Oley Concerned Citizens

The Oley Concerned Citizens New Blog

2006-10-24T07:45:00.000-05:00

Your new blog is now on-line.

Currently, it has the capability to offer pictures, audio, video, and links of importance to the Oley Valley Taxpayers.

There are other features that will be available in the future.

Click the link to the new blog location:

Oley Concerned Citizens

Don't forget to bookmark the new address:

http://oleyconcernedcitizens.blogspot.com/

The Middle School Lawsuit

2006-10-11T07:11:00.000-05:00

According to a steel contractor, the Oley School District owes them $1,437,309, interest, penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs associated under Pennsylvania Public Prompt Pay Act.
Amthor Steel entered into a contract on May 25, 2001 with the district to provide structural steel for the new Middle School. The amount of the contract was $1,850,200.
The contractor completed work prior to November 29, 2002. The district received and used the product in the Middle School, but refused to pay the remainder of the contract sighting delay costs and violation of the Pennsylvania Steel Purchasing Act.
Official communications about the dispute between the parties began in July 2002.
Amthor Steel filed for arbitration as prescribed by the contract terms on September 20, 2004. Initially, the district participated in arbitration, but then filed a motion in the Court of Common Pleas for a Declaratory Judgment on March 18, 2005.
The Oley Valley School District is requesting the court to have the dispute litigated rather than continuing with arbitration.
The details of this case are available at the County Courthouse.
Since the beginning of this year, the board told the community these records were not public information, yet the court papers were a Public Record on March 18, 2005.
According to comments at a public meeting, the school board appointed a Building Committee to oversee the Middle School construction.
The Committee consisted of three board members, and a person from the community.
However, the school board would direct any final actions.
The financial impact of this battle with the contractor is considerable. Besides the $1,437,309 and associated claim costs, is the reimbursement from the state. The district cannot request reimbursement from the state on school construction costs, which in this situation, may be worth over $1,000,000 until the litigation concludes.
The same dilemma exists with the $1,200,000 in the Capital Projects Fund. The board cannot access this fund until the dispute ends.
The court will decide on the law, but there are administrative questions that need resolution.

1.Why did the district continue to accept and install product from the contractor when they felt it did not meet contract specifications?
2.How did the district get a Certificate of Occupancy if the steel did not meet contract specification?
3.How can the district ask for state reimbursement for the construction if the steel is not meeting contract specification?
4.How much has the district spent so far on legal bills for this litigation?
5.The Capital Projects Fund has $1,200,000 for the dispute, yet the suit is for $$1,437,309, who will pay the difference if the board pays the claim?

At the October 11, 2006 Combined Meeting the board refused to answer these questions.

The Middle School construction process and subsequent contract negotiations deteriorated.
There was poor job oversight by the Building Committee and the Board. If they paid closer attention to the initial steel shipments, the community would probably not be facing a substantial lawsuit.
The decision to leave arbitration in favor of litigation could be an expensive mistake.
Unlike arbitration, we face the possibility of endless and expensive appeals in a courtroom. We are in a legal quagmire.
This board needs to roll up its sleeves and get involved rather than worrying about micro managing.

Oley Valley School Board Winks at Right to Know Law

2006-09-21T09:30:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School District is continuing its plan to prevent the public from participating in the educational process.
Despite the Reading Eagle editorials and the taxpayers carrying signs packing board meetings supporting Free Speech, the school board recently approved a policy to restrict public comment at the regular board meetings.
Speakers are now limited to three minutes, topics to thirty minutes, and statements can be cut off for any reason by the presiding officer.
The anti-public strategy of the school board continues because the Policy Committee, headed by Robert Cappa plans to make access to Public Records prohibitive.
The current fee schedule for copies of Public Records is ten cents per copy. The district wants to charge twenty five cents a copy and an hourly retrieval rate.
A Public Record is already on file with the district in a format of their convenience.

The Pennsylvania Right to Know Law says;

Amending the act of June 21, 1957 (P.L. 390, No. 212), entitled An act requiring certain records of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions and of certain authorities and other agencies performing essential governmental functions, to be open for examination and inspection by citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; authorizing such citizens under certain conditions to make extracts, copies, photographs or photostats of such records; and providing for appeals to the courts of common pleas, further providing for definitions, for examination and inspection and for extracts, copies or photostats; providing for denial of access to public records, for redaction, for response to requests for access and for final agency determinations; further providing for appeal from denial of right; and providing for court costs and attorney fees, for penalty and for immunity.

The political subdivision, in this case the school district may charge “reasonable” copying fees. It can also charge for requests of information put in a format that is different from district in-file records.
But charging an hourly rate for information that should be in the district possession and taxes have already been incurred to create and store that paperwork, appears to be an attempt by the board to skirt the Right to Know Law of Pennsylvania.
At the September 13, 2006 combined board meeting, the citizens discovered the plot to charge exorbitant fees for Public Records.
Dr. Zackon was asked if they planned to charge an hourly rate, he said “No”. But at the September 20, 2006 meeting, he recants by saying “..He does not know” if they plan to charge for labor.
Over $6,000,000 in off-budget funds while the board raises taxes, the school budget, the monthly Treasurer Report depicting activities in these off-budget funds, the teachers’ contract, the Superintendent’s contract, the little known Medical Pool Fund, are just a few the topics the board does not like to discuss with the taxpayers.
These and other areas of interest will not be available because the board plans to make them too expensive for review.
The community has every right to see their Public Records and not to be gouged in the process.
The next Policy Meeting is Monday, October 9, 2006, at 7:00PM in the Administration Building Boardroom.

