Thursday, January 08, 2015

Wet Seal's Greece Employees 'Surprised' By Closing



The sign reads:

Our Mission Statement
Who We Are:
We lie to our employees. We hide the fact that YES our store is closing and we gave our employees NO warning!
We took away all benefits including sick time & vacation time and we left them with NO SEVERANCE PAY!! But we gave our CFO a $100,000 raise. :)

Wet Seal Greece Ridge employees want to personally thank all of our *loyal* customers as well as the support of fellow mall employees. We enjoyed our time here and the relationships we've made.

WE LOVE OUR CUSTOMERS


36 comments:

Anonymous said...

What the hell was seal?

Looks like a bunch of bottles inside.

Can SuperBill open a coffee shop there? He really wants to open a coffee shop in Town.

Anonymous said...

SCATS, I know that Greece is your beat so to speak, and presume probably also your home. Having said that, I'm curious to here your thoughts about the push by Spencerport administration to bring in the urban-suburban program. Surely you've caught word of it in recent weeks. It is obvious to most that the Supt. and the BOE had every intention of passing the Supt's recommendation to bring the program in as quickly and as quietly as possible. The BOE was all set to vote the program in exactly one week after an extremely under attended urban-suburban "info" night back in early December. Word got out that this was happening, and then all heck broke loose. Now, suddenly, they've (the BOE) decided they need to research the idea. Why would they now decide they need to research an idea they were all set to vote in a month ago?! It seems to me that by drawing out the process, they're hoping people will forget about it. Am I crazy? They've been asked time and again to show educational/academic benefits the program brings to a district, but have yet to produce an answer. All we hear is that "If your against the idea, you're a racist". Why would a group (Supt. & BOE) push a proposal that does not benefit academic achievements of district kids, especially when the taxpayers are clearly opposed to it? You seem to have some insight into the thought process of people in these positions, so perhaps you could theorize.

SCATS said...

To 3:59PM ~~ In early Dec. we posted on that topic. You might want to look in the archives & read the numerous comments posted.

As for your questions:

Why would they now decide they need to research an idea they were all set to vote in a month ago?!

A: Because they got caught with their attempt at "quick" & "quiet." GCSD typically does this too. Case in point: In Dec. the GCSD BOE adopted an amended meeting schedule/calander. On Jan. 6th, they had a study session NOT LISTED on the amended calendar!! It's ALL a game to them.

Am I crazy?

A. Nope.

Why would a group (Supt. & BOE) push a proposal that does not benefit academic achievements of district kids, especially when the taxpayers are clearly opposed to it?

A. Because there appears to be a FINANCIAL BENEFIT to the hosting district! They receive the city student's State Aid which is typically larger per pupil than what the other students in the suburban district bring in. It's ALL about $$$ .... education, not so much ;)

Anonymous said...

First of all, thanks for the input. Here's the thing though, they actually receive less per city student, than the collect for a Spencerport student. It's less than 10k per city kid. Meanwhile RCSD continues to collect taxes for that student, even though he/she isn't even attending a city school. I guess I could make more of a case for it if Spencerport budgets were ever close to being turned down, but they always pass easily. The only think I'm wondering is if it might be a political move on behalf of the Supt. "Look what I accomplished" type of thing for his resume, to show his next perspective district.

SCATS said...

To 6:54PM ~~ It is my assumption that the total per pupil cost is more in RCSD than in SCD. I strongly suspect the RCSD student's "tuition" follows him/her wherever they attend. Therein lies a $$ differential between districts.

Another reason I have for thinking this might be the case is that a Greece BOE member recently brought up that he thought GCSD should look into the urban-suburban program as an "additional revenue opportunity." That means $$ on the income side of the equation.

Anonymous said...

I know that would make sense, but it's not the way it works. The receiving district only picks up less than $10k per student. However, what it DOES do is pick up approximately $10k per child to fill desks that would otherwise be vacant. So it is a revenue maker in that sense. So if your districts enrollment is falling, this permanent band-aid does help to keep your schools closer to full. Having said that, shouldn't it be up to the taxpayers to make that decision? Ask the taxpayers if they're willing to pay the extra cost in lieu of renting out space to city students. It's kind of like turning your schools into section 8 housing.

