ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Ask the candidates for Board of Education
Posted by Ron Soussa at 2:50 PM
 

Six candidates (Steve Cohen (i), Frank W. Cooney, Matthew Kayne, Timothy Lindert (i), Michael J. Palma (i), Paul Przetak), including the three incumbents (i), have filed to run for Board of Education on April 15.

This blog topic is for them to explain why they are running, and for the community to ask them questions.
Anonymous postings are not guaranteed publication.

Labels: ,



23 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
23 Comments:

So now we have 6 running for Board of Education to fill 3 seats. Just a question. Of 3 of the incumbants, 2 have spouses that are either present or former PTO Presidents and rumor has it that 1 has a wife that sells products to the Parent Councils. Are all the taxpayers being fairly represented since they pay all the bills no matter if they have children in the district or not and does this represent a conflict of interest for those Board members.

Posted by Anonymous on February 26, 2008 1:37 PM
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 26, 2008 3:33 PM
 
 
Ron,

You state on the topic page:
"This blog topic is for them [the candidates] to explain why they are running, and for the community to ask them questions."

Have you spoken with each of the candidates about this blog?

Who, if any, have told you that they will be participating?

I would hate for this to turn into a forum for people to personally bash candidates who either don't know about this blog or don't wish to participate.

Thank you for your response.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on February 26, 2008 5:04 PM
 
 
I have not spoken with any of the candidates. Please inform those whom you may know about this forum.

We must remember that, unlike Township Committee members, BoE members are volunteers. Please be civil.

Anonymous postings are not guaranteed publication.
Posted by Blogger Ron Soussa on February 26, 2008 5:22 PM
 
 
Can anyone tell me the 'real' reason the superintendent is taking a 'medical leave'? If it is really a 'medical leave' why were the board members and lawyers at a special early morning meeting. When the meeting was over -so was the super. Sounds fishy to me.
Also, all of the inefficencies (bad audit) must have caught up to the BA - she's leaving in April!!!!! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!!!

I just think it's very 'funny' that that tag team is leaving at the same time. Any views?
Posted by Anonymous carrotlover on February 27, 2008 6:12 PM
 
 
thankfully there is competition for this position. in full understanding of mr. grants post, and he has been around long enough to be well aware of the truth, perhaps there are some people still out there that are not representative of special interests and have no agenda. i still do believe that there are good, honest, dedicated volunteers in our community that actually care about the quality of the education. let us all hope that these individuals will be found by the general public in the upcoming election
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 3, 2008 10:53 AM
 
 
There will always be competion for this position, as Montville is well known in the education field as a "jumping off" district, which means you use Montville to get to the district where you really want to be superintendent. Not sure why that is officially,(I have heard different theories) but I have heard that time and time again from other districts over the past 15 years and it appears correct as they (superintendents) all leave for other districts.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 3, 2008 1:46 PM
 
 
Frank Cooney, didnt you resine from the board of education last year? Then why are you running agani?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 3, 2008 7:58 PM
 
 
I did not resign from the board last year. My schedule was very busy with the pet store and Police K-9 training, so I decided not to seek re-election at that point. Now I am back to a 4 days on 4 days off work schedule and my schedule is more consistent.

Thanks

Frank
Posted by Blogger Frank C on March 4, 2008 1:02 AM
 
 
To carrotlover, it is none of your business the reason for the superintendant's medical leave and law prevents the BOE from disclosing it. Regardless of what your opinion of him is of his performance as a superintendant (for or against), we need to give him the benefit of doubt that the absence was necessary, wish him well and hope he is returning healthy. Criticize him as much as you want for performance, but leave the medical leave alone.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 4, 2008 3:26 PM
 
 
Now there are only two incumbants. Steve dropped out so it is actually easier to replace the other two if you want to change the direction of this Board.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 5, 2008 4:43 PM
 
 
I am a skier and as a result i am fed up with the present school schedule. We have no break in february, We have 1 day. Now as a skier i think that stinks.
I also think it is horrible for my children to go to school non-stop from the beginning of jan thru till mid/late april. It taxes their bodies and wears them down. Hence we have such high rates of illness come mid february. William Mason had several classes missing 10-12 kids in mid feb and not all of it was the flu. Strep tears through the school each year. The schools need to be aired out and sanitized, not sealed up and made into petrie dishes.
Next reason for a consistant feb break that is on one side of a weekend is so that i do not have to take my kids out of school. I hate to say this but when we straddle a weekend with a break it then becomes a matter of when i am going to take my kids out of school and for how many days. Heck of thing that I am forced to make that decision.
I value an education, but i also value my childrens mental and physical health. I do not think the shcool board takes that into consideration when they make their schedule. It seems political correctness and cow towing to the people who need the april break (why i have no idea as it is already getting warm and it is too late to ski) has taken its toll. I will not vote for a single member of the board that does not believe in more than 1-2 days off at presidents day and neither will the group of skiers i am organizing into a voting block.

So my question is simple: who of the prospective boardmembers intends on voting for an extended break at presidents day?