PSSA Test Scores Fumble the Ball

2006-08-31T19:29:00.000-05:00

The school district sent a letter home to the parents claiming "Good News" for PSSA test results.
This proclamation needs a close look.
The PSSA tests students in Math and Reading proficiency. The grade classifications are Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The scores are expressed as a percentage of students taking the test.
For example, if there are 100 students taking the test, 25 graded Advanced, 25 graded Proficient, 25 graded Basic, and 25 graded Below Basic, then each represents a percentage of students tested. Therefore, 25% were Advanced, 25% were Proficient, 25% Basic, and 25% Below Basic.
Each year the district must improve the test results in the Adequate Yearly Progress report. If the district fails to meet AYP standards, parents have the right to remove their child from the school and the district faces oversight from the state.
By 2014 all students must reach Proficiency.

Year 2002
5th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 42.1 %
Reading: 26.2%
8th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 33.2 %
Reading: 29.2%
11th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 44%
Reading: 33.2%
Year 2006
5th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 32.3% Below Proficient
Reading: 33.6% Below Proficient
8th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 36.2%
Reading: 18.3%
11th Grade: Below Proficient
Math: 51.3%
Reading: 26.9%
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Education

Comparing the years 2002 to 2006, either the Math or the Reading scores are scoring lower in 2006 than they were in 2002.
The 2002 and 2006 11th grade results are very troubling. The district is sending students into the world unprepared to compete for jobs and a higher education.
As this rate, the district needs to make drastic changes to meet the state educational compliance by 2014.
In the same years, the taxpayers spent a total $81,291,356.80 for Oley Valley School District education.

Total Expenditures:
2002 - $17,516,145,96
2003 - $19,821,377.44
2004 - $20,893,683.20
2005- $23,066,150.00
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Education

Millions have been spent on improving education, yet independant test scores are not
reflecting the investment.
This performance is not "Good News". The school board and the superintendent are responsible for these poor results.
In the private sector, they would be replaced.

The Medical Pool Fund

2006-08-18T11:16:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School board recently approved one of the most expensive teacher contracts in Berks County. The package was so attractive that the Wilson School District teachers union used it as a model for their contract negotiations.
Besides the exorbitant pay and benefits given to the union is a below the radar, Medical Pool Fund.
This fund can be described as secretive because is not listed in the yearly budget presented to the public. It is not even shown on the Form 2028 sent to the state.
It can only be found by a through review of district contracts.
This fund is designed to ..reimburse the bargaining unit member for medical expenses for items such as (including but not limited to) prescriptions, eye care office visits, orthodontics, etc., not otherwise paid or reimbursed by insurance. The phase, including but not limited to could lend itself to non-medically related expenses.
In other words, the fund will pay for what the health insurance does not cover up to the yearly rate of reimbursement.
The teacher submits their expenses to the business manager and the money is then drawn from the Medical Pool Fund.
The yearly reimbursement amount per teacher schedule depicted in the agreement is the following:
2005-06: $300
2006-07: $350
2007-08: $400
2008-09: $450
2009-10: $500
If you multiply the number of full time teachers in the district times their rate of reimbursement, the potential expense is enormous.
The Medical Pool Fund is also available to the Superintendent. His yearly schedule is:
Years 1 and 2 of contract - $400
Years 3 and 4 of contract - $500
Years 5 of contract - $600.
The Administrative Positions also have a Medical Pool Fund. The Administrative positions are the High School, the Middle School, the Elementary School Principles, the High School Assistant Principle, the Director of Special Education, the Director of Business and Support Services, and the Elementary School Assistant Principle.
They are reimbursed at a rate of $150 per year and it is cumulative during the length of their contract.
The board indicated at the August 16,2006 that the Medical Pool Fund is available to most of the district personnel.
The district already provides generous wage and benefits.
The Medical Pool Fund is nothing more than gouging the community whose wages and benefits alone pales in comparison to the district's package.
Neither the state nor the federal government mandated this fund. The school board approved this windfall.