SCATS said...

To 7:56PM ~~ I completely disagree with your "logic." If SCD's per pupil cost was $18,900, receiving $10K to add one more will likely cost more than $10K! Each pupil draws on more than 1 classroom teacher. There are costs for busing, admin., cafeteria, janitorial, security, etc.

Also, SCD is one district where GCSD students have been fleeing to. Do you have figures to show their enrollments are down??

Anonymous said...

The busing does fall on RCSD, but that's it. The costs for those other items basically stay the same, as long as your student population doesn't take a huge leap. I sat through an entire sale's pitch from the Supt. & Urban Suburban panel (which was stomach turning) and heard it from them. I just can't see the motive behind breaking up a community.

SCATS said...

To 4:23AM ~~ "Breaking up a community"??

Isn't that a bit overboard?

george hubbard said...

To: SCATS

1. SCSD (Spencerport) numbers may help – source MCSBA:
____Yr_______Bdgt____Enrlmt__Cost/pupil
1a. 2008_____$63.6M___4,290___$14.8K.
1b. 2014_____$70M____3,678___$19.0K.

1c. 6yr Chg__+10%_____-14%____+28%.

2. When it comes to costs, 6yr changes (1c. above) show SCSD has lost control... and sitting on excess capacity.

3. Post 3:39pm is on the right track... the debate must consider impacts (plural)... on educ quality (pluses and minuses) and costs... over a period of several years (how many) for SCSD and RCSD students.
3a. What are the expected results from Urb-Sub program?
3b. How will results be monitored and measured?
3c. Who is accountable?
3d. Ques: What are actual and implied commitments going forward... easy to start... how to stop... do non-resident students have legal standing going forward?

Comments invited.

George Hubbard

Anonymous said...

Hey this restaurant got NO COMIDA incentives.

george hubbard said...

To: SCATS

1. SCSD (Spencerport) reports class sizes:
____Year____K-2___3-5___6-8___9-12___Enrolmt
1a. 2014____20____20____26____24_____3,678

2. There’s been talk of Urb-Sub= 120 students (10/grade).

3. Ques: Parents, taxpayers, community others should be asking BOE impact on class sizes? Teacher evaluations?

4. Ques: Will there be documented agreement between SCSD and RCSD regarding:
4a. objectives and expectations...
4b. performance measures...
4c. periodic review...
4d. resolution of future conflicts/differences?

Comments invited.

George Hubbard

Anonymous said...

SCATS, breaking up a community is exactly what happens. No different than rental property popping up in neighborhoods, especially when the government is paying the rent. People that have not made a personal/financial investment to whatever they're using (home, car, school district) do not take care of it as well as those who have. As far as Mr. Hubbard, he touched on something that is important to point out: Once the program is brought in, it isn't going anywhere. This is evidenced by the fact that no other district has ever gotten rid of it. Those who are attempting to sell the idea say it's because it's such a success. (Off the record, of course) many in districts that presently have the program essentially say, "If you can't say no thank you to them at the front door, telling them to get out is even harder". Frankly, even if I thought the basic concept of the program was a good idea (which I absolutely don't), how does anyone justify a program that blatantly tells people they're not allowed based on nothing more than race? If I were to drum up enough money to start a program that only benefited students, but rule #1 is you must be white, it would be on the front page of the D&C every day until it was abolished. So my question remains: if district taxpayers are willing to pay the extra tax dollars to make up for empty desks in classrooms, keeping their schools exclusive to district residents, who is the BOE tell them they're wrong?

Anonymous said...

So 9:38, is Spencerport action an early step toward Monroe County consolidated schools?

Anonymous said...

In response to 10:08, I do believe it is a thinly veiled step in that direction. In my opinion this is evidenced by the support of the urban/suburban program (and the outside push for Spencerport to adopt it) by groups like Unite Rochester. They, in particular, have been behind the idea of a county school district for a while now. Any attempt to speak against the plan is immediately met cries of racism, of course. Never mind they're inability to show measurable academic benefits to districts considering the program.

Anonymous said...

What is the expected gain from having Urb/Sub students from RCSD attend suburban schools?

