not aware that he has done so. Is it possible that the administrative office is not, or has been directed to not, provide the rest of the board with notification when he requests public information under this policy?
Further, I read the following:
“All audio and video tapes of public Board meetings will be destroyed in August each year, prior to the start of the next academic year, upon approval of the minutes for the last Board meeting in the previous academic year.”
I was unaware of this portion of the policy. I can understand the need to conserve storage space by not having volumes of audio and video. However, I would think that, as part of the public record, these should be kept for a minimum of 7 years. Further, with today’s technology, they could easily be digitized and stored on the districts computer storage for little or no cost (as well as be available for distribution at no cost). Has anyone considered this? Is anyone concerned with the loss of nuanced public records that have not been fully transcribed ?
Special Meeting Recap
It seems like things were Morrisville-style quiet last night. Does anyone else want to chime in?
To all readers of the blog,
During the public comment portion of the special school board meeting, a particularly vocal board supporter decided to not address his comments to us but rather to turn towards those he disagreed with (myself included) and address us. I found this disappointing and infuriating since none of the comments I made during my three minutes addressed him or board supporters, only the board and Mr. Hellmann. I interrupted his public comments to insist that he address the board, not us.
He didn't like this, and neither did a woman who thought video-taping my displeasure might have a shaming or calming effect. It had neither. I gave her video camera the DeNiro "two fingers from my eyes to yours" hoping she'd stop filming me. This didn't happen. I flipped her the middle finger.
Unfortunately, this was seen by one of the board members who publicly chastised me.
I'm sorry if my behavior embarrassed anyone who would consider me friend. I crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed. I'm sorry.
I'm not sure how I'll respond when someone decides to videotape me without my permission but I won't do that again.
John Ceneviva Jr.
To all readers of the blog,
During the public comment portion of the special school board meeting, a particularly vocal board supporter decided to not address his comments to us but rather to turn towards those he disagreed with (myself included) and address us. I found this disappointing and infuriating since none of the comments I made during my three minutes addressed him or board supporters, only the board and Mr. Hellmann. I interrupted his public comments to insist that he address the board, not us.
He didn't like this, and neither did a woman who thought video-taping my displeasure might have a shaming or calming effect. It had neither. I gave her video camera the DeNiro "two fingers from my eyes to yours" hoping she'd stop filming me. This didn't happen. I flipped her the middle finger.
Unfortunately, this was seen by one of the board members who publicly chastised me.
I'm sorry if my behavior embarrassed anyone who would consider me friend. I crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed. I'm sorry.
I'm not sure how I'll respond when someone decides to videotape me without my permission but I won't do that again.
John Ceneviva Jr.
Rendell vetoes bans on real-estate tax appeals
From the Inquirer
Rendell vetoes bans on real-estate tax appeals
By Anthony R. Wood Posted on Tue, Jul. 15, 2008
Inquirer Staff Writer
Two bills that school officials say would have meant tax increases and millions in lost revenue in their districts were vetoed yesterday by Gov. Rendell.
Rendell said in his veto message that he wanted to see a major change in state law that would force counties to reassess real estate more frequently.
Under current law, counties have to assess all real estate parcels at the same time, and are forbidden from raising values on individual properties except in the cases of new homes or significant renovations.
However, a little-known provision gives school districts - the beneficiaries of most of the property-tax money - and towns the option of appealing individual assessments that they view as too low. The House and Senate bills that Rendell vetoed would have ended that practice.
Some tax experts argue that the practice is unconstitutional because it essentially allows schools and towns the right to engage in selective "spot assessments."
School officials counter that when property owners are underassessed - especially owners of pricey commercial real estate - homeowners end up subsidizing them. Since counties can go decades without reassessments, the inequities persist for decades as well.
"We don't have a remedy if we can't appeal," said Raymond Wendolowski, a solicitor for the Wilkes-Barre School District, which recently gained about $21 million in a settlement with the Mohegan Sun casino.
In a memo he sent to Rendell asking the governor to veto the bills, he pointed out that Luzerne County had not reassessed in more than 40 years.
Daniel C. Rudderow, a consultant with Keystone Realty Advisers in Haddonfield, which has lobbied against the bills, proposed that the bills could be amended to protect homeowners from spot assessments.
It is not known how many districts have used the "reverse appeal" option, but several in the Philadelphia area have. They include the Springfield Township district in Delaware County, which recently won a major increase after it filed appeals on stores in Springfield Mall.
In his veto message, Rendell noted that the reverse appeal was immensely popular in Schuylkill County, where more than 3,000 appeals have been filed in the last three years.
Rendell said the real problem was a law that allows counties to wait indefinitely between politically unpopular reassessments. He challenged the legislature to come up with a "long-term solution to this problem - the passage of legislation that would compel regular assessments."
Rendell vetoes bans on real-estate tax appeals
By Anthony R. Wood Posted on Tue, Jul. 15, 2008
Inquirer Staff Writer
Two bills that school officials say would have meant tax increases and millions in lost revenue in their districts were vetoed yesterday by Gov. Rendell.
Rendell said in his veto message that he wanted to see a major change in state law that would force counties to reassess real estate more frequently.
Under current law, counties have to assess all real estate parcels at the same time, and are forbidden from raising values on individual properties except in the cases of new homes or significant renovations.
However, a little-known provision gives school districts - the beneficiaries of most of the property-tax money - and towns the option of appealing individual assessments that they view as too low. The House and Senate bills that Rendell vetoed would have ended that practice.
Some tax experts argue that the practice is unconstitutional because it essentially allows schools and towns the right to engage in selective "spot assessments."
School officials counter that when property owners are underassessed - especially owners of pricey commercial real estate - homeowners end up subsidizing them. Since counties can go decades without reassessments, the inequities persist for decades as well.
"We don't have a remedy if we can't appeal," said Raymond Wendolowski, a solicitor for the Wilkes-Barre School District, which recently gained about $21 million in a settlement with the Mohegan Sun casino.
In a memo he sent to Rendell asking the governor to veto the bills, he pointed out that Luzerne County had not reassessed in more than 40 years.
Daniel C. Rudderow, a consultant with Keystone Realty Advisers in Haddonfield, which has lobbied against the bills, proposed that the bills could be amended to protect homeowners from spot assessments.
It is not known how many districts have used the "reverse appeal" option, but several in the Philadelphia area have. They include the Springfield Township district in Delaware County, which recently won a major increase after it filed appeals on stores in Springfield Mall.
In his veto message, Rendell noted that the reverse appeal was immensely popular in Schuylkill County, where more than 3,000 appeals have been filed in the last three years.
Rendell said the real problem was a law that allows counties to wait indefinitely between politically unpopular reassessments. He challenged the legislature to come up with a "long-term solution to this problem - the passage of legislation that would compel regular assessments."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)