The Devil Is In The Details

2006-07-31T12:20:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School Board has been trying to pass a policy, which prevents reasonable public participation at board meetings.
The board has not been getting good press or a favorable civic reaction to their plans to restrict free speech.
They are attempting to sell the idea that the new policy is harmless. This same school board tells the public that a $1,300,000, new synthetic, track will not affect taxes either.
A closer look at sections of the policy suggests it is anything but benign.
Section 7. Hearing of Citizens
The School Board shall establish guidelines to govern public participation in formal School Board meetings necessary to conduct its meeting and to maintain order.
In order to permit fair and orderly expression of public comment, the School Board shall provide reasonable opportunity at each open meeting of the School Board for residents and taxpayers to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation before the School Board prior to official action by the school Board.
"Reasonable" is the operative word. The board asserts that three minutes is enough time to talk about a 200 line item, $25,000,000 budget. It is not enough time and the taxpayers are owed the decency to express their opinions.
The board violated this section at the July 19,2006 meeting, when board President Robert Heckman made a motion to cancel the combined meeting in August. His motion should have been on the agenda for public comment, but it was not.
The board passed his motion and the community had no say in the matter.
The School Board shall require that all public comments added to agenda items be made at the beginning of each formal meeting.
If the board does not put an item on the agenda, then votes on it anyway, how can the public comment?
If the School Board determines there is not sufficient time at a meeting for public comments, the comment period may be deferred to the next regular meeting or to a special meeting occurring before the next regular meeting.
The board should make time at the current meeting to address the public's concerns. Deferring to the future is nothing more than a stalling tactic.
The presiding officer at each public School Board meeting shall follow the School Board Policy for the conduct of public meeting. Where his/her ruling is disputed, it may be overruled by a majority of those School Board members present and voting.
The chance that a board would be so outraged by a presiding officer's decision, that they would overrule his actions is slim to none.
Whenever issues identified by the participant are subject to remediation under policies and procedures of the School Board. They shall be dealt with in accordance with those policies and procedures.
This section is nothing more than a repeat of the new policy content so it is repetitive and verbose.
The School Board requires that public participants be residents or taxpayers of this district or:
1. Anyone representing a group in the community or school district;
2. Any district employee;
3. Any district student.
The board may have a problem with this rule. Any school which accepts federal funds, must be open to the public regardless if they are from the district or not.
A member of the public present at a meeting of the School Board may address the School Board in accordance with the School Board's rules.
Citizens who want to address the School Board must complete a blue card prior to the meeting for an opportunity to speak. The card must state name, address, and topic to be address to the School Board. Those failing to complete a blue card must seek permission from the presiding officer prior to speaking.
This obstacle can be easily abused. It is a process for screening speakers and topics. The First Amendment says nothing about screening public comment.
The public comment/period shall be for up to thirty (30)minutes,
including response from the School Board, as scheduled on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
The Reading Eagle editorial cited a case in Lackawana county where the judge properly ruled that time limitations are against the law.
Presentation of items of interest or concern by an individual citizen or by a group spokesperson(s) shall be limited to three minutes.
This is applicable to a casual comment or one question to the board. It certainly is not enough time to discuss a school budget or the board's effort to shut down public input.
If there is remaining time within the allocated thirty minutes additional speakers shall be recognized.
If the board does not want to hear what you had to say in three minutes, why would they extend the time?
Minutes may not be donated to other speakers.
This rule contradicts the US Congress's policy during their sessions. If the sharing of time is good enough for the Congress, why is it not good enough for the Oley Valley School Board?
If interest and conditions warrant, the presiding officer may extend the time period allocated for each topic.
If you do not bore the board, they will let you proceed. On the other hand, if you are considered a "diatribe" or "Fidel Castro", you shall be seated or removed.
If a participant reads a prepared statement in order to facilitate discussion a copy of the prepared statement may be presented to each School Board member, Superintendent, Solicitor, and Board Secretary prior to the individual reading the prepared statement. If copies are not available, district personnel will make copies prior to allowing the individual to speak.
This is another petty attempt to place an obstacle in front of citizens trying to address the board.
After a participant orally presents his or her statements or questions,
the presiding: officer reserves the right to do the following:
· Place the matter in its proper place on the agenda
. Request that the participant raise the issue before a committee of the school board or an ad hoc committee of the school board to raise the question administratively.
· Request that the administrative staff study the same and then issue a report at a future meeting:.
· Direct the matter be placed on the agenda of some future meeting:.
· Table the concern indefinitely, if decided it does not require immediate consideration.
· Deny the request.
· Direct that a member of the Administrative Team or another appropriate individual respond to the request at the meeting or at some future meeting.
· Take other action the presiding: officer feels necessary.
Translated...it is the circular can the board intends to use for public comment.
All statements. inquires or comments shall be directed to the presiding
officer; no participant may address or question Board members individually, administrative team members individually, school employees,
or members of the public individually.
Of course, if a school board member decides, for example, to verbally attack or intimidate a speaker, there is no protection for that citizen.
The Presiding: Officer may:
. Interrupt or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too lengthy. personally directed, abusive, obscene, defamatory, or irrelevant.
This is very subjective and subject to exploitation by a partisan presiding officer.
We have witnessed the lack of objectivity and caring by Mr. Cappa.
. Request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not observe reasonable decorum.
· Request the assistance of law enforcement officers in the removal of a disorderly person when the person's conduct interferes with the orderly process of the meeting
.Call for a recess or an adjustment to another time when the lack of public decorum so interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
A potpourri of choices the board can use to keep you silent instead of answering questions.
This maze of new regulations is not designed to make you feel welcomed at the school board meetings.
This policy was meant to have a first reading on July 19,2006. There was no reading because there was no discussion on this matter by the board.
The next policy meeting is Thursday, August 3,2006 at 7:00 PM at the Administration Building boardroom.

School Board Puts Out The Unwelcome Mat

2006-07-20T14:40:00.000-05:00

An empty school board room may be the future of Oley Valley School Board. Although not on the agenda for the public to comment at the July 19, 2006 meeting, the board voted for the second time this summer to cancel a combined meeting, this time for the August schedule.
They canceled the July session in June.
Combined meetings are held prior to the regular school board sessions. They give the public the best opportunity to view and discuss issues that will appear on the agenda prior to the regular meeting. At the regular meeting, the board then votes on those topics.
These cancellations come at a time when the district is changing the public participation policy. The policy committee has been under fire from the community and the press for trying to prevent the citizens from speaking at board meetings.
The committee claims that new speaker restrictions will only be for the regular meetings. However, if the board cancels other sessions, then the community will only have the limited chance to speak at all.
The alleged policy revisions appear about the same as the initial submission. The First Amendment takes a hit with screened topics and speakers, three minutes per speaker,
thirty minutes for public comment on all topics, elimination of sharing time among speakers, presiding officer can terminate public statements at will, and forced removal by law enforcement.
A myriad of regulations for us to follow, and now cancelled meetings, await the taxpayers.
Scarlette Z. Gotwals, one of the three policy committee members adamantly claims the community has more than ample time, place, and opportunity to address the board.
Her and the other board members actions speak louder than their words.

