Friday, April 1, 2011

Does the Englewood School District have a Chief School Administrator or not?

Tuesday March 29, 2011 at a Board of Education Budget meeting we noticed that there was an item in the upper right hand column of the handout that even Superman would need a magnifying glass to read. We could not read it. Once I returned home. I dug out my magnifying glass and read it. This is what it said:

Dear Mr. Garrison and Mr. Olibardi:
The review of your district’s revised proposed budget for FY12 has been completed. The district is required to submit a budget with supporting documentation. This documentation prescribed by the Commissioner at N.J.A.C 6A23A-8.1(b) includes a School District Budget Statement with a signature line for the Chief School Administer (CSA). By signing, the CSA verifies that the proposed budget includes sufficient funds to meet the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS).
As you are aware, the Chief School Administrator did not sign the School District Budget Statement. However, as a result of the budget review by this office and notwithstanding the improper CSA signature, a determination has been made that proposed budget for FY12 complies with N.J.A.C 6A23A-9.2(b).  Therefore, I am approving the proposed budget as compliant for advertising and public hearing purposes. 
Further, I am requesting that the School District Budget Statements be properly signed and resubmitted to this office. If you have any questions regarding the above notification please contact us.
Robert M. Gilmartin
Executive County Superintendent
The question is why. Why was the proposed budget not signed? It was not signed because we do NOT have a Chief School Administrator. Dr. Carlisle does not have a contract. Mr. Richard Seagall has been demoted to Assistant Superintendent. That means that neither man may legally sign the budget proposal.  What does this mean for the taxpaying voting public? Will we be able to vote on a budget that has not been legitimized by the County Superintendent? Note that the County Superintendent has given a provisional approval for “advertising and public hearing purposes” only. Perhaps this board will find a solution to this  problem before we (the taxpaying public) is required to vote on the Budget April 27, 2011.
It is time for taxpayers to speak up. The “Bottom Line” also part of this same handout from the Board of Education states that there will be “0 layoffs – 0% Tax Levy Increase”. Well, if you are a homeowner you know that there is a little slipping and sliding going on with the tax situation. This is probably coming down from the state where the Governor is also claiming no tax increase. For instance, homestead rebates were not mailed to home owners this year.  Homestead Rebates were applied to 2nd quarter or May property taxes. Rebates were also decreased over 75%. Homeowners who formerly got rebates of close to 1 thousand dollars only got about $250 applied to their property taxes. Regardless of what the label is, adjustments have been made. (so we are not calling it a levy) Everyone knows that we must pay taxes in order for the country to function. We must however, begin to hold our political leaders accountable to how the money is used. Too little of it finds its way back into our schools.
Our board is quite frankly a disappointment. When I decided to become involved I did not expect to find such blatant disregard for the public and our students. After a long search, they decided on Dr. Carlisle, who seems to have been a good choice. Now it seems that they are not impressed because he is not their wind up toy. We don’t want a wind up toy. We want a real living breathing person knowledgeable in the art of educating our youth.  The board obviously made the man promises in order to get him here.
Now it is time for everyone to compromise. We need a Chief School Administer right now.

1 comment:

  1. It is almost four months since the above article was published. We are no closer to the answer to the question than before. The Candidate for the position has been making decisions that have no basis in educational theory. The attitude seems to be that we must replace all people who look like the kids with women. Mostly white or Asian women. I was originally of the opinion that the man needed the benefit of the doubt. Now I think that he has already been given far too much credit. He is a bully with absolutely no tact. He is exactly the kind of person that this board likes. He is a fitting replacement for the exiting Chief School Administrator. And in case you are still wondering. We still do not have a Chief School Administrator.