There seems to be an underlying belief that an RCSD student attending a suburban school will do better academically than if he/she continued at RCSD.

Where is the evidence that this is true?

Anonymous said...

All URB/SUBURB plans are racist by design based on the premise used to implement them.
Problem is it's reversed discrimination doctored to look like it's helping Diversity!!!

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that the focus of the Spencerport school board should be improvement of educational results for Spencerport students or are they saying they are as good as they can be? Social engineering is not their purpose.
What is the definition of diversity? Is not the proper word Quota's? If the purpose is to promote a county school district then one must ask why that is not being talked about. Is it the school boards goal to promote a county wide district? Is this their idea of leadership? Progressive leadership? Is this an idea coming from the Whitehouse?

george hubbard said...

To: SCATS – follow-on from previous post 12:18AM.

1. SCSD (Spencerport) reports for 2014:
1a. Teacher count= 375
1b. Support Staff count= 335.
1c. Enrollment= 3,678

2. Adding 120 Urb/Sub students= +3.3% enrollment.
2a. Implied +3.3% teacher hires= 12 to maintain stu/teach ratio.
2b. Implied +3.3% staff hires= 11 to maintain stu/staff ratio.

3. Both SCSD and Urb/Sub... students, parents, community members and district employees deserve to see a plan reviewed and adopted by both BOEs - SCSD and RCSD.

Comments invited.

George Hubbard

Anonymous said...

How many students are involved in proposed Urb/Sub program at Spencerport?

How were/will students be selected?

Anonymous said...

The Supt. said an estimated120 would be brought in over a 5 yr period. Having said that, it think it's important to point out this is his "sales pitch estimate", which most agree is a low-ball number. It's also interesting that some of the districts of similar size, that have had the program for decades, haven't even reached these numbers. When I asked him during the proposal meeting on Dec. 2nd why there would be such a rush to exceed numbers held in other districts, he answered "why not" with a pompous look on him face, as though the question was absurd.

So now we have a BOE that was prepared to adopt the program on Dec. 9th saying they're now researching the idea. WOULDNT YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH PRIOR TO THE ORIGINAL DATE IT WAS TO BE VOTED ON!? Anyone that feels this entire process has been on the up and up out here is crazy.

Anonymous said...

7:12 this is public education where facts always take a back seat to feelings. Is the focus of participation in this urban/suburban program on the educational improvement of Spencerport kids? Based on the comments in news reports the answer would be no. The focus has been on the word 'diversity' a word that can be used to mean what ever you want it to mean with of course no way to measure in a factual way the definition of success, just feelings.

Anonymous said...

What their doing now in Spencerport isn't researching at all. They're stalling the process of bringing in the program long enough where those who are apposed start to forget about it. At this point, because they were caught trying to sneak it in, they'll just try to draw it out longer than people are willing to pay attention.

Anonymous said...

To: 7:12PM

Thanks for info. Your ‘very good questions’… deserve ‘much better answers”

“The Supt. said an estimated120 would be BROUGHT IN over a 5 yr period.” Does that mean SCSD would build up to 120/yr… or a total of 120 students would enter the Urb/Sub program over 5yrs?

But what’s more important are results… how fast do students [successfully] MOVE OUT of program?

Anonymous said...

To: 7:12PM

BOE/SCSD has 7 members. How many seats open 2015?

How many candidates expected to run. Get busy taking out petitions!

Anonymous said...

7:12PM
So, Supt says 120 over 5yrs.
Well,
116 first year, +1 second year, +1 third year, +1 fourth year, + 1 fifth year = 120 over 5yrs… where no student stays more than one year.
or
24 first year +24, +24, +24 +24 = 120 over 5yrs where no student stays more than one year.
or
120 first year and all students stay 5yrs = 120 students over 5yrs.

7:12, your question was good, the answer was absurd!!!

And so to is +28% spending per student over 6yrs – see 2:55PM.

geirge hubbard said...

To: 7:06AM
Does pending Urb/Sub program conform to SCSD (Spencerport) mission?