Policy Committee Struggles with Free Speech

2006-07-07T17:01:00.000-05:00

The Policy Committee meeting on July 6, 2006 addressed the public participation revision at school board meetings. This revision has caused such a controversy in the Oley Valley School District that the committee had to reconsider their original proposal to the school board.
The committee President, Robert J. Cappa is pushing hard for drastic changes to the public's right to address the school board. He wants a number of rules added to the current policy that will prevent a person from their constitutional right of free speech.
The policy change will apply only to the community, but not to others who may address the board.
The procedure will limit a speaker to three minutes and a topic to thirty minutes. The presiding officer may terminate the speaker's statement at any time. He can summon law enforcement to implement his decision.
The other policy committee members Christopher M. Hannum, Scarlette Z. Gotwals endorse the basic intent to restrict public input.
An audience member stated that three minutes is not enough time to fully discuss a $25,000,000 budget. Another citizen indicated that if the board put a time limit on a topic, it would violate the Sunshine Law and would be subject to a lawsuit.
None of the people who attended the meeting spoke in favor of the committee's intention to restrict public participation. A number of them questioned the motives of the proposed action, since the previous meeting guidelines have been used successfully for years.
The Policy Committee said they will resubmit the changes to the school board at the July 19,2006 meeting.

Oley Valley School Board Ignores Petitions

2006-06-22T15:47:00.000-05:00

The Oley Valley School Board was presented with 150 petition signatures for a No Tax Increase 2006 Budget on June 14,2006.
The community needed relief from the unrelenting increase in their school property taxes.
The district told the public prior to the June 21, 2006 meeting, they had $5,000,000 sitting in off-budget funds.
With the $5,000,000, the board could have a no tax increase budget without cutting any programs and still be within the state budget guidelines.
Nonetheless, board members Robert A. Heckman, Ralph C. Richard, Barbara M. Bieber, Scarlette Z. Gotwals, Christopher M. Hannum, David M. Maloney, Mary Anne McCarthy approved an increase to 22.50 mills.
Board members Robert J. Cappa and Kerry Madeira were not present to vote.
The increase means homeowners will be paying $2,250 per $100,000 of assessed value, a sixty percent increase since 1999.
The board ignored the requests of petitioners. Instead, they raised taxes for the seventh consecutive year.
According to the financials handed out after the meeting, the district had over $6,000,000 not the $5,000,000 they had indicated in off-budget funds. They raised taxes anyway.
The spending and taxing decisions of the school board are substandard.
The Oley Valley School District choose to spend up to $1,300,000 on a synthetic track. With the discovery of $6,000,000 in off-budget funds, the community wonders what other non-educational expenditure the board has in mind.
The board approved a teacher contract that will give 4.6% salary increases over the next five years, along with near full health benefits.
The board approved a $13,000 one-year pay increase for the superintendent.
The state did not mandate the track, the teacher contract, or the one-year superintendent windfall.
Salaries and benefits constitute a major portion of school budgets.
School boards, such as the Oley Valley School District are spending at such a reckless pace that the state is planning to institute financial controls.
The state is sending a message to the boards to act in a more fiscally responsible manner.
The citizens can have that opportunity in May 2007 with new, taxpayer faces elected to the board.

School Board Member Attacks the Community

2006-05-19T10:39:00.000-05:00

The Oley School Board is under fire for considering a policy change that will inhibit, intimidate, and prevent public participation at board meetings.
The policy puts extraordinary speech limitations and expense on citizens speaking at board meetings.
The author of this anti-First Amendment and anti-Sunshine Law revision is the policy committee. The committee is comprised of Chairman, Robert J. Cappa, Scarlette Z. Gotwals, and Christopher M. Hannum.
At the May 17, 2006 meeting, Mr. Cappa expressed complete contempt for the community when he had his son read a prepared statement. Mr. Cappa did not attend the meeting.
Free speech does not mean you can force others to listen, the statement said. A demonstration of this freedom is when some long-winded person calls you on the phone and you can just hang up. It is why in a closed environment like a school board meeting, the length of repetitious diatribes can be limited.
In other words, get lost Oley Valley citizens.
Mr. Cappa is also the board member who brought a camera to a meeting and filmed speakers. He was asked to cease his intimidating behavior, but he refused.
The meeting agenda called for a first reading and discussion of the policy. There was no reading or discussion.
Perhaps, Mr. Cappa's statment reflects the attitude of the entire board. They have remained silent.

