Monday, July 07, 2014

BOE Meeting Tuesday @6:30PM


Annual Organizational BOE Meeting

  • Swearing-in new BOE members
  • Election of BOE officers
  • Annual appointments, designations, authorizations, etc.

It is anticipated that the BOE will go into exec. session to discuss the employment history of particular person(s) (WHY leave your audience sitting there waiting for the rest of the meeting?? It's very rude!)

AGENDA ITEMS of NOTE

GCSD Electronic Record Program Analysis & Recommendations 

Amendment to Cabinet Admin. Assistant's, District Clerk, & Internal Claims Auditor Employment Agreements (Nevermind that earlier during the organizational portion of the meeting that it states: " ...  no additional compensation, to serve at the pleasure of the Board.")

Adopt Updated 2014-2015 School Calendar

Flu Clinic ~~ "4 Greece school pairs will be assigned based on age equivalence. One school receives the flu vaccination at school through an electronic consent process (intervention school). The other doesn’t receive the vaccination (control school). Immunization data will be obtained through the New York State Immunization Registry for both control and intervention schools to determine immunization rates. Attendance data can be reviewed internally and compared as well."

SCATS ~~ Parents, if your children's school is chosen, will you opt your kids in or out of receiving a flu vaccine at school?
    

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since this is the reorg meeting, there are no officers and the board clerk is acting president until the election of officers takes place. Once done, the new president officially calls the business part if the meeting to order. Then and only then can he entertain a motion to go into executive session.So if your not interested in the election part of the meeting, I suggest you plan on arriving a little later to avoid sitting there with mostly the families of those to be elected. Nobody else ever goes anyway.

SCATS said...

To 2:49PM ~~ While what you've stated is technically correct, the posted agenda shows the MEETING CALLED TO ORDER followed by The PLEDGE then the OATHES OF OFFICE, ELECTION of OFFICERS, the rest of the REORG MEETING, the MOTION for EXEC. SESSION and THENthe REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING.

Let's not forget this group has lots of trouble following the policies they adopt let alone abiding by Robert's Rules or NY Laws, etc.

Anonymous said...

No SCATS, I will not let my children get vaccines at school. Two of my three kids require daily meds while at school. Half of the time, they do not get them at the right time, or at all. This is one more parenting duty the district should avoid taking on. If only they were good at education........

Anonymous said...

No. I take my child to the pediatrician for any needed vaccinations. I prefer to be present when my kid is getting a shot.

Anonymous said...

Any update on the condition of those workers hurt at Athena last week?

Anonymous said...

FYI: saw the school district security car parked at a private residence again this morning. Why would that be necessary? Is it allowed?

Anonymous said...

When we find they are not really living here they just give up parental rights to the person that is willing to say they are living with them. Here is a service that will check into this. Greece is teaching about 25% kids that are city residents. It's nice to think we are better than something.

http://www.verifyresidence.com/

SCATS said...

To 4:10PM ~~ I had heard it was approaching that at Olympia HS but hadn't heard about the other schools.

Imagine how many schools we could close, teachers we could layoff & buses we could keep off the road if we put an end to this? Our taxes would TUMBLE!

Anonymous said...

Are there any "facts" available? Are all the numbers here just guesses/speculation?

SCATS said...

To 5:18AM ~~ Several years ago, one of the SRO's who worked at Olympia HS stated that the principal's "best guess" was approx. 22% of those attending her building were NOT legally attending. There has been NO PUBLIC COMMENT BY GCSD Admin. that I'm aware of on this topic for several years.

Posted by request and contained within a private message to me ~~ Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "BOE Meeting Tuesday @6:30PM":

Ooooo verifying residence in the GCSD is a huge issue. They don't do it. You can walk into a certain school and give the secretary an address and even though she will say it's not *official* until a utility bill or copy of lease, whatever is brought in, certain school *leaders* (and I use that term loosely) will kick your kid out and into another school without ever asking for that official proof they speak of. Those reading this comment who were involved know exactly what I mean. 7/09/2014 6:53 AM

Anonymous said...

