The following letter was directed to the WW-P Board of Education.
Pursuant to my public comments during the Tuesday, June 14, WW-P Board of Education meeting, I seek to reiterate my interest in, and your written response to, four recurring matters.
Since there is no formal — or informal — protocol for responding to public comments, e-mails, or snail mail sent to the WWP Board, I am asking the media to solicit responses to these public questions.
(1). Modeled after WW-P’s new ad hoc committee for district facilities in the Board’s interest and quest in boosting user fees, I ask you to convene a similar ad hoc committee for the WW-P wages and benefits negotiations.
These negotiations will transpire during the upcoming school fiscal year beginning in July. Taxpayers have seen the results of the Board’s secret contract negotiations with special labor counsel covering the previous three-year period: 4.9 percent, 4.8 percent, 4.7 percent, and upcoming 3.38 percent commencing July 1, 2011, through June 20, 2012.
(2). I have previously requested the executive summaries of duties performed by all senior administrative staff — to wit: the WW-P superintendent and district assistant superintendents. Since it is the taxpayers who are the ultimate revenue source for this staff, it is appropriate for the WW-P Board to ensure our district’s senior executives share what has been accomplished during the previous school year(s) and the roadmap for goals and objectives for the upcoming year(s).
The Board will recall that I requested this information PRIOR to the approval of contracts for our district superintendent and the numerous assistant superintendents. The information has neither been forthcoming nor is there an explanation why this public information . . . is not in the public domain.
(3). The WW-P Administration and Board of Education sought to transfer $1.75 million into a “reserve” account as a rainy day fund last night, yet following the defeated school budget vote in April, it could find only $503,000 in budget reductions. It is unclear the status of the Board’s additional funds set aside for PIACS. Please explain.
(4). The Board continues to reject: (A). testing of grade 9-12 student community service and (B). testing the videotaping or live broadcast of monthly Board of Education meetings via community access channels. In fact, the administration has steadfastly refused to put the discussion on the agenda to publicly address their objections. Why are these requests so unreasonable when so few of our young residents and students understand how our schools and townships operate?
Pete Weale
Fischer Place