School Board Wants To Trash The First Amendment

2006-05-11T07:45:00.000-05:00

The Oley School Board is considering a policy change regarding public participation at board meetings.
The revision is crafted to screen speakers and topics, limit their presentations, limit topics, and add costs to any citizens wanting to address the board.
This new policy is not designed to increase public participation, but intended to do just the opposite.
Prior to any meeting, the board wants a resident to fill out a card in detail along with the issue the person wants to discuss. The individual will have only three minutes to talk and ask questions. The board will allow only a total of ten minutes per topic. The presenter will have the added expense to supply copies for the nine board members, solicitor, superintendent, and the board secretary.
If a citizen violates any of these rules, he or she will not be allowed to speak or will be cut off during their presentation.
The board is angered by the presence of people asking questions about the 2006 budget and about the new synthetic track.
They have tried to stonewall questions since March regarding these topics.
They are now concocting a policy that will intimidate, prevent, and prohibit citizens from asking any sensitive questions at a public meeting.
This is a clear assault on our First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The Oley School Board intends to trash the First Amendment with their public participation policy and replace it with tyranny and oppression.

House Republicans Surrender to Special Interest Groups

2006-05-04T12:02:00.000-05:00

The House Republicans stalled the vote for property tax relief. They announced a delay on the property-tax rebate plan passed by the Senate and endorsed by Governor Rendell until at least next month.
The Republicans declare" we can do better in the form of a property-tax reform bill"
This is an amusing assertion because the Republicans have been in the majority in Harrisburg for years, yet in all that time, they have done nothing for homeowners.
They are trying to sell the idea that their actions are in the best interests of the taxpayers.
Perhaps, another view of events is that this inaction is due to the lobbying power of the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Pennsylvania School Board Association.
House Bill 39 has a referendum feature which both the teachers and the school board members hate.
Referendums give the public an opportunity to vote on school budgets. The teachers see this as a threat to their salaries, benefits, and guaranteed pensions and the school boards don't want to share power.
In a matter of days, these groups appear to have mustered a campaign of fear in the minds of the politicians if they passed a bill with any spending controls.
The amount lobbying by these special interests against referendums speaks volumes as to the effectiveness mandated controls would have on moderating school property taxes.
We now have a situation where the same politicians who have done nothing all these years are doing what they have done in the past, promising.
Contact your local House representative, and tell them they heard from the people who feed from the trough, now they are going to hear from the taxpayers.
We want property tax relief now, not more promises.
If you don't get a response, you might send a message with your vote in the May primaries.

It All Adds Up

2006-05-03T09:29:00.000-05:00

The district purchases substantial amounts goods and services. In 2005, the Board submitted to the state a plan to spend $5,362,620 for these expenditures.

A significant portion,$3,125,986 is budgeted for services.

Purchased Professional & Technical Services - $506,561

Purchased Property Services - $710,475

Other Purchased Services - $1,908,950

According to the district policy 610 - Purchases Subject To Bid , "It is the policy of the Board to obtain bids for products and services where such bids are required by law or may result monetary savings to the school district."

Goods and services that are cost between $4,000 and $10,000 can be submitted in writing or by telephone.

Records must be kept of the vendors submissions.

According to the Board at a public meeting, they did not bid out the architect's fee of $39,000 for the new synthetic track.

The solicitor and Board President Robert A. Heckman, asserted services are exempt from the bidding process.

Their statements conflict with district Policy 610.

The school board has the fiscal obligation to carefully scrutinize all expenditures regardless of amount because it all can add up to millions of local tax dollars.

The Gold Standard Teacher Contract

2006-04-26T10:22:00.000-05:00

James A. Weaver, President of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, wrote in an article "Let's Push for Salary and Benefits" that teachers are underpaid.

He wants the teacher union bargaining teams to drive wages and benefits higher.

The Oley Valley School District school board members must agree with Mr. Weaver.

They just approved a contract, which has become the gold standard for other teacher unions in the area to emulate.

The highlights of the contract are eye opening.

The five-year agreement will increase teacher salaries by an average 4.6%.

The starting salary will jump from $32,000 to $40,872. The top salary will increase from $70,370 to $80,070.

A family will pay $110 per month for health insurance premiums.

The Medical Pool Fund, which is meant to pay for medical expenses not covered under the health insurance, will grow from $300 to $500 per teacher.

In 2005, the total benefit cost for the instructional staff was $2,600,000. Benefit costs are predicted to rise at a double digit rate.

Tuition reimbursement will rise from $2,200 to $2,800 per teacher.

The teachers also get $50,000 Life Insurance, $50,000 Accidental Death & Dismemberment Benefits, and a 66 2/3% Monthly Salary to $3,000 Long Term Disability Income Benefit.

And what does the community get in return for this agreement?

One additional day work year from 186 to 187 days!

Families are not getting 4.6% yearly, salary increases. They are paying far more for health insurance. Yet, the school board continues to give contracts that are not reflecting conditions in the private sector.

The Board Continues Its Liberalism

2006-04-20T06:35:00.000-05:00

The April 19,2006 board meeting resembled previous board meetings, the spending of more tax dollars, the inability or refusal to answer questions from the public, and an elitist attitude.

Dr. Jeffrey Zackon, the district superintendent, had his usual list of trips he wanted the board to approve. One of these trips will cost the taxpayers $4,000.

The board also voted to approve twenty-one subjects whose class sizes have fifteen students or less. One class has only three students.

Board members, Robert A. Heckman, Ralph C. Richard, Mary Anne McCarthy, Barbara M. Bieber, Robert J. Cappa, Scarlette Z. Gotwals, Kerry Madeira, David M. Maloney voted for the trips and the small class sizes.

Mary Anne McCarthy gave the board's latest spin on the funding for the potential $1,319,000 new, athletic facility. They are no longer saying the track will not affect taxes. Instead, they are saying the funds will not come from the General Fund.

