The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
Do not vote for KidsFirst!
Do not vote for KF until they answer satisfactorily the following questions:
1. What actions were taken to identify and eliminate the ILLEGAL students and how many were found? (12 is not the answer!)
2. THERE is NO TAX decrease for the taxpayers this year! Why? The BoE tax levy this year is only $3,000 less than last year! Please don't respond by saying that the state cut funds!
3. What concessions were negotiated with the custodian union? What is the outcome?
4. What did the BoE do to decrease the almost $30,000 per student? (hint: bringing illegal students as it was done in the past, is totally unacceptable!)
5. All board members should disclose to the public all members of their family employed by the school district. If there is such a conflict of interest, they should explain why they want to be on the BoE.
It is appalling to me that we trusted KF to do the right thing for the taxpayers, and 1 year later they managed to cut not more than 3 thousand dollars! Last year HobokenRevolt mobilized a great deal of members to sit out in the cold to convince the taxpayers to vote for KF! I believe that is the Revolt' steering committee responsibility to hold KF accountable!
It is time to stop deceiving the public!
1. What actions were taken to identify and eliminate the ILLEGAL students and how many were found? (12 is not the answer!)
2. THERE is NO TAX decrease for the taxpayers this year! Why? The BoE tax levy this year is only $3,000 less than last year! Please don't respond by saying that the state cut funds!
3. What concessions were negotiated with the custodian union? What is the outcome?
4. What did the BoE do to decrease the almost $30,000 per student? (hint: bringing illegal students as it was done in the past, is totally unacceptable!)
5. All board members should disclose to the public all members of their family employed by the school district. If there is such a conflict of interest, they should explain why they want to be on the BoE.
It is appalling to me that we trusted KF to do the right thing for the taxpayers, and 1 year later they managed to cut not more than 3 thousand dollars! Last year HobokenRevolt mobilized a great deal of members to sit out in the cold to convince the taxpayers to vote for KF! I believe that is the Revolt' steering committee responsibility to hold KF accountable!
It is time to stop deceiving the public!
Views: 7
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kathy L. Mallow on -
I.S.,
Since you post under a moniker & don't choose to reveal your name here.... I recall you chose not to respond to the ? I posed elsewhere awhile back, regarding your status as a Hoboken resident.
Hoboken being the rumor mill it is, the scuttlebutt on who you might be is someone who bought low, sold high & no longer lives in town. Perhaps you're still a taxpayer here. Are you? Perhaps you have a child in the public school system. Do you? If one or both of those scenarios, then I'd suggest you're more than welcome to weigh in. If neither are the case, I might wonder why you're still so interested in Hoboken....-?
Incognito Smith said:Sven and Scott,
I totally disagree with both of you. How about basing it on COST PER EMPLOYEE instead of cost per pupil? We all know that the Hoboken school children are definitely not getting $30K worth of education. We do know, however, that the close to 800 employees of the district are going home with salaries and benefits that amount to close to the $60 million we are spending on those employees. It’s really the employees where we are spending the funds and not the students.
Sven said:scott m siegel said:The only real way to reduce the per pupil cost would be to close the charter schools and place them in the public schools. Not gonna happen.
Scott, arguing about cost per pupil is a fallacy. If that was really the main goal, all KidsFirst would have to do is continue what has been done in the past, namely allow more out-of-town students to enroll in Hoboken schools (or worse yet, actively recruit them). While such an approach would spread the existing fixed costs over a larger student base, thus lowering the cost per pupil, at the same time the total budget would go up, leading to an increase in the tax levy.
Cost per pupil is merely a manifestation of the efficiency (or lack thereof) of a school district, but it should not be misconstrued as the target to be used in optimizing the operations. Once the administrative side of the school district is right-sized, the cost per pupil will correct automatically.
-
Permalink Reply by NiceGuyEddie on -
In response to 2 points that have been brought up - out of district students and the way to reduce costs:
I think a simple way to control out of district students showing up is to have a mandatory parent-teach (or administrator, we certainly have enough) meeting in the first week of the semester where the parent has to provide proof of residency (such as a drivers license) and sign an affidavit stating they actually live there. While I'm sure some people will fake their way through this, it should be enough of a deterrent to stop a lot of families from doing this. Then, you don't hire a detective to investigate every student, but you do some random sampling. This should be cost effective and a good detterrent.
