Lancaster BOE appoints new school superintendent

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lets see - I guess we can say, "Hey, their all doing it - so we aren't so bad" - "We are in the lower average range - so we deserve more" - "If we want executive/professional grade people - we have to pay" -

That goes hand in hand with, "When you look at the total budget - its a drop in the bucket" or "If you break it down its less than 50cents per family - if we save one student"

The point is not "Is this man worth it" - the point is no "How qualified he is" - the point is not "The other guy was paid xxxx"

By bringing in the other obscene salaries of the other Towns/schools - you actually once again ignored the fundamental issue - ITS ABOUT TAXES - ITS ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES -

This is not personal folks - don't get lost here - its not a issue of male female pay inequities - ITS ABOUT TAXES and the ever growing amount the whole system is and will cost.

Was the increased cost of this salary included in the project budget - who approved the increase and benefits line amount - why did voters not have a voice in the process - its going to affect every home owner in this Town for life. It wont magically correct our economic issues - it wont enhance the chances of stabilizing taxes -

This will be a factor in the near future - it will help create harder decisions when funding/budget time comes down to who/what gets cut - sports - teachers - after school programs.

The benefits package alone would equal another full time teacher - the extra pay raise would fund another rookie Lancaster Police Officer. -

What are our priorities - ????????

Thats the point here folks - not who or what this person is or isn't - its about our tax funded burden.


PS - last time i checked - only 14% of Lancaster's High School Students go on to graduate from college.

Those who have come to know Dr. Vallely, his qualifications, his commitment and dedication, and learn of the educational program improvements under his leadership have no problem in saying the right man was chosen for the Lancaster Superintendent position.

The 14% college graduate rate you refer to I imagine is for a four year college education graduation rate?

[4248]

Those who have come to know Dr. Vallely, his qualifications, his commitment and dedication, and learn of the educational program improvements under his leadership have no problem in saying the right man was chosen for the Lancaster Superintendent position.

Sorry - you have a point - ignore lack of taxpayer input or future tax burden.

Sorry - he's a great guy and so is everyone else on the tax funded gravy train - raises and bloated benefits packages for everyone!!!!!!!!!!

Tax funded salary Tax funded benefits package.
Clarence----------------5,024-----------$190,000.00 --------$48,982.00
Orchard Park-----------5,137-----------$175,000.00 --------$51,276.00
Amherst----------------2,916-----------$169,459.00 --------$51,622.00
Grand Island-----------3,060-----------$156,750.00 -------- $58,933.00
Iroquois----------------2,568----------- $160,252.00 --------$39,448.00
Hamburg---------------3,756------------$170,000.00--------$39,760.00
Lancaster---------------6,108-----------$170,586.00 --------$56,576.00
West Seneca-----------7,027-----------$178,500.00--------$44,303.00
Depew------------------2,016-----------$160,000.00--------$37,900.00
Cheek – Maryville------2,134-----------$148,500.00-------$41,558.00
Cleveland Hill-----------1,419-----------$150,062.00-------$28,956.00
Cheek –Sloan-----------1,178-----------$194,519.00-------$48,982.00
Cheektowaga-----------2,209-----------$153,755.00-------$39,289.00

[Lee Chowaniec]

Sorry - you have a point - ignore lack of taxpayer input or future tax burden.

Sorry - he's a great guy and so is everyone else on the tax funded gravy train - raises and bloated benefits packages for everyone!!!!!!!!!!