She said the money could be drawn from the Capital Reserve Fund or the Capital Project Fund.

Ms. McCarthy neglects to say that these funds are initially created with tax dollars. The Capital Reserve Fund would be replenished with new tax dollars once the balance is reduced.

The board would go to great lengths and take money from the various funds to pay for an extravagant, non-educational undertaking, yet do nothing for property tax relief.

Several people from the audience asked additional questions.

One was directed to Dr. Jeffery Zackon . He and a number of students took a trip to Spain. The questioner asked him whether he paid for his trip. He responded that the tour company paid for his and the six chaperones. The students paid for their vacation. The private sector realizes nothing is free. We wonder why a tour company would be in business to lose money.

Other questions received half answers, but most received silence from the board.

They appear annoyed they are required to be answerable to the public.

The Board Deliberates Raising Taxes for the 7th Consecutive Year

2006-04-13T13:35:00.000-05:00

The school board was presented revised figures for the 2006 budget at the April 12,2006 meeting.

Dr. Warren Moser, the substitute business manager, said both revenue and expense estimates had changed from the March 21, 2006 presentation.

The bottom line is that the board wants to spend $25,487,030 dollars in 2006-2007. This represents a 1.54 millage increase of 7.18%.

Currently, we pay $2,150 of property taxes for $100,000 of assessed value. The new tax would be $2,304 per $100,000 of assessed value.

This percentage increase is nearly twice the rate of inflation and the state average weekly wage increase.

If approved our millage will have increased over 67% since 1999.

The 7.18% increase does not include the cost of a new synthetic track. When questioned about the omission in his presentation, Dr. Moser said he was only discussing the operational budget and not the track.

The taxpayers then asked the board members how is the board going to pay for the track.

The board refused to answer the question.

This lack of honesty only reinforces concerns that tax dollars will be the main source of revenue for the new construction.

Equally, disturbing, is that Dr. Moser was unable to answer questions about the various off-budget categories called fund balances.

The amount of monies in these balances could have a profound effect on the amount of millage increases.

At the present time, there are three major fund balances of interest to the Oley taxpayers, the General Fund Balance, the Capital Reserve Fund, and the Capital Projects Fund.

After considerable prodding, the district finally gave the current rather than anticipated fund numbers.

The General Fund Balance has $1,800,000, the Capital Reserve Fund has $1,773,000, and the Capital Projects Fund has $1,231,929. The total for the three is $4,804,929.

The district generates approximately $677,000 for each mill of taxes. They are looking at a 1.54 mill increase or $1,042,580 of additional taxes in 2006.

The board knows they have nearly five million dollars of funds available before tax increases, yet they talk about raising taxes for the seventh consecutive year.

A number of the problems with our school board would be resolved, if they had to ask the taxpayers each year for permission to raise taxes over a certain standard.

A referendum would address issues like the size of the teacher salary and benefit package, a superintendent's one year $13,000 pay increase and the grandeur of a new athletic facility.

The Fleecing of The Oley Taxpayers

2006-04-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

The Oley School Board voted to proceed with a new synthetic track. Since March, the school board meetings were filled with taxpayers opposing the potential expenditure of over one million dollars on an expensive boondoggle.

Mary Ann McCarthy pandering to a special interest group, constructed a motion to continue the permitting and bidding process. The board is rushing to complete the construction by the fall. This is in your face vote is typical of a liberal board who has lost contact with the community.

This project does not have the support of the community because only $180,000 has been pledged so far. These paltry numbers prove that the issue needs to be placed on a ballot referendum for the voters to decide the use of their tax dollars.

Mary Anne McCarthy, Robert A. Heckman, Robert J. Cappa, Christopher M. Hannum, Barbara M. Bieber, Kerry Madeira, David M. Maloney, Ralph C. Richard voted for this farce. Scarlette Z. Gotwals did not attend the meeting, but she is a supporter of the synthetic track.

To make matters worse, the board is not even soliciting bids on the least expensive solution to their problem, a cinder/stone track. They insist on purchasing a Mercedes Benz rather than a Chevy.

Board members Ralph C. Richard, Scarlette Z. Gotwals, and Robert A. Heckman still refuse to recant their public contentions that the funds spent on the track will not affect taxes. They are challenged at the board meetings how spending over $1,300,000 could not increase millage. They refuse to answer the question.

The truth of the matter is that the track or more accurately the facility will be an albatross around the neck of the taxpayers for years.

This fleecing of the taxpayers is yet another example of how the Oley School District school board wastes our hard earned tax dollars. They would want to squander money on pork barrel projects rather than education.

In May 2007, there will be five board members running for re-election. Enough is enough; we need a new board with new ideas.

The New Price Tag For The Track

2006-04-05T08:16:00.000-05:00

The Property and Transportation Meeting on April 4,2006 was an important meeting for the taxpayers of the school district. The new estimated costs for a synthetic track were presented to the school board.

The meeting was orchestrated primarily with students who want a new facility. Three adult, citizen taxpayers spoke against and one Oley teacher spoke for the enterprise.

The base cost of a track would be $847,606. This number is far different from the $350,000 initially promoted to the community by the board.

If various amenities were added, the resulting permutations of the project could raise the outlay to $1,318,825.

However, because of the taxpayer concerns expressed at public meetings, the architect indicated that with modifications, the cost could be lowered to $609,089.

