From the BCCT. This is a bit of a sticky wicket, eh? No one wants contract negotiations to take place in the bright lights of public scrutiny. That's most definitely a time where quiet negotiations should take place without the nonsense of public posturing that public officials are prone to.
We also need to trust the negotiators to do the right thing. Here's where the Morrisville board would fail the test. Public trust in the Emperor and his board of chosen accomplices is falling to new lows each time one of them opens their mouth. Will and can the Bristol Borough board do better? Time will tell.
Let's be fair though. Teaching is not a part time job despite the nine month calendar.
Teaching is not for the faint-hearted: Would you want to be locked away with your children and 30 of their friends for most of the day, trying to make the time productive? Yeah...Didn't think so.
Teaching is not for the uneducated. The bachelors degree they first bring to the job is only the start. There's the masters courses, and for some, the doctorate. Do you want the village idiot to teach our children? Yeah...Didn't think so on that one either.
The rate of inflation is pretty steep too. I'm pretty sure at year's end, you'll be expecting a raise from the boss. It's only "fair", right? You put in your time. And the benefits? They're fair too! Gimme my hospitalization and prescription coverage. Gimme, gimme, gimme. And gimme more.
It's fair to question how and why the taxpayers should be involved in the process. After all, we do foot the bill. Aren't the elected board members supposed to be the taxpayer representatives though? At least part time, while they are education advocates the rest of the time. (Well, in Morrisville, they're taxpayers advocates 100% of the time, but I digress.) Do company shareholders sit in on employee performance reviews and wage negotiations? Yet they foot the bill, too.
It's just like any other election oriented activity. It's not perfect and it most certainly isn't foolproof or pretty. The only time we get to have our say is behind the curtain on Election Day.
Talking in the dark
Contract negotiations could benefit from openness.
Bristol Borough residents received encouraging news this week when we reported that the school board made a ‘fair offer’ to teachers. If so, teachers might swiftly agree to a new contract (the old one expires Aug. 31), which would ensure the school year won’t be disrupted by any sort of labor strife.
On second thought, we’re not really sure how encouraging the news is because we don’t know what the school board offered the teachers. Maybe it’s a “fair offer;” maybe it isn’t. We’re not really sure since the school board won’t elaborate on the offer. And that’s the problem with the way school boards handle contract negotiations. It’s all a big secret.
That means taxpayers are shut out of the process — until it’s time to pay the bill, of course. That’s a fact of life in Pennsylvania. Teachers make demands. School boards respond with offers. Taxpayers sitting on the sideline are obligated to cover the cost — whatever it is.
In the minds of some people, that’s not the way it should be.
Since taxpayers are footing the bill, they argue, taxpayers ought to get a say along the way. This could hasten fair offers and also reasonable demands because neither side will want to appear unrealistic or selfish in the light of public scrutiny. And whatever eventually is agreed to won’t come as a costly surprise to taxpayers. Sounds like an idea well worth exploring.
By the way, negotiators will meet again Tuesday — behind closed doors.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Coercion in Morrisville: Another unilateral decision
From the BCCT
Coercion in Morrisville: Another unilateral decision
The Morrisville School District is conducting a re-registration for its existing students in an effort to identify and remove nonresidents from our schools and lessen the tax burden. While I appreciate the idea, I am concerned with how this is being handled by the school board.
The largest concern I have with the re-registration, besides the hassle itself, is regarding the use of volunteers for the re-registration process and their handling of confidential personal information. According to the 2006 Identity Theft Survey Report published in November 2007 by the Federal Trade Commission, 8.3 million people had fallen victim of identity theft. While we would all like to trust our neighbors — and I do sincerely thank them for volunteering their time — we also must not be naive to the risks of giving out personal information.
When my wife contacted school Superintendent Elizabeth Yonson with our concerns, she was told that this was a decision made by the school board and that her recommendation was to come in during daytime hours when district employees would be available to handle the re-registration process. If this were a board decision then I would expect that a motion would have been made and voted on; to my knowledge no such vote occurred.
Instead we are being coerced to comply with the re-registration, at the whim of select board members, because, according to the article in the Courier Times and the public notice on the district’s Web site, “class schedules and assignments will not be sent until your student is re-registered.”
This appears to be the latest in a string of unilateral decisions by board President Bill Hellmann, and it needs to stop. Re-registration should only be handled by district employees and the school board must begin to follow due process.
Peter Eisengrein Morrisville
Coercion in Morrisville: Another unilateral decision
The Morrisville School District is conducting a re-registration for its existing students in an effort to identify and remove nonresidents from our schools and lessen the tax burden. While I appreciate the idea, I am concerned with how this is being handled by the school board.
The largest concern I have with the re-registration, besides the hassle itself, is regarding the use of volunteers for the re-registration process and their handling of confidential personal information. According to the 2006 Identity Theft Survey Report published in November 2007 by the Federal Trade Commission, 8.3 million people had fallen victim of identity theft. While we would all like to trust our neighbors — and I do sincerely thank them for volunteering their time — we also must not be naive to the risks of giving out personal information.