Tax funded salary Tax funded benefits package.
Clarence----------------5,024-----------$190,000.00 --------$48,982.00
Orchard Park-----------5,137-----------$175,000.00 --------$51,276.00
Amherst----------------2,916-----------$169,459.00 --------$51,622.00
Grand Island-----------3,060-----------$156,750.00 -------- $58,933.00
Iroquois----------------2,568----------- $160,252.00 --------$39,448.00
Hamburg---------------3,756------------$170,000.00--------$39,760.00
Lancaster---------------6,108-----------$170,586.00 --------$56,576.00
West Seneca-----------7,027-----------$178,500.00--------$44,303.00
Depew------------------2,016-----------$160,000.00--------$37,900.00
Cheek – Maryville------2,134-----------$148,500.00-------$41,558.00
Cleveland Hill-----------1,419-----------$150,062.00-------$28,956.00
Cheek –Sloan-----------1,178-----------$194,519.00-------$48,982.00
Cheektowaga-----------2,209-----------$153,755.00-------$39,289.00

I thought I made myself clear on two things, namely, the Lancaster Superintendent's compensation is what the market bears (market value) and that I am of the opinion that Dr. Vallely has been proven to be well qualified for the position. In fact, there is not a single person who has voiced otherwise to me.

Is the salary and benefit packages offered to school superintendents way out of line considering their oversight and education obligations, well, the Board of Education (BOE) members didn’t think so the other night. From past appointments the BOE’s from all districts will speak on having to give such compensations to attract individuals who meet required position standards.

What is disturbing to me is that some taxpaying voters will look at this appointment with disdain and vote ‘no’ at budget time. That would be unfair - especially for the students. These individuals should appear at a BOE meeting and question the reasoning for the BOE for agreeing to said contract. They may berate the BOE membership otherwise and even consider voting against them if and when they should run for office again.

At the same time, I just wonder how many of these disgruntled taxpayers would ever consider running for a seat on the BOE – a position that pays nothing for working untold hours prepping for meetings, attending seminars, attending school and community programs, etc. – while taking a heap of undeserved crap during the budget process and during union negotiations. They get squat in compensation and some believe they hand out generous compensation packages for the sake of being good guys. Nonsense.

Lord knows that I can be a pain in the BOE’s ass when it comes to attending their meetings and harping for fiscal responsibility. Here, the BOE got it right. It is what it is!

[yaksplat]

He'll out earn Governor Cuomo in one year, after his first raise.

I believe that the superintendent's salary is in line with others in the area. However, I think all of the superintendent's salaries as a whole are about 30% higher than they should be.

All that 14% number says is that high school is way too easy and nothing more than a huge case of social promotion at this point. A high school diploma is worth less than the paper it's printed on.

[4248]

Lee stated :"I thought I made myself clear on two things, namely, the Lancaster Superintendent's compensation is what the market bears (market value) and that I am of the opinion that Dr. Vallely has been proven to be well qualified for the position. In fact, there is not a single person who has voiced otherwise to me"

Again I accept your "Opinion" - I also stated "Its not personal" - Its about taxes.

You stated "What the Market will bear" - the "market" as you infer - is what people/employers/taxpayers are currently paying. Is that a fair statement?

Yet, those who decide what we pay are not actually those of us who bear that burden - is that a fair statement/opinion?

So is it also fair to say - the "Market Value" thats sited (other schools/districts) is such because other "Boards" set those levels of payment - also not voted on prior to appointment by the voters? - Is that a fair opinion?

You also stated, "What is disturbing to me is that some taxpaying voters will look at this appointment with disdain and vote ‘no’ at budget time"

Well you then say, "That would be unfair to the students" -

First if the only way some of us voters can affect the budget is to vote no - then so be it.

If the students suffer loss of anything - it will be due to cuts brought about because of the cost of the budget demands cuts. Those cuts if needed will be because the cost of Admin and teachers make it necessary.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee stated :"I thought I made myself clear on two things, namely, the Lancaster Superintendent's compensation is what the market bears (market value) and that I am of the opinion that Dr. Vallely has been proven to be well qualified for the position. In fact, there is not a single person who has voiced otherwise to me"

Again I accept your "Opinion" - I also stated "Its not personal" - Its about taxes.

You stated "What the Market will bear" - the "market" as you infer - is what people/employers/taxpayers are currently paying. Is that a fair statement?

Yet, those who decide what we pay are not actually those of us who bear that burden - is that a fair statement/opinion?