A board member asked about the estimations on a stone/cinder track. The price could be lowered to approximately $240,000.

Unfortunately, track supporters and fundraisers have taken the stance that no funds would be spent on anything other than a synthetic track.

According to a supporter, the primary beneficiaries of the track are the one hundred and fifty students who participate in the sport. There are nearly two thousand other students who will see little or no benefit from spending up to $1,318,825 on a non-educational undertaking.

Two speakers challenged some board members public comments that the track expenditure would have no effect on taxes. They said that regardless of whether the money is spent from the General Fund or from the Capital Reserve Fund, the new facility would affect millage. The board did not contest the speakers.

The track has become a symbol of how the school board spends our hard earned tax dollars.

Robert A. Heckman, board President, said he "will do what is best for education" in the district.

The taxpayers and the student body will be awaiting the board's pledge to the future of the children.

8 Questions For The School Board

2006-04-05T08:05:00.000-05:00

Eight questions and accompanying comments were presented to the school board for their consideration about investing over $1,300,000 on a new track.

The board needs to consider the consequences of their decisions on the entire student body and the community.

1. How is the track going to improve student test scores?

We have 29% of the 11th graders not testing proficient in Math and 17% not testing proficient in Reading.
The school is on a watch list because it did not meet federal educational standards.
Shouldn't' t the board be investing in the future of the children by helping them in the classroom?

2. How is the track going to get students into college?

This is a rhetorical question, because it will not get students into college.

3. How is the track going to get students a job?

This too is a rhetorical question because it will not get a student a job.

4. How much money has been raised by supporters to pay for the track?

So far, only $180,000 has been pledged toward a $1,300,000 track. The supporters said they were going to fund at least half the cost.
Where is this money?

5. Why is there a rush to build a track?

If this track has community support then the board should have no problems placing the proposal on a ballot referendum.
Why not let the community decide if they want to spend an enormous amount of money on an non-educational expense?

6. Why hasn't the board looked into a less expensive solution to redo the track?

Surely, it is the obligation of the board to review all alternatives for such a project. To do otherwise, would be a dereliction of their fiscal duty.

7. How many programs will suffer because $1,300,000 will be spent on a track?

The board already cut over $300,000 of educational items from the 2006 budget. How much more will they cut just to have a synthetic track?

8. How is the track going to provide property relief for seniors on fixed incomes or young families buying a home or struggling to keep a home?

Another rhetorical question, because increased, frivolous spending will place even more burdens on our small bedroom community.

A supporter of the track felt blind sighted at the meeting when these questions were presented.
The posting offers the community an opportunity to discuss these concerns as well as others.

Poll Results

2006-03-30T18:44:00.000-05:00

The results of the poll question, "Do you want to pay higher school property taxes for a new $1,400,000 synthetic track?":

No -65%

Yes - 35%

Site statistics indicated a number of Yes votes from mail.oleysd.k12.pa.us.

This is an unscientific poll, but the results would probably be the same if there were a referendum vote on the same topic.

The information will be presented to the school board.

There will be more polls. The first one was a great success.

The paper reports that the district recently agreed to pay additional engineering fees over the original $39,000 architect charges for the track!

The Numbers Don't Match

2006-03-22T10:05:00.000-05:00

Dr. Warren Moser, the acting business manager made a revised budget presentation to the school board and to the overflow audience of concerned taxpayers on March 21,2006.

He presented a lower set of figures for the 2006 budget than was presented to the board on February 27,2006.

The new budget for 2006 will be $25,596,702. This is an increase of $2,046,644 over the 2005 budget of $23,550,058 that was sent to the state by the district.

Dr. Moser says the millage increase necessary to pay for the 2006 spending is 2.18 mills.

The problem arises when you divide the revenue generated by a mill of taxes or $677,000 into the $2,046,644 increase. The millage calculates to 3.023 mills not the 2.18 mills advertised.

Whether the millage is 3.023 or 2.18 mills, either is excessive.

Adding to the confusion in the presentation was the format change from February 27,2006 meeting.

Significant expense figures either were deleted or added and thereby created confusion for the audience to compare previous information.

Dr. Moser wants to transfer $53,975 from the Cafeteria Fund to the General Fund.

The Cafeteria Fund is showing loses. This accounting maneuver would have the Cafeteria Fund showing a profit.

Transferring expenses to the General Fund has the effect of increasing taxes.

The board was asked to consider having a private firm run the cafeteria to save money. The suggestion just to look at a proposal was flatly rejected with no real explanation.

Last, but not least, is that the figures presented at the March 21,2006 meeting did not cover the cost of the proposed $1,400,000 track.

Based on the new spending increases and the cost of the track, the possible millage increase is 5.64 mills!

The property owner currently paying school property taxes of $2,150 per $100,000 assessed value could be paying $2,714 per $100,000 of assessed value.

We cannot afford these increases. We need to let the board hear our voices.

Oley Citizen Watch Dogs Reduce the Budget

2006-03-22T10:03:00.000-05:00

The early involvement of the concerned citizens had a profound effect on the spending requests of the district.

At the March 21,2006 Budget and Finance Meeting, the administration had to cut a significant amount from their 2006 spending proposal presented at the February 27,2006 meeting.

They originally wanted to increase spending by $2,797,901, but the school superintendent cut the request to approximately to $2,416,674 or a reduction of $381,227.