Secondly, in response to a previous poster stating that "slash and burn" is not a good way to cut costs, I have a lot of experience helping companies through restructurings, and let me say that "slow and steady" will do nothing but prolong the status quo. By all means, make careful evaluations of where cuts can be made, but at the end of the day, you are much better off to cut deep at one time, and get back to an efficient core of people, than to nibble at the edges. Nibbling will reduce the cost savings benefits, prolongs the adjustment period of the organization to become efficient again, and promotes fear and distrust within the organization. Finally, this is a plan that should be created by the superintendent, since he/she will have to implement it, and not the board, who is not familiar enough with day-to-day operations. Make it the central purpose of the super, and then get out of the way.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
I'm very disturbed by what I'm seeing these days at BOE and council meetings. 20+ years of the costs associated with corruption can't possibly be eliminated overnight or even in a few months. I'm not a "player" in local politics, but I sense 2 very disturbing things going on. 1) the developer community is intent on getting the "business as usual" types back in office - whether it be BOE or CC and 2) Hard right repubs are doing their best (perhaps unwittingly) to assist the criminal/corrupt element in re-establishing their control by splitting the non-corrupt vote and scaring off part of the "big reform tent" that secured the KF win and CC majority.
I don't attend meetings (I watch them) and I am very disturbed by the the character attacks that are taking place at meetings of late. I hope that the rest of the community views these attacks as true demonstrations of the charactor of the individuals maligning, not only elected officials (but in the case of CC meetings) active citizens. That is the only way that the honest people who currently hold elected office will remain in a position to untangle the "mess" that currently is Hoboken.
-
Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on -
Eddie, I like your idea on deterring the out-of-town kids. I think it is actionable and not very costly.
Regarding the best approach of cost cuts- in business reorganization, you probably aren't dealing with unionized employees. With the BoE, we are. A "slash & burn" approach would be counter productive, as we would have to give all sorts of severance packages, but the big fear is that of multi-million dollar lawsuits. I'm not advocating "nibbling" in the cuts, I agree, big cuts must be made. But they must be done in a manner that avoids extra costs, and are focused on areas that are least disruptive to the education the children receive. The kids can't sit out a year while the school reorganizes and adjusts to cuts.
I agree with your thoughts that the Super needs to be involved and be on board with the BoE plan. I would argue it's probably the most important job qualification for the next Super. Unfortunately, we can't raise our voices and say "why haven't you made all the cuts we want?" when there isn't a Super on board to help make those cuts. Really, it's an unfair expectation. Nothing against the interim Super, but his job isn't budget cuts. It light of this, any progress KF has made this past year (of which there was plenty) is a strong step forward.
For those reasons, I heartily support the Kid's First members and applaud their efforts. I think that switching allegiances to another slate would be a massive step backwards.
NiceGuyEddie said:In response to 2 points that have been brought up - out of district students and the way to reduce costs:
I think a simple way to control out of district students showing up is to have a mandatory parent-teach (or administrator, we certainly have enough) meeting in the first week of the semester where the parent has to provide proof of residency (such as a drivers license) and sign an affidavit stating they actually live there. While I'm sure some people will fake their way through this, it should be enough of a deterrent to stop a lot of families from doing this. Then, you don't hire a detective to investigate every student, but you do some random sampling. This should be cost effective and a good detterrent.
Secondly, in response to a previous poster stating that "slash and burn" is not a good way to cut costs, I have a lot of experience helping companies through restructurings, and let me say that "slow and steady" will do nothing but prolong the status quo. By all means, make careful evaluations of where cuts can be made, but at the end of the day, you are much better off to cut deep at one time, and get back to an efficient core of people, than to nibble at the edges. Nibbling will reduce the cost savings benefits, prolongs the adjustment period of the organization to become efficient again, and promotes fear and distrust within the organization. Finally, this is a plan that should be created by the superintendent, since he/she will have to implement it, and not the board, who is not familiar enough with day-to-day operations. Make it the central purpose of the super, and then get out of the way.
-
Permalink Reply by georgia on
-
Kathy,
I won't engage in any further debate with you. My position is very clear, and as an ex-supporter, I am pretty upset that KF managed to do pretty much nothing in a whole year. The end results speak for themselves. Why should I waste time to 'offer suggestions' when plenty suggestions and requests were made quite clear to KF prior to the election? I do not know the RealResults people, but in my opinion KF has to go. They had their chance. They are protecting the status quo. I was hopping that Rose Merkle will lead the others in the right direction, but instead, she is protecting her son's job in the Athletic department - is she not?
KF won last year because people were pissed with the 50% tax increase. Remember?
Kathy L. Mallow said:Georgia:
With all due respect, your position seems clear. Though your reasoning seems clouded & some of your allegations false (KF doing back room deals, etc.), IMHO. It seems pretty obvious, you're about posting "Real Reform" speak. That's surely your prerogative. Hoboken's schools, finances, taxes, etc. are very charged issues. From your posts, you're choosing to not offer concrete suggestions, but instead scapegoating folks who I believe have been making good efforts in a very difficult environment.
-
Permalink Reply by georgia on
-
The problem is that people choose to leave the rotten town rather than putting up a fight. That leaves a door open for Raia! And Raia doesn't care about any fiscal responsibility. He may be a good business man, but he will handle our money, not his!