When my wife contacted school Superintendent Elizabeth Yonson with our concerns, she was told that this was a decision made by the school board and that her recommendation was to come in during daytime hours when district employees would be available to handle the re-registration process. If this were a board decision then I would expect that a motion would have been made and voted on; to my knowledge no such vote occurred.
Instead we are being coerced to comply with the re-registration, at the whim of select board members, because, according to the article in the Courier Times and the public notice on the district’s Web site, “class schedules and assignments will not be sent until your student is re-registered.”
This appears to be the latest in a string of unilateral decisions by board President Bill Hellmann, and it needs to stop. Re-registration should only be handled by district employees and the school board must begin to follow due process.
Peter Eisengrein Morrisville
Reassesment, Act I, and Taxes
From the Wilkes Barre Times Leader
Reassessment won’t affect state’s Act 1 tax cut
Gambling revenue will be doled out to Pennsylvania’s school districts based on their economic situations.
By Mark Guydish, Education Reporter, August 10
Amid the confusion and tumult of countywide property reassessment, one question has repeatedly bubbled up: Does it affect Act 1, the 2006 state law that promised to use money from legalized gambling to lower property taxes for homeowners?
Alternatively, some have asked if Act 1 affects reassessment.
The short answer to both is no.
Act 1 property tax relief is doled out as a specific dollar amount to each district, and that amount is determined first and foremost by the amount of money available from gambling revenue. The state has projected there will be as much as $1 billion available a year, but that amount likely won’t be reached until all licensed casinos are open.
The law required a minimum amount of money ($500 million, when first enacted) to be available before any could be spent on tax relief, which is why no one saw a penny in property tax savings until this coming school year, even though the law was signed in 2006. This is the first year the minimum was reached.
Now that enough money is available, the state is using a complex formula to determine how much each school district receives.
In a nutshell, the formula looks at a district’s wealth and tax rates in relation to other districts to determine which districts need more money to level the playing field. That is, a district with booming economic growth is apt to get less Act 1 money than one with declining population and high unemployment.
The district, in turn, distributes its share of the money equally to all eligible homeowners. To be eligible, you had to fill out an application and be approved by the county. Your tax bill and your assessed property value are irrelevant. If you’re eligible and live in a $10,000 hovel, you get as much knocked off your tax bill as the eligible rich guy in a million-dollar mansion.
That will hold true after reassessment. The amount you get will depend on how much money your school district gets from the state, and how many property owners are eligible for the tax exemption.
Act 1 only applies to school district taxes. The property taxes you pay to the county and your municipality are not affected.
One more thing that seems to cause confusion: Reassessment cannot affect your school taxes this autumn.
That’s because school districts budget on a fiscal year that runs July 1 through June 30. If reassessment is done on schedule, the values won’t be certified until November, long after school district property tax bills have been prepared and sent. New reassessed values can’t be used for school district budgets until next year.
Reassessment won’t affect state’s Act 1 tax cut
Gambling revenue will be doled out to Pennsylvania’s school districts based on their economic situations.
By Mark Guydish, Education Reporter, August 10
Amid the confusion and tumult of countywide property reassessment, one question has repeatedly bubbled up: Does it affect Act 1, the 2006 state law that promised to use money from legalized gambling to lower property taxes for homeowners?
Alternatively, some have asked if Act 1 affects reassessment.
The short answer to both is no.
Act 1 property tax relief is doled out as a specific dollar amount to each district, and that amount is determined first and foremost by the amount of money available from gambling revenue. The state has projected there will be as much as $1 billion available a year, but that amount likely won’t be reached until all licensed casinos are open.
The law required a minimum amount of money ($500 million, when first enacted) to be available before any could be spent on tax relief, which is why no one saw a penny in property tax savings until this coming school year, even though the law was signed in 2006. This is the first year the minimum was reached.
Now that enough money is available, the state is using a complex formula to determine how much each school district receives.
In a nutshell, the formula looks at a district’s wealth and tax rates in relation to other districts to determine which districts need more money to level the playing field. That is, a district with booming economic growth is apt to get less Act 1 money than one with declining population and high unemployment.
The district, in turn, distributes its share of the money equally to all eligible homeowners. To be eligible, you had to fill out an application and be approved by the county. Your tax bill and your assessed property value are irrelevant. If you’re eligible and live in a $10,000 hovel, you get as much knocked off your tax bill as the eligible rich guy in a million-dollar mansion.
That will hold true after reassessment. The amount you get will depend on how much money your school district gets from the state, and how many property owners are eligible for the tax exemption.
Act 1 only applies to school district taxes. The property taxes you pay to the county and your municipality are not affected.
One more thing that seems to cause confusion: Reassessment cannot affect your school taxes this autumn.
That’s because school districts budget on a fiscal year that runs July 1 through June 30. If reassessment is done on schedule, the values won’t be certified until November, long after school district property tax bills have been prepared and sent. New reassessed values can’t be used for school district budgets until next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)