The reason the spending increase number in this article is different from that in the article,"The Numbers Don't Match" is that Dr. Moser changed format and content of the budget presentation.

He never fully addressed the disposition of $2,109,880 "Known Increases" expenses revealed at the February 27,2006 meeting

This reduction would never have happened had the community not voiced their concerns to the board. The meetings packed with overtaxed property owners affect the budget process.

The administration still needs to cut far more from their wish list.

We Must Make Change Ourselves

2006-03-17T16:51:00.000-05:00

The politicians in Harrisburg, both Republican and Democratic, have turned their backs on homeowners.

They are more interested in sneaking through pay increases in the dark of night or fattening their pensions, than helping families and seniors keep their homes.

The Oley Valley School District School Board mirrors the same attitude. They clearly demonstrated at the March 15,2006 meeting, they have only contempt for taxpayer concerns.

Whether it is a board member trying to intimidate a speaker with a camera or stonewalling questions about the budget, the district appears determined to conduct business as usual.

There were attempts of empathy with tokenism remarks, but actions speak louder than words.

We must make change ourselves

Oley School District Taxpayers

ALERT

We face a possible....

26% Increase in Property Taxes !!

Current

$2,150 Per $100,000 Per Assessed Value

2006-2007 Proposed

$2712 Per $100,000 Assessed Value

Attend Next Budget and Finance Meeting

Tuesday March 21, 2006

7:00 PM

Administration Building Boardroom

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Oley School Board Stonewalls Budget Requests

2006-03-16T09:40:00.000-05:00

A room of full of taxpayers attending a meeting looking for answers about the ominous 2006 school budget, were met with silence, intimidation, and indifference by the Oley Valley School District school board.

The board often criticizes people who ask questions about district spending in June when the budgets are passed. They get a lecture about not being involved in the process sooner.

Last night, the community gets involved in March, and we told it is too early to ask questions about the budget.

The truth of the matter is that the board does not want to answer any questions about this budget.

Bottom line, the citizens of the Oley Valley School District face a 6.46 mill increase in school property taxes!

Those who attended the meeting were shocked by what they saw and heard. They came not believing the flyers posted in the community about the budget. Last night they realize the gravity of the situation.

The next budget meeting is Tuesday, March 21,2006 at 7:00 PM in the Administration Building Boardroom.

Come join us and let your voice be heard. Tell your friends and neighbors.

At the request of people who attended the meeting, the contents of a speech made to the board are being posted for the community to review.

"The Budget and Finance meeting held on February 27th revealed the most outlandish spending requests in recent memory. The district wants to increase spending by $2,797,901.

This wish list is not state or federally mandated, but rather a compilation of previous board decisions whose bill has come due.

The enormous budget request will be portrayed as critical to education, but a review suggests otherwise.

Adding more staff when school enrollment is down, new TV's, new cafeteria chairs because the current ones "pinch the posterior", New Television Studio equipment, new wireless connections in addition to existing land line connections, a new athletic trainer, a new scoreboard, a litany of new technology increases....the list goes on and on.

The individual making the technology request said " The board has created a monster.." when they engaged on the spending spree for technology.

Replacing unusable equipment is one thing, having the latest toy is another.

It gets worse, we discover that the $2,797,901 does not include the cost of a new track.

The new track costs have escalated from $350,000 to nearly a $1,400,000 facility, due to a $39,000 architect recommendation.

The supporters of this non-educational expenditure promised to provide at least half the cost. According to published reports, no funds have been received from this group to date.

A board member even said in the paper, taxes would not rise because of the track. Nonsense, the money will probably come from the Capital Reserve Fund, which was created with tax dollars. If the money is spent on the track, the Capital Reserve Fund will be replenished with new tax dollars.

We can't even tap the Capital Projects Fund of $1,200,000 to defray the 2006 capital spending because of a lingering lawsuit concerning the Middle School.

Based on the district's estimated revenues, the board cannot even pay for the new teachers contract, much less anything else.

The $2,797,901 budget request and the $1,400,000 facility are the district numbers presented to the public.

Adding the two figures, the total bill could be $4,197,901 of additional spending which represents a 6.46 mill increase!

When the board was asked at the budget meeting, " How are we going to fund over four million dollars of spending with only a half million of revenues? ", the board did not respond.

A potential 6.46 mill increase or anything close to that amount deserves honesty and candor from the board.

If they not agree with these numbers what are the numbers?

Saying it is too early to make predictions is absurd. How can you negotiate a teachers contract and give administrative pays increases without knowing your 2006 budget

We want answers now, not the day the budget is passed."

Disappearing Taxpayer Flyers

2006-03-10T16:00:00.000-05:00

Concerned citizens are taking the time and incurring the expense to inform the Oley Valley School District taxpayers about the 2006 school budget.

They are placing flyers at various locations to alert the community about the potential impact of the district spending proposals.

Unfortunately, some have problems with Freedom of Speech when it comes to any discussions about the school district budget. Flyers are taken down or destroyed.

We are reproducing the flyer's contents on this blog in the interests of district information.

Oley School District Taxpayers

ALERT

We face a possible....

26% Increase in Property Taxes !!

Current

$2,150 Per $100,000 Per Assessed Value

2006-2007 Proposed

$2712.00 Per $100,000 Assessed Value

Attend Next School Board Meeting

Wednesday March 15, 2006

7:00 PM

Elementary School Library

Let Your Voice Be Heard

http://oleytaxpayers.blogspot.com