Category: Whitehall

The Washington Nationals announced this week, that they replaced Randy St. Claire as their pitching coach. Randy grew up in Whitehall and he and his family have many ties to Huletts. His parents ran the soda fountain for a few years in the 70’s and his brother Shane built some docks in Huletts in the 70’s also. His father, Ebba, was a major league catcher and actually taught me how to throw some different pitches when I was young.

Randy signed out of high-school with the Montreal Expos and played a number of seasons in the major leagues. He had been the pitching coach of the Washington Nationals for the last few years.

Sadly, I had recently submitted a request to the Nationals to interview him. We wish Randy the best and we know he’ll end up someplace good soon.

Here is a picture of his brother, Shane, (standing on the left) building a dock in Huletts in the 1970’s.

Previously I posted the Whitehall teachers contract online here. Today, I thought I would give my analysis of it.

Overall I believe the contract is fair but it could be improved. The problem that I have had with the district does not involve the teachers contract but revolves around the yearly budgets being padded and the excess being put into reserve accounts only to be spent later. The taxpayer is simply viewed as a deep pocketed dupe and never are any excesses returned in the form of lower taxes or lower budgets the following year. When coupled with falling enrollments, even in a year where there are no tax increases, per-pupil spending rises.

I have always had the utmost respect for teachers. It is more work than most people realize and the pressures to deal with students and parents can be overwhelming at times. Students have a lot of energy and teachers deserve our appreciation and support.

I’ve compared the Whitehall teachers contract to those in nearby districts and I would say it compares relatively favorably to those of nearby districts. Some districts have higher starting salaries than Whitehall but lower ending salaries after many years of service. However, while the current teacher’s contract is not extravagant, it is generous and it is certainly not frugal.

The original teacher’s contract was from June 1, 2005 to June 30, 2009 and the agreement was extended with a memorandum of agreement from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011.

The biggest thing I noticed is that there is no anti-nepotism language or policy in effect. This allows for all types of inter-connectiveness in the hiring and staffing of positions. Almost all districts are moving to these types of policies to prevent relatives from hiring and recommending other relatives. Whitehall has been criticized in the past as being a “good old boys network”. This type of language and/or policy would go a long way in blunting this type of criticism.

The second thing I noticed is that in the first agreement the percentage the school district was paying for medical, surgical, hospital, and dental costs for the teachers was declining.

2005-06 – 92%
2006-07 – 91%
2007-08 – 90%
2008-09 – 89%

However, in the extension (for the next two years) the percentage goes up.

2009-10 – 90%
2010-11 – 90%

This seems a bit odd in so far as the teachers had already agreed to lowering this percentage and it appears to be a major concession on the part of the District. It would seem that with a concession such as this, the District would ask for other concessions in return.

However, the district agreed to 4% annual increases for the next two years in the memorandum (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011) which seem exceeding generous in these bad economic times.

I was also a bit surprised at the amount of compensation being paid to club moderators and team coaches. The athletic director’s salary was increased 33% from the original agreement to the memorandum for the next two years (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011).

One criticism that I have heard repeatedly is that the school system needs to do more to crack down on unruly or misbehaving students. The one policy that has been shown to work and which many private schools use is academic, behavioral and/or attendance probation. This denies students the ability to participate in interscholastic or after-school activities who are failing, exhibit behavioral problems and/or who refuse to attend school regularly.

However if the teacher’s union views these clubs as a quick source of extra cash, there is no incentive to crack down and discipline students. You have a cycle where misbehaving students are needed for clubs so that a moderator can collect extra income.

Finally the number of clubs and paid positions should be evaluated in light of Whitehall’s falling enrollment. Hopefully the school board and the teachers will realize these types of positions are funded by hard-earned taxpayer dollars and that not everyone can afford these types of increases and that if the district doesn’t have an academic, behavioral and/or attendance probation policy it will continue to have disciplinary problems.

Hopefully the Board will think carefully about these types of increases and policies as they negotiate the next contract. Until they are able to reduce taxes and spending, I’m afraid Whitehall will continue to suffer from continued declines in enrollment, population and business as it has experienced over the last 15 years.

I believe the biggest problem the taxpayers face is the continued overcharging of the taxpayers by the district to fund reserve accounts which are earmarked for future building projects. These make little or no sense in a district which is losing students and population. What’s the point of having a new school and no people left in the Town?