So is it also fair to say - the "Market Value" thats sited (other schools/districts) is such because other "Boards" set those levels of payment - also not voted on prior to appointment by the voters? - Is that a fair opinion?

You also stated, "What is disturbing to me is that some taxpaying voters will look at this appointment with disdain and vote ‘no’ at budget time"

Well you then say, "That would be unfair to the students" -

First if the only way some of us voters can affect the budget is to vote no - then so be it.

If the students suffer loss of anything - it will be due to cuts brought about because of the cost of the budget demands cuts. Those cuts if needed will be because the cost of Admin and teachers make it necessary.

My hope is that the budget is not voted down based on only the Superintendent’s appointment and compensation package, but based on an ever skyrocketing spending spree that is the result of unfunded mandates and school staff and teacher wage and benefit increases.

As was pointed out in the recent budget work session, if the playing field remains the same employee staff and teacher benefits will increase by $2.65 million dollars; 11.61%.

Teachers this year are scheduled to receive a 1.25% wage increase from the district and another 3.47% from the NYS Triborough Agreement.

The district is not receiving the 4.93% state aid as projected by the Governor. In fact, the district receives millions less in state aid now than four years ago.

I agree that we can no longer sustain annual budget spending increase of millions of dollars by raiding the reserves and not making the hard choices in a district where enrollment has decreased by several hundred students over the past few years. But to vote against a budget based on a Superintendent’s appointment wage structure alone is folly. With all the flux and uncertainties currently at hand, it's too early in the budget process for an individual to make a sound decision as to vote for a final budget or against it.

Unlike Obamacare where legislators had to vote for it to know what’s in it, people here have the opportunity to know what’s in the budget before they vote for it.

[4248]

This is not a pissing match between you and I. But once again I have to point out a inaccurate statement you made.

You stated, "Unlike Obamacare where legislators had to vote for it to know what’s in it, people here have the opportunity to know what’s in the budget before they vote for it"

Was there public disclosure prior to the salary increase?

Was there public announcement for taxpayers to discuss or vote on the appointment ?

Also - no one has produced a list of anyone else who was "interviewed" for the position.

When was the Superintendent "Search" to replace Mr.Myszka advertised in the Buffalo News ?

In a sense - it appears because you "Agree" with the decision - we should too. We don't have to attend as many or any meetings at all to have a valid opinion. You insinuate differently - I disagree with using that as a barometer by which to judge another persons right to or validity of some ones opinions.

I appreciate what you have chosen to do - I applaud your hours of uncompensated work for the benefit of educating residents. At that same time - I have earned my right to speak - I have walked the walk and paid the price.

Last point - when the BOE starts getting ready to stage the students on the lawn come time for a budget vote - when they cry about the need for more money or the "Students will suffer" - I'll remind you of your opinion.

[Lee Chowaniec]

4248;1057079]This is not a pissing match between you and I. But once again I have to point out a inaccurate statement you made.

You stated, "Unlike Obamacare where legislators had to vote for it to know what’s in it, people here have the opportunity to know what’s in the budget before they vote for it"

Was there public disclosure prior to the salary increase?

The key word in my so-called inaccurate statement was budget – not an appointed position process; therefore, not inaccurate.

Was there public announcement for taxpayers to discuss or vote on the appointment ?

I am unaware of a public voting process used to appoint a school superintendent in any school district. Pleasse give me an example.

Also - no one has produced a list of anyone else who was "interviewed" for the position

.

Does the BOE have to provide one and have you asked to see one?

When was the Superintendent "Search" to replace Mr.Myszka advertised in the Buffalo News ?

It wasn’t to my knowledge and really I don’t care believing that the school district couldn’t have chosen a more qualified and committed individual – an individual with a PH.D and recognized by everyone I know to have contributed greatly to improve academic standards in Lancaster. And when considering the size of the school population, the number of buildings in the school complex, and his experience in the Lancaster school system his salary is in line with the position.

In a sense - it appears because you "Agree" with the decision - we should too. We don't have to attend as many or any meetings at all to have a valid opinion. You insinuate differently - I disagree with using that as a barometer by which to judge another persons right to or validity of some ones opinions.