Seems to be a lot of opinion here. Unfortunately no documented evidence.
Opinions are like A**h***s, everybody's got one, but they're usually full of cr&p!
McKinney-Vento is the cause and unless you can figure out a way to end the fa├žade of residency, you are all p1$$1ng up a rope!

I suggest that you take a page from Texas, Cali, NM, and AZ... Arm yourselves, stop the immigrants from entering your Country, State, County, Town and Schools by stopping the buses at the Door!

SCATS said...

To 4:58PM ~~ I don't qualify statements by a GCSD PRINCIPAL related to be "opinion" but REALITY. It's HER building we're talking about.

Speaking of more REALITY, there are other districts that have successfully dislodged most of the squatters. Why can't Greece? Answer: Because DO doesn't want to!! It's THAT simple. And it's being driven by those wretched declining enrollments.

Anonymous said...

SCATS,

The issue of nonresident students offers an illustration of the kinds of management principles that I still hope to help GSCD with. Regardless of the number (is it 20%, or only 2%?), the administration is responsible for providing evidence of the overall state of the system.

The administration has the burden of assurance with respect to the management function of control. This does not mean proving that every kid attending is properly enrolled, but it does mean demonstrating that systems are in place to ensure that kids are here legally, and that those systems are operating correctly. It is not the community that must provide evidence that there is a problem, it is the administration (salaried professionals) who must provide assurance that the systems in place are under control.

Note that this should not generate any extra work for the administration. Assurance is part of the day-to-day responsibility of management, regardless of whether any outsiders are asking for the evidence.

An important implied task in assurance is providing estimates of the residual rates of noncompliance. No system is perfect, nor is it desirable to attempt to build a perfect system (too much cost, too much intrusion into privacy, too much spirit of distrust), but those who manage an imperfect system should have an approximate sense of how imperfect their system is, and they should provide evidence of that to their customers. As Deming said, "in God we trust, all others must bring data". He's not talking about skeptics bringing data to prove that the system is broken; he's talking about management bringing data to demonstrate that the system is working under control at some estimated level of performance.

So, if a group of citizens is concerned that the system of verifying student residence is not operating properly, they can write to the superintendent (with copies to the BOE) to ask for details of the district's enrollment verification plan and any data available to estimate rates of noncompliance. Simply complaining isn't actionable, nor is open-ended questioning (e.g. "when are you going to kick the illegal students out?"). Whoever wants to make an issue of this has to couch the issue in terms of management responsibilities, such as control, compliance, and assurance, and ask for things that should already exist and not have to be created in response to the request.

I'll not be the one making such a request as an outsider. My goal (we'll see how far I get) is to help with the background processes that respond to such requests.

Kristo Miettinen

SCATS said...

Kristo ~~ I don't disagree with you at all! However, there are two things that come to mind immediately.

1 - GCSD gave up (so I'm told) with trying to deal with non-resident students after losing a court case several years ago.

2 - I've never heard of anything remotely similar to an enrollment verification system in Greece.

In the last 25 yrs. or so, we've written, tossed out, re-written, tossed aside and started anew on developing a Strategic Framework. Each time admin. changes, the work previously done gets set aside or tossed out ... if we actually had a working framework, we'd have answers to lots of questions, like this one. I don't see it happening any time soon. We fail to employ the kinds of folks who could get the job done ... and I strongly suspect it's that way because there are payoffs to some in retaining the status quo. SAD!!

Anonymous said...

Hi SCATS!

My thoughts on your comments:

1 - GCSD gave up with trying to deal with non-resident students after losing a court case several years ago.