	Yes		No
Budget – No Tax Increase or Decrease	215		39
Prop # 1 – $184,000 for Two School Buses	197		39
Prop # 2 – $500,000 Surplus to Reserve / No Tax Decrease	188		47
Prop # 3 – $15,000 for the Whitehall Library	197		41

Budget and all 3 Propositions Pass
No Tax Decrease Next Year

The School Budget vote and election will be held on Tuesday, May 19th between 12:00 noon and 9:00 p.m. in the large group instruction room in the high-school on Buckley Road.

One of the things to be considered is Proposition # 2. What is this?

Here is the wording of the legal notice which the district ran in the paper.

Proposition # 2
“Resolved that the Board of Education of the Whitehall Central School District is authorized and directed to increase the ultimate amount of the capital reserve fund known as the “Future Renovations to the Elementary and Jr./Sr. High School Buildings Capital Reserve Fund”, which Capital Reserve Fund was approved by the voters on May 20, 2003, from the original sum of $1,500,000 to be increased (to the) sum of $3,500,000. A sum not to exceed $500,000 shall be transferred from the current general fund into this Capital Reserve Fund as part of the increased ultimate amount authorized by the proposition. The original term of such Fund shall remain at ten (10) years from May 20, 2003.”

What is this really all about? It’s about our tax dollars being frivolously wasted.

In 2005, the school spent over $ 2 million dollars from a reserve account to build an addition on the school and tennis courts. Now the district is building up the account again by overcharging the taxpayers on the yearly budget, putting the excess into reserve accounts and planning future construction projects. All the while, enrollment is dropping!

This year $500,000 is proposed to be put away and the reserve account is proposed to grow to $3.5 million. This would seem to indicate that the district is planning on putting $500,000 away for 4 years before they spend it.

When they go to spend it, they will claim it will have no effect on taxes. When in fact, the district has already taken it out of our pockets.

The problem Whitehall is having is that the town is dying because of the school district’s taxing policy. Dresden has actually cut taxes two years in a row, and increased spending at the same time because Dresden has grown its tax base. The school district could do the same; put money in reserve, cut taxes and improve the tax base of the town.

Whitehall is doing exactly the opposite. I keep a list of businesses that have left Whitehall over the last 10 years and every year it continues to grow. Dunkin Donuts left last year.

Sadly the good news is, you can’t miss the problem any more. Recent local headlines about Whitehall all show a town in significant decline; water problems unresolved, a former police chief who couldn’t pass the civil service exam, a low-income subsidized housing center which can’t attract enough residents, the municipal offices being located in a state facility which doesn’t want them there. Do I have to list more?

Dresden on the other hand, and especially Huletts, is growing and thriving because of low spending and wise stewardship. Every year positive change is happening in Huletts.

While the Huletts Current recommends a “NO” vote on Proposition 2 this Tuesday, Whitehall will most likely continue to go down the declining path it has chosen. The real news is that enrollment will plummet in the years ahead and the district will have put itself and the town of Whitehall out of business. They might build a fancy new school with our tax dollars, but at this pace it will be empty because there won’t be any children or businesses left in Whitehall.

This year there are two vacancies on the Board of Education and only two candidates running for these two seats. The Huletts Current submitted the following questions to each candidate running for the school board. I explained to each candidate that I would run their answers as the they submitted them on the Huletts Current.

Could you please tell us about yourself and why you are running for the school board?

The Town of Dresden pays a high percentage of the taxes to finance the school budget (around 50%) while having only approximately 10% of the students in the school district. What specific steps will you advocate that will decrease school taxes?

Residents of Huletts Landing feel their concerns regarding rising taxes are not being heard. Would you be willing to attend a meeting in the summer at Huletts Landing to listen to the concerns of seasonal residents there who pay a proportionally large share of the school budget?

Are you in favor of academic, behavioral and/or attendance probation that will deny students the ability to participate in interscholastic or after-school activities who are failing, exhibit behavioral problems and/or who refuse to attend school regularly?

For the past several years, the Whitehall School District has run budget surpluses that are placed in special reserve accounts after approval by the voters to be spent later with voter approval. Will you vote to return any of these budget surpluses to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes if elected? Does this indicate a problem with the budgeting process to be consistently over-budget every year?

Today we present how, Mr. Adam Mickel, candidate for the school board, replied to our questions.