SCSD website states:
“STRATEGIC DELIMITERS:
We will accept/implement no new program or service unless:

o it is consistent with and contributes to our mission

o it will be staffed and funded sufficiently

o it is accompanied by the means to assess its effectiveness”

Success of Urb/Sbr program will hinge on BOE/SCSD affirming all three bullets… and especially bullet 3.

Students, parents, staff, community members et al should accept nothing less than what BOE has previously promised.

Comments invited.

George hubbard

Anonymous said...

Fewer students.

Buy more buses.

Want voter approval to buy more land to park more buses.

What is wrong with this picture?

SCATS said...

To 12:19PM ~~ Voter approval?? I don't think they plan to have the public vote on this, do they?

I also don't think the land purchase has much to do with parking buses as it does with their Cap. Improvement project to build a bus washing facility & a stadium at Arcadia. But then again ... the crowds who come for those night games, carnivals and other activities will need someplace to park.

Anonymous said...

To be clear, the urban/suburban program functions like this: no matter what grade a student is introduced to your district, they stay until graduation. It is not not like a foreign exchange program where they stop in for a semester or two, you own them all the way through. And every year as "x" number of city kids graduate in your district, at least that many are introduced at the kindergarten level.

All the while, mind you, these kids are for all intensive purposes still considered "rochester city students". Which means they are eligible for all of the different social (welfare) scholarships afforded to "city" school students (think RIT free tuition, etc). They are also eligible for scholorships available to only kids participating in the urban suburban program, which host district students can not get. And finally they are eligible for scholorships specific to the district they graduate in. Oh, and by the way again, "white" city students are NOT eligible to participate in the program.

SCATS said...

To 7:49PM ~~ Your comment has jarred my memory about boardroom discussions from years gone by. Admin used to claim that Greece students who PERFORMED WELL were NOT the students who entered the district at middle school or beyond, but the ones we had early-on. In other words, if you wanted them to graduate on time, they needed to be in GCSD longer to actually learn to read, write and do math. There was plenty of data that showed it, too. So I wonder how that washes with this idea ... ? Hmm ...

Anonymous said...

You'll see feel good stories like a recent D&C article that talks about three brothers who attend Wheatland Chili in the urban/suburban program. It discusses, among other things, how they've flourished in the Chili basketball program. What it does not discuss (conveniently) is that families residing in, and paying Wheatland Chili taxes have kids that were cut from that team in order for these three brothers to have made the team. The same would go for all extra curricular activities where limited spots exist. Add to that the special education resources where the worst cases get the most attention, and others are suddenly no longer in need. But it sure "feels good"...

Anonymous said...

Greece's Urban/Suburban Plan is called Section 8 housing. Who needs to define a plan when you offer enhanced housing on taxpayer's dimes at "Crackhouse Commons", Orchard Park, Dewey Ave. corridor, Milford street and etc. No plan for GCSD necessary, only higher tax base by residents to cover added expense of schooling $h!t#e@%$

Anonymous said...

Hi all.
Thanks for the great discussion. I am working to prevent this program from entering the district yet the "reach" is so far beyond parents. It seems impossible. We don't have news teams who work under our direction (as this program certainly seems to). It's also strange how many issues teachers are sharing in quiet corners but none of these incidents are ever covered by the press, who of course, cover every tiny situation from other districts. They are fudging the 'success' of this program every chance they can and still, our district does not seem to have any statistical FACTS yet our "board" (aka the superintendents yes-men) feel they need to pass this. democracy sure can feel like dictatorship sometimes....but how do you fight this?!

Anonymous said...

How does his pay work (or any other superintendents I guess). He is 57. He retires the year this program will reach "full capacity". If the district has more money, will he automatically make more? Or is he on a set scale. He is hard pressed to bring this program...I feel like there has to be a personal gain to deal with so much pushback but I cannot find anything that states how his pay/raises work ...he has already had his salary increased by $20k in the 3 years he has served.

SCATS said...

To 3:16PM ~~ I don't know the specifics for Spencerport, but typically, a Supt. has a contract, often for a 3 year term. It is up to your Board of Education to evaluate his performance, review and at the proper time decide whether or not to renew his contract. The contract usually states incremental increases along the way. His contract should be available under FOIL, if not merely for the asking.