The Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District Board of Education proposed a $133 million budget for the 2012-13 school year.
Key points
- The district is anticipating eliminating six administrative positions, eight teaching positions, three permanent subs, late buses for the high schools and will be shrinking extracurricular activities.
- It is estimated that the cost per student for the district is $20,158 per head.
- The CHSD will be getting approximately $16.76 million in state aid – a 4.8 percent decrease from the 2011-12 school year.
- The school district is proposing a 1.3 percent increase to the budget for the 2012-13 school year, which should stand at about $133 million.
- About $2 million in cuts had to be made to keep the budget below the tax levy cap.
Board seats
Board seats in all four districts that make up the CHSD are up for grabs.
Merrick has five people running for three seats. Incumbent Susan Schwartz belongs to the CHSD board and is running for her seat again. Dr. Nancy Kaplan, also an incumbent, will be seeking re-election. Dr. Pamela Banks, Eric Streznec and Sigal Negrin will be running against the incumbents. It is 'at large' voting.
In North Bellmore, the incumbents are Grace Cramsie and Joe Perrone. Nina Lanci, former president of the CHSD board, Marc Berkowitz, Peter Mayo and Greg Bashaw will challenge them for their seats.
Neil Brown and Steve Enella are running unopposed for seats in the North Merrick School District. Neither Brown nor Enella sit on the CHSD board.
Where to vote
Please report to your elementary schools to vote. Hours and polling places should be available on all of the district websites.
For more information, see the school website.
What is interesting is that in BMCHSD a budget has not failed even once in over 20 years. That signals to unions and administration they can keep their budgets high and school boards have to fight little. The fast that the Strait-Regal claims that a limit of 3.8 percent increases for the next ten years will destroy the district when other districts who spend more or have more programs spend less are getting by on 2 percent increases or less, should be a sign that our unions need to come to the table and renegotiate. A wage freeze that does not include a step increase freeze is not enough. How many secretaries are there for the admin? How many duplicative positions are there between directors and asst superintendents? Is there a list of all positions and what their day-to-day jobs entails? I think many would have similar or exact descriptions. I am not talking about teachers, but just administration. Principals like Blum, Harrington and Seinfeld seem to do most of the real admin work anyways cut overpaid salary types and give the work to them. save costs and keep it personalized for parents.
1. Repeating the same misinformation - that pensions are negotiated by the district - does not make it true. Yes, you are correct that pensions are taxpayer-funded. "Hence, please explain why the union members require the taxpayers to fund their pensions along with taxpayers having to fund their own personal pensions?" - This is not required by union members, it is part of state law. Teachers and other public employees have pensions. Other taxpayers fund retirement accounts such as 401ks or IRAs, but not pensions. Public employees contribute to their pensions (albeit not a great amount). 401k contributions are often matched up to a percentage by employers. Teachers do not have this option - instead, the "match" comes at the end of their carer in the form of a pension. You can believe that it is too generous, but to claim that "union members require the taxpayers to fund their pensions" is hateful and inaccurate. Your comments reek of jealousy.
"please explain why the union members need the taxpayers to fund their health care and wage increases." Since teachers and all public union members are paid with public funds (i.e., by the taxpayers), it would logically follow that all raises and benefits would also be paid by the taxpayers. In essence, your comments show that you believe public union workers should never receive any raises. If you think for a second, you would realize that this would not be a wise idea. There would be zero incentive for anyone to go into a profession with no chance for raises. No one would ever go into public service. My guess is that you would be ok with this because you want to pay less taxes. Thankfully, for society's sake, most people disagree. I would love to engage in an intelligent and logical debate. I hope that your responses are not simply filled with vitriol.
Wow, I can't help but laugh at this comment.
However, when you resort to name calling and potentially libelous statements just because someone disagrees with you, then, you truly demonstrate that your reasoning skills are severely limited. As planned, the incumbants will be cast out and, hopefully, one day, unions will have gone away.
Can you please show me where I engaged in "name calling?" Where are my "potentially libelous statements?" "you truly demonstrate that your reasoning skills are severely limited. " This is what you have done. Ask any neutral party. "they should try to change the laws to exempt the taxpayers from the liability of having to pay their pensions." - So you want an employee to actively seek to diminish his/her retirement benefits? Again, where is the logic in this?
"TKK --9:03 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012 What is disappointing is the hatred, jealousy, misinformation and outright ignorance of the opinions expressed on this board. Secondly, This statement reverts to name calling.
Public employees contribute to their pensions (albeit not a great amount). 401k contributions are often matched up to a percentage by employers. Teachers do not have this option - instead, the "match" comes at the end of their carer in the form of a pension. So, you state teachers have no other option but to accept the "match" at the end of their career? Are the teachers being held at force to receive these "matches"? Oh, so laughable! The world is laughing at you. Another quote from you: would love to engage in an intelligent and logical debate. I hope that your responses are not simply filled with vitriol. Seems like you are the angry one here who is spewing out hatred. People in the private sector have been either laid off, had their salaries cut or they are about to lose their homes. Have you not read the newspapers? These are not stellar economic times. Teachers should expect nothing until the economy clears up and, by the way, teachers and union member salaries should be capped. The teachers are earning upward of six figures and so are the union workers. COLA raises, at best, for those folks. Sanitation workers are earning 120,000 plus overtime. www.seethroughny.net -- I check the salaries and I conduct my research and base my information on fact, not anger.
However, most of these comments are complaints about people who have things that many other people don't, such as pensions and good benefits (jealousy); misinformation and ignorance is seen in statements such as that pensions are negotiated by districts or that the principals do most of the administration work, and that other admin. is not needed. Have any of you ever tried running a school??? Regardless, please respond to points I have made with logical and coherent arguments, or ignore them if you cannot or choose not to make counterpoints.
Unfortunately, your opinions are so liberal, you have been blinded and cannot see the forest for the trees. You have revealed yourself as an administrator, teacher or union employee who is disgruntled and angry that you can no longer be living off the fat of the taxpayers funding. Sorry, I will not be responding to any of your delusional posts. Case closed. I win.
Also as I said pensions are set by the state by law, but can you please cite your source which states they cannot renegotiate to contribute more? Because it was my understanding when I contacted the State Regents office this morning that among other questions I had unions can negotiate to contribute more than the required amount.
I agree that many people in the community feel the way the posters do. All I said is that the majority of the people (at least the majority of those who vote) feel differently, because the budget passes. Regarding the late buses and other cuts. I understand that maybe community members will be frustrated and vote no, but all that would mean is that more services would have to be cut. So I don't see how that would serve the interests of those who are upset with some services already being cut. Regarding contributions to pensions, I didn't say that teachers are not allowed to contribute more. I just fail to understand why any working person would voluntarily lower his/her take-home income? Would you? How can we expect other people to do what we ourselves would (probably) not do?
In response to the community if you follow percentage passage it has been decreasing in percentage points each year. This year was 51 percent passage that is the lowest in five years and it has been consistently declining. So those who vote's view is changing. Yes more services would be cut but it sends a message to board members who have not had a failed budget in over 20 years that they must negotiate tougher with union teachers. It says the first things to be cut should be administrative pay and instructional. The failed budget says not enough has been done to prepare an acceptable budget. It should be reworked. That is the same reason a tax cap was instituted and evaluation system with higher value in ratings. It is to force severe cuts in services because contracts cannot be altwred to arouse the majority to respond to the contracts and blame teachers for failed budgets and obscene costs in taxes. Well getting into the pension contribution, first would I personally? No but then again I am not in a public service job. It is a service to the community it is based on taxing the community. So yes I should be there to help others. Also where it has been done it is usually an exchange for a different benefit