Simply put the people who say yes get the votes of alot of skiers in town.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 12, 2008 1:20 PM
 
 
Please let us know what works best for your ski trips so we can arrange the entire school calendar around you. It is far more important for kids to ski than learn trivial information which they may or may not use later in life. What do you do in the spring and fall? While we're at it we should accomodate your other hobbies as well!
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 12, 2008 5:54 PM
 
 
LOL. Perhaps we can ask what each candidate thinks of the lack of the teachers' contract. I know that many teachers are still arriving well in advance of the starting time and staying long after the last bell rings to give extra help to the students. Letters of rec. have been written so that seniors will hopefully get into the colleges of their choices. Teachers keep doing; what does the Board plan on doing?
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 13, 2008 5:23 PM
 
 
I don't know what school you are observing but at my kid's school at 3:05 the flood gates open and there is a mass departure of teachers.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 13, 2008 6:56 PM
 
 
I'm going to give each of the candidates my vacation schedule for next year. Whoever agrees to plan the school calendar around my schedule gets my vote.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 14, 2008 9:10 PM
 
 
Hello. I am observing MTHS. Although the teachers have been encouraged to stick to "contract" hours (due to the lack of a contract), teachers can be found in the building long after the school day has ended, helping students on their own time. Feel free to check out the faculty parking lot.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 15, 2008 7:38 PM
 
 
Why is an office for the Bd of Ed still an issue? They should have settled this months ago, what are htey going to do come 6/30? You need more than 3 months to build a building, and with only 3 months left on the lease there is no time to find leasing alternatives and move. I'm sure there are cheaper alternatives but it seems that this board is not interested in doing what's right for the taxpayers. This item should be a separate ballot question and it should be voted down.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 26, 2008 8:28 PM
 
 
I agree that it should have been dealt with long ago. That doesn't change the fact that building a home for the BOE will be cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run than renting. Use your head.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 26, 2008 9:39 PM
 
 
You mean over-building a building, there is no reason to spend $1.5 million (and we all know it will be more), I'm sure there are cheaper alternatives.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 27, 2008 6:04 AM
 
 
Skipping the woulda, shoulda, coulda, here is a question. The Township was trying to bond $1.2 million on behalf of the Board of Ed. for offices a short time ago. Now the Board of Education "found" their own $1.5 million to put in the budget this year to build the building. The $1.5 million as I understand it came from rebates on the health insurance costs for the district. Did they not know they were getting this money while discussions were taking place to have the Township pay for the building? In fairness maybe they didn't but I would like to know. I agree that the Board needs a permanent home and get out of the leased space and money will be saved in the long run but I also would have liked it to be a public question and known about this rebate.
Posted by Anonymous Dan Grant on March 27, 2008 12:14 PM
 
 
Here is a question for everyone. Why not build the new Board of Ed offices at 86 River? Ok stop laughing! We have gone full circle on this. The plan was scrapped because the Township was funding the construction and according to both bond counsels you couldn’t legally do that. Well first of all those bond counsels were wrong but it was enough to have the Board of Ed walk away from the concept.

Now they have their own 1.5 mill so at 86 river you have utilities a parking lot NO ROCK and so on. The Township is going forward with the asbestos abatement and demolition of 86 river so the Board of Ed could start their project with an existing foundation, utility services and a fair parking lot. Since they are talking a modular building this would be a great site for them.

The blasting for the foundation up at the high school and the storm water management infrastructure costs should be scrutinized before they build on that hill. I’m not saying it can’t be done however I seriously doubt the Board of Ed can control costs with the amount of rock and blasting that will be necessary.

Regards,
Art
Posted by Blogger Art Daughtry on March 31, 2008 10:00 AM
 
 
Art,
This was a good plan IMO when you guys first started the talks on it way back when. I personally think the BOE feels that this scenerio isn't up to their "standards" and that is why they refuse to entertain it any longer. I, as well as others in town certainly hope that the Township Commitee and all related depts. make sure that the BOE does their homework on this project (if I recall correctly, wasn't the price tag under a million and less square footage last time they presented it??) to ensure that all costs are considered so we don't have any more surprises. Is there any way we the residents of Montville can interveen on this since the BOE is trying a slight of hand maneuver?? The prevented over-run costs could be spent wisely on the students, teachers and repairs to existing buildings.

George Drexl
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on March 31, 2008 1:18 PM
 
 
George

Dont be so naive. The BOE isnt doing any homework on anything. Ask the TC how many options the BOE came up with to house themselves. Let me tall ya, ZERO.

Their only plan was BUILD NEW and let the suckers in Montville foot the bill.

There wasnt Option 1, Ooption 2 etc. Nah, that might take away from all the good work they've neem doing , like Montville schools dropping in ranking, good supers refusing to even consider Montville, teachers who cant get a contract.

Why bother the BOE to reseach alternatives to the $11/mo they piss away for their luxury offices? No need, they had the solution after a 10 minute coffee break, Steal more money from the taxpaying lemmings of Montville and builkd a brand new, custom amde facility so they have nice, plush offices the kick their feet up in and get a nice tan by the sunlamp.

Good luck Montville grasping at straws that the BOE gives a crap about you or your money.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous on April 4, 2008 8:51 PM
 
 
Post a comment    |    


 























OurMontville.com
Copyright © 2007 OurMontville.com