If so, this would have to be a policy decision. Without board approval, the district cannot simply stop doing what it should otherwise do (be a prudent steward of town resources, exercising fiduciary responsibility). Yes, losing a court case may indicate that it is tougher, perhaps implausible, to enforce residency requirements. Nonetheless, the decision to surrender the fight has to come from the board; the administration cannot make such a decision on its own. So, anyone wishing to pursue this should ask the board if it has ever promulgated a policy of admitting any student that shows up for school. If they have not, yet the administration has done so, then the administration has overstepped its authority and the board should discipline them. If the board has given tacit approval without publishing a policy, then the board has failed in its responsibilities and should be made to admit it to the voters.

2 - I've never heard of anything remotely similar to an enrollment verification system in Greece.

The only way to confirm that it does not exist is to presume that it does, and innocently ask for the documentation and supporting evidence. When fighting bureaucrats, you cannot start from what you know to be true; you have to presume that everyone is doing the right thing until they admit that they are not. It is not enough to prove to everyone else that the bureaucrats are wrong; you have to prove to them that they are wrong. That’s the “-crat” part of bureaucrat; they have the power. The way to get them to admit that they are not doing what they should is to assume that they are, and then ask them for the products that they should be routinely producing. When they admit that they cannot readily provide what you have asked for, then you have the wedge with which to pry open what they really are or are not doing and get them to change.

3 - In the last 25 yrs. or so, we've written, tossed out, re-written, tossed aside and started anew on developing a Strategic Framework.

The things that we are talking about here are way beneath the level of strategy. This is nuts-and-bolts operations that should chug along unaffected by strategic flux.

4 - I don't see it happening any time soon.

This can change very quickly with a few folks positioned in the right places to ask the right questions. But the right questions are not angry accusations (not specifically you SCATS but some folks who will read this here), they are carefully thought out respectful questions that expose a shortcoming and shame the administration and BOE into doing what they should. They are decent folks, and will do the right thing if they see it clearly (and see no alternative).

The most effective challenges to them are those that guide them to see something clearly without raising their combat response. One very effective technique to that end, as I suggest, is innocent ignorance – sweetly assuming that all is unicorns and skittles, and asking to see the skittles.

Kristo Miettinen

SCATS said...

Kristo ~~ I do hear what you're saying, very clearly. It should be cut & dry, but seldom is. Not only are they well known for ignoring policy they just adopted, but the composition of the BOE changes annually by as much as 3 seats.

Big picture ~~ There are NO consequences of any importance to cause them to care about doing things correctly.

They do dislike "bad press" ... thus the impact of this BLOG over 8+ years has made some difference in how they play their games.

Anonymous said...

There is a verification process ineffect along with an application form that must be filled out by out of district applicants. The title of the form APPLICATION FOR A FREE EDUCATION! The qualifying burden of proof required is too weak and ambiguous .
Several years ago, the BOE directed the then super, ACHROMOVITCH to investigate methods to toughen the qualifying documentation.he was also directed to contact the Superintendant of The Henrietta School District, that had successfully dealt with the same problem, Of course like everything else he was directed to do, he ignored the request as the board majority at the time failed to hold him accountable. had he done so, our current problems in this regard would be in much better shape than presently is the case
And yes, it is
the duty if the current board to direct the Superintendant to investigate ways to strengthen this policy,
As it stands now, I believe the district has adopted the Ostrich approach opting to look the other way and collect the State Per Capita aid for these illegals rather than embark on a lengthy , costly process aimed at identifying and ridding the district of these free loaders.

SCATS said...

To 1:38PM ~~ It was the Rush-Henrietta district run by our former Asst. Supt. Ken Graham. He could still be called ;)

From what I've heard from parents, at the school level, all that's "required" for verification is a bill showing your current address.

Anonymous said...

One complication that arises when dealing with this problem, is the SED law that defines a " homeless child ".
After reading the law what the state considers a homeless child has to do with where a child sleeps at night,
Simply put, if a child lives in his home district, but sleeps in another district , the responsibility of educating this child belongs to the nocturnal residence district . Go figure.

SCATS said...

To 2:06PM ~~ Yes, I'm aware of the impact of the "homeless" kids. However, Rush-Henrietta STILL dealt with the residency issue quite successfully. We could too ... if we had the DESIRE.