The real scandal?
News outlets are atwitter over the revelation that five employees with criminal records found working in New Jersey school districts had to be fired on Friday by order of state officials. Our own district employed one of the five, a man who had a drug crime in his past. It is unlikely that this year's revelation of incomplete oversight in the Teaneck school district will cause the same alarm there was last year over the report by the State Commission of Investigation detailing the salary add-ons and inflated pension payments coming out of the pockets of the Teaneck taxpayers, as in this case it appears Teaneck officials are blameless. If anything, there was a fault in the system on the state level, or so it appears from initial reports.Nonetheless, the publicity over this case may require the Board of Education to do some explaining. Why? It is not the fact that Teaneck employed a man who pled guilty to cocaine possession in 2004 that poses a problem so much as the way he was employed (and compensated). Apparently, we may now have a new vacancy for a $53,592 per year "school messenger." Excuse me? Taxpayers may want to know why they were paying $53,592 annually for that...
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 11:21 AM
16 Comments:
Perhaps the fine tooth comb applied to the current Township budget by Mr. Feit and Mr. Gussen needs to be applied,in kind, to the school budget. And where do I get an application for the $52K "messenger's" job?
The 2007 Comparative Spending Guide is out and Teaneck's self-proclaimed lean budget ranks 98 out of 103 peer districts - a standard of "excellence" that Teaneck has maintained (plus/minus a few ranking places) for as long as I can recall. Spending per student for comparative purposes is slight over $16,000 (this figure excludes items such a busing, so don't blame the non-public school kids on this one - it also takes into account the fact that the district is shrinking).
But wait, you say, spending will "only" rise 3% this year. Well, not exactly. It seems that when the voters of Teaneck rejected the budget last year, the BoE responded by cutting the budget by $500K. However, based on the budget posted in this Friday's record, they then went out and spent 3% more than the budget. This year's projected increase is on top of last year's 3% overrun. In other words, this year's 3% budget actual represents a 6%(!) increase over last year's budget.
If it helps to follow:
06-07 Budget $15,183 per student
06-07 Actual $15,619 per student (+3%)
07-08 Budget $16,087 per student (+3% above actual and 6% above budget)
But wait, there's more. To achieve a "3% Budget" increase while (1) cutting NO programs and No personnel; and (2) dealing with costs rising a mininium of 4.5%, the Board has cut the capital budget in half (equipment, facilities and construction) and reduced spending on IT technology. The one thing we can count of for certain is that we will be asked to pay the cost of these postponed expenditures in future budgets. There are a couple of other areas where spending seems to have fallen off a cliff, although the category description makes it difficult to understand the exact nature of the spending.
When will the games stop? $52K messengers, $100K gym teachers - it's time for change.
As a taxpayer in Teaneck I have to wonder just how stupid the towns people are to believe anything that the BoE says?!?!
I really hope that the townspeople are not hood-winked to much longer by the BoE and their over-spending ways!
This is really outrageous!! I can't wait to hear the job description. What I don't understand is how things just don't seem to change. One would think that the vote last year would have led to some changes but they really didn't.
I guess there is NO accountability in the Teaneck BoE...they have FREE REIGN to do what they want with OUR MONEY!
Apparently this person's job was to deliver packages. Can you believe that more than $52,000 (+ benefits) of the taxpayers' money was spent on a designated "messenger" each year!! The most depressing thing is that there seems to be no change in sight.
If today's Record is right and that is indeed the task of the school messenger, I wonder how such a position ever got funded.
Let's take a very conservative assumption and say that the benefits, payroll taxes, etc. associated with the position only round the cost up to $55,000 per year (no doubt this is a significant underestimate). Assuming the cost of postage (or in an emergency, a taxi/messenger service) would average $25 per delivery, this employee would have to carry out over 2,000 deliveries per year to justify the cost of his position. So either there is more to the job than that, or a very big expense seems to have slipped through the cracks.
Before everyone keeps fanning these flames, you might want to find out the entire story rather than the very brief information that was published in the paper. It's not fair to denegrate someone with incomplete facts.
He was a convicted felon HE HAD NO business working in or around our kids..PERIOD!
Before everyone keeps fanning these flames, you might want to find out the entire story rather than the very brief information that was published in the paper. It's not fair to denigrate someone with incomplete facts.
That's exactly the point, we'd like to find out the entire story, because it seems hard to understand why such a job exists. No individual is being denigrated here- I certainly understand why someone whose criminal background might disqualify him for many jobs would grab at the chance to earn over $53,000 per year working as a messenger for the Teaneck schools. What I and others want to know is why Teaneck taxpayers pay $53,000+ to keep a messenger on staff full-time.
What I and others want to know is why Teaneck taxpayers pay $53,000+ to keep a messenger on staff full-time.
EXACTLY!!!!!
WHY????
I'll sign my wife up for the job!
Okay flame-fanners, perhaps that amount INCLUDES social security, health insurance, etc. In other words, the position might be a 25-30K position that winds up totaling what the newspaper ran, especially since that figure got released from the DoE & they're likely to list what they pay out for a line item, not necessarily what the person's annual salary is.
Nope, that is incorrect. If you go to the Asbury Park Press website, you can run a search for public employees in NJ. The employee in question is listed under the Teaneck Board of Ed and his 2006 pay (i.e. actual salary) is estimated at $55,200.
"be careful" -- Even if what you are suggesting is true (which, according to our blogmaster's research, it is not), why are we spending ANY money at all on a school messenger? Furthermore, whether or not the figure includes benefits, isn't a total expenditure of over $53,000 per year way too much anyway?? The fact that this figure reflects only the salary and does not include money spent on benefits makes it all the more painful. I would love to hear someone with connections to the Board of Ed explain this one. Anyone going to the candidate's forum tonight?? Stories like this really do make you wonder what else is being hidden in the school budget.
All I was suggesting was that we get the full story before sending out the lych mob. I agree that on the surface the position appears absurd, but would like to make sure I have the information to back up that accusation.
Post a Comment
<< Home