Adam Mickel, pictured on the left, is a candidate in this years election for the school board.

Dear Mr. Kapusinski:

I appreciate your interest in the Whitehall Board of Education Elections this year.

I have attached a statement in lieu of your specific questions. I did this as I do not feel comfortable answering questions of policies that I have yet to be acquainted with. I also did not have an adequate time for verify the percentage and facts you relied on, which I am sure you can appreciate as a journalist and a lawyer. What I have provided you with is a brief overview of my background and experience. I also touched, in general, the topics that you originally asked.

I will leave it up to you if you print my response or not.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your readership.

Adam J. Mickel MS Ed.

(Editor’s Note: I replied to Mr. Mickel that while I would take credit for being a blogger, I am not an attorney.)

My name is Adam Mickel and I am candidate for the Whitehall Central School District Board of Education this May 2009. I was born and raised in Whitehall and have strong family ties to the area. I graduated Whitehall Jr.-Sr. High School in 1994. I went on to Adirondack Community College where I earned my Associates of Science in Criminal Justice. I then furthered my education and attended the College of St. Joseph in Rutland and earned a Bachelors of Arts in Education/Liberal Studies. I finished off my student career at SUNY Plattsburgh earning a Masters of Science in Education. I then taught for four years at the elementary level, and later finished the course work to gain my secondary licensure, and taught social studies in middle and high school for an additional three years. During the summer I also taught Adult Basic Education at Great Meadow Correctional Facility for six consecutive summers. I recently left the education field and became a Vermont Correctional Officer and have had been employed at the Southern State Correctional Facility since March of 2008. On a personal note, my wife, Julie Gosselin-Mickel, and I purchased our first home together in the village. We reside there with our daughters Alexandria Mickel and Elizabeth Gosselin.

With my varied background I feel as though I can accurately understand all facets of the educational system: as a former educator, a parent, a community member, and as a taxpayer. First and foremost is that education is Paramount. Taxes are always a concern to all families, especially in these hard economic times, but we need to balance this with our children’s’ and community’s needs. I feel as those my perspective, and multiple hats I have worn if you will, places me in a position to be an effective board member.

I have attended many different board of education meetings during the course of my career. I would like to see attendance at the board meetings increase. Public participation is a fundamental part of any political entity, and I believe that participation and attendance show a strong support and interest in the school and community. I believe this so strongly that I, as a Participation in Government Teacher, used to require my students to attend school board, as well as town and village board, meetings. It is during this venue that such things as interscholastic eligibility policies and budget discussions can be observed and audience input sought.

I look forward to serving my community and getting back into the educational system in a new capacity. I look forward to working with my fellow board members and the school district.

Previously we posted the contracts of the Whitehall School Superintendent and Teachers Union.

Today, we’ll examine the Superintendent’s contract. Note that the yearly salary for this position from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 is $135,000. This is high in comparison to what other school superintendent’s earn. This is the website we looked at for comparison. The salary for the Whitehall Superintendent is clearly above the average based on the figures on that website.

Please keep in mind that most suburban superintendents manage multiple schools. We spoke to an individual from another district who said this position in that district was responsible for 8 schools and paid in the $90,000 range. The Whitehall District only has two schools. Whitehall is a small rural district with falling enrollment. From these observations, it appears that the Whitehall School District has been very generous in what they pay our Superintendent.

You will also note that the contract states; “Upon his retirement from the District in accordance with the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, the Distict shall provide health insurance and dental insurance coverage under either an individual or family plan (whichever is applicable) in which the District participates at such time for the Superintendent and his spouse for the remainder of their lives. …. The District will pay 100% of the premium cost of the applicable insurance plan through June 30, 2013. After July 1, 2013, the District will pay 75% of the premium cost of the applicable insurance plan….”

It is impossible to calculate what the cost of this benefit will ultimately be for the district because it is of undetermined length. However, the 75% in perpetuity starting July 1, 2013 is an increase over the 50% in perpetuity the district agreed to pay from the previous contract (paragraph 4E of the July 1, 2003 contract). This is a very large increase from one contract to the next and also a very generous retirement benefit.

By reading this contract and by comparing what Whitehall pays its superintendent to what other districts pay their superintendents, we can state that the Whitehall School District has been very generous in how they compensate our Superintendent. Whenever the current superintendent leaves or retires, a number of applicants will clearly want this very lucrative job.