Incognito Smith said:georgia,
Thank you for your clear and unbiased position on the issues relating to the Hoboken public schools district. Let me point out that back in the early 70’s, way before gentrification, the school district was already WASTING taxpayers funds in roughly 700 employees. The students weren’t getting the worth of those dollars as they definitely aren’t getting it today. The small property owners were as they are today paying the price of sustaining the greed of the BOE staff. This school district is typical of the urban districts throughout the state although we have always WASTED more than the rest. The system was created to perpetuate itself and to milk money from the taxpayers and it’s getting worse. We see it right here on this bulletin board when the defenders of the system, some of whom might have hidden interests like getting a job as social workers, teaching jobs, etc., will go out of their way to protect it from those of us that have the guts to speak up on the issues.
georgia said:
However, more $$$ doesn't mean more education in Hoboken. The school system was created to milk money from the 'yuppies'. It will get worse.
-
Permalink Reply by Sven on
-
NiceGuyEddie said:I think a simple way to control out of district students showing up is to have a mandatory parent-teach (or administrator, we certainly have enough) meeting in the first week of the semester where the parent has to provide proof of residency (such as a drivers license) and sign an affidavit stating they actually live there. While I'm sure some people will fake their way through this, it should be enough of a deterrent to stop a lot of families from doing this. Then, you don't hire a detective to investigate every student, but you do some random sampling. This should be cost effective and a good detterrent.
Good points, NGE. Unfortunately, to my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong), KF opted for a letter campaign only, where a letter is sent to the in-town address of the child and the parents are then asked to send the letter back. This of course is no match for those trying to game the system. All one needs is a friend/relative with a legitimate Hoboken address who will then forward the letter to the parents wherever they really live. So the face-to-face meeting with ID in hand would probably work much better.
Also, other school districts are already using private investigators. This really doesn't mean that one has to investigate all pupils. I am sure these investigators have enough experience to "smell the suspicious situations" from miles away.
-
Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on
-
Sven- I said "The only real way to reduce the per pupil cost would be to close the charter schools and place them in the public schools. Not gonna happen. How much would you agree to spend on hiring detectives to find the illegal kids?" I'm against illegal kids. But how will you find them and at what cost? My point was if the charter schools didn't exist and those children went to the public schools our cost per pupil would decline substantially. But, that's not gonna happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Sven on
-
scott m siegel said:Sven- I said "The only real way to reduce the per pupil cost would be to close the charter schools and place them in the public schools. Not gonna happen. How much would you agree to spend on hiring detectives to find the illegal kids?" I'm against illegal kids. But how will you find them and at what cost? My point was if the charter schools didn't exist and those children went to the public schools our cost per pupil would decline substantially. But, that's not gonna happen.
And I am saying that focusing on the per pupil cost is the wrong thing to do. I am suggesting that what matters is the total cost. Looking at the cost per pupil is just a way of seeing whether or not the total cost is justifiable or not, nothing more and nothing less.
-
Permalink Reply by Meatloaf on -
Why are we treading on the fact of cutting tax money from the BOE. There are many other areas of this town that can afford a budget cut to save tax payers money. Why are you not blogging about they way that money is being spent? The education of the students should be the BOE's first order of business. I don't know where you come off thinking that it is their job, in 1 year, to cut the budget by thousands of dollars. In one year it is incredibly hard to make many financial changes. One has to consider all aspects of the public school sytem. And the BOE can't just abolish a section of the education system just to save money. And who is to say that the money that is saved will go right to the tax payers. Wouldn't the city see the money first and do what they want with it?
The BOE was not set up to cut tax money to begin with. They are there to make sure that the money in the system is distributed the right way. They make sure that the kids see the money in the athletics, the arts, school books, teachers etc. Obviously, people who are against this don't have kids in the public schools. If anyone does have their kids in the school system would see that Kids First is heading in the right direction to help make the system better. Most people who live in the city, know which BOE members have family working in the system.
If Real Results really wants tax relief, they should go run for higher city positions and get tax relief from a place that this city could afford. Seriously, $125,000 for a parade, that gave many more people headaches than it was worth.
-
Permalink Reply by Sven on
-
Meatloaf said:Why are we treading on the fact of cutting tax money from the BOE. There are many other areas of this town that can afford a budget cut to save tax payers money. Why are you not blogging about they way that money is being spent? The education of the students should be the BOE's first order of business. I don't know where you come off thinking that it is their job, in 1 year, to cut the budget by thousands of dollars.
Why, you ask. Well, how about because this thread is on KidsFirst and not on "other areas". If you'd like to discuss cuts in other areas, feel free to read those threads.
As for why we are expecting budget cuts from KidsFirst, well, that's one of the things they promised during their election campaign last year. Should we not expect our elected officials to fulfill their election promises?
-
Permalink Reply by georgia on
-
Meatloaf, let me guess:
1. You do not pay property tax in this town.
2. You (or a relative of yours for that matter) have a job in the school district.
'Obviously, people who are against this don't have kids in the public schools.' - What you're doing here it's called fallacy. You make an argument that has no bearing to the problem at hand. Moreover, your arguments are an insult to our intelligence.
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by 
.