You have every right to your opinion and I am not trying to influence anyone’s opinion on the appointment. However, at the same time I believe I have presented facts to support my position. While you rail about the public not having a say in the appointment process and that the appointment comes with too much compensation, you tell me nothing of why the individual chosen is not worthy of the position and his compensation.

I appreciate what you have chosen to do - I applaud your hours of uncompensated work for the benefit of educating residents. At that same time - I have earned my right to speak - I have walked the walk and paid the price.

You have walked the talk and have a right to opine.

Last point - when the BOE starts getting ready to stage the students on the lawn come time for a budget vote - when they cry about the need for more money or the "Students will suffer" - I'll remind you of your opinion.

I differ with your opinion here as well. It is not so much the BOE that stages the students anywhere, it is primarily the teachers who advocate for the kids to go home and spread the word that money is needed and the budget has to be passed otherwise teaching jobs and larger class sizes will result.

Last year’s budget was $91.51 million and will most likely approach $95 million this year. The district is burning up reserves (taxpayer money) to bring in a budget under the allowable cap number and is doing so because of incorrect announced state aid projections and skyrocketing employee wage and benefit increases.

So, at final budget time this year and if and when the ‘kids’ are out there crying for money and for voters to approve the budget, should you remind of my early opinion, I will have to ask you, “which one; the $175,000 appointment or the $95 million budget and all the reasons to vote or not vote for its approval”?

I well understand your disturbance because of the $175,000 begining salary. It should not be the precurser for voting 'no' on a $95 million dollar budget.

As a sidebar, take a look at all the town appointments in this week’s town board agenda and then tell me whether those job openings were posted anywhere. This taking place after I requested two weeks ago that such postings take place when appointments were up for renewal, and where the Supervisor thought it was a good idea to put in place on the town website near the end of the year prior to the selection of 2014 town appointments.

Unfortunately only one page of the communications is available for review. The agenda and pre-file resolutions are once again not posted on the town website.

[4248]

All too often people complain about taxes - then when an issue is something they agree with - even if it adds to the long term home owners tax burden - the game changes.

I did not bring the budget vote into this - that was not raised by me.

If there was others interviewed - actually thats not the issue - so no - I won't request something that doesn't relate to my concerns - TAXES. I am also glad the selection process or the rate of pay given is of no concern to some people.

What we see is again - a system that allows a handful of people to make decisions that affect the actual tax burden of all our residents.

Showing me what other districts do and reminding us that they too feel no obligation to make these process's open for public debate or a vote - that only shows me we are not alone.

It shows me and others theres need for reform in all areas where the outcome involves the amount of property taxes we pay.


Thats my point - I didn't raise the question of the mans personal qualifications or past involvement - as I stated - its not personal - its about taxes.

But , now that you mentioned it!

As I said - if the only way tax payers can say "No More" is to "Vote No" - its sad but thats the choice we are left with. Why - because no matter how many agenda's you read - no matter how many meetings you/we attend these decisions are not open for debate before hand - so the "Vote" is all we have left. -

[4248]

How's that "Task Force" thing work out ?

April 16,2010:
When one resident stated : "And anyone that believes Myska and his gang took a pay cut better go look at seethroughny.com and look it up for themselves. His contract says $155,000.00 but he made on his W2 $162,000.00+. He must have paid it back in cash"

Lee stated : "I guess I'm one of those dumb/naive ones that believe Myszka as he stated as much on numerous occasions and challenged people to FOIL for the information"

The schools are top heavy - I would rather higher 4 full time teachers then pay for one "Top Level Administrator" Admin pay raises should be subject to a seperate public vote.

[gorja]

For the 2007-08 school year, Myszka's contract stated his salary would be $155,000



And his salary was $155,000.



The board gave Myszka a 4.5% increase for the 2008-09 school year $162,000



His salary remained the same for 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years

Then he received a 1.25% increase for the 2011-12 school year $164,025