Just a reminder there is a SAU meeting Tuesday night and a School Board Meeting, Wednesday night.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Showing posts with label SAU 43. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAU 43. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Friday, June 4, 2010
The Problem with Newport is Greed
This past week there was an Area Agreement Meeting in Croydon. As usual Newport showed their true colors, they were doing everything possible to derail the process and gave excuses left and right for their failures. Just stop the games Newport. Most parents will end up sending their children to Newport in the end. But please show us that Newport is capable of being compassionate and let those parents who want to send their children elsewhere if they so choose. Be a good neighbor, show us you are not greedy, let the area agreement just end. Will Newport continue to be a selfish greedy neighbor or will they let Croydon parents decide what is best for their own children?
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Funny the Quote of the Day could be applied to Newport as well - "And I use the word ‘trapped' and I use it directly. They are trapped by an educational bureaucracy, they are trapped by a selfish, self-interested, greedy school union that cares more about putting money in their own pocket, and the pockets of members, than they care about educating our most vulnerable and needy children." - Governor Christie
The following piece appears on American Thinker. There are great links associated with this story please go to the American Thinker to view the links.
Governor Christie slams public teacher unions
Greg Halvorson
He's done it again. Governor Christie of blue-turning-red-because-of-him New Jersey, made every American who loves leadership misty-eyed. Speaking to the Federation For Children in Washington D.C., the good governor tore into public teachers unions with customary resolve. For your pleasure:
"Parents and children who are being failed by a public schoolsystem whose costs are exorbitant and whose results are insulting deserve a choice. We don't have to look far around the country to know that vouchers and experiments in school choice are working, that they're producing results.
In D.C., those in that program are now reading 19 months ahead of their peers outside of the program. This isn't a coincidence, we know it's not a coincidence. We know that there's over five-million children trapped in over ten-thousand failing public schools around America.
And I use the word ‘trapped' and I use it directly. They are trapped by an educational bureaucracy, they are trapped by a selfish, self-interested, greedy school union that cares more about putting money in their own pocket, and the pockets of members, than they care about educating our most vulnerable and needy children."
He went on to say that in America's largest cities half of all students don't graduate high school. Citing an example, he pointed out that New Jersey tax-payers spend $24,000 per/student, per/year in Newark on what he said is an "absolutely disgraceful public education system."
"Our children deserve the best education they can get, no matter who is giving it to them," he said, "and it should not be restricted to public school teachers from a public school union that cares more about what they're paying for their health insurance than they care about whether the kids in our cities are graduating. That's disgraceful."
What isn't disgraceful is this marvelous leader. Governor Christie knows the way out.
Cathy
Spelling errors, grammar errors, misuse of homonyms and typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Funny the Quote of the Day could be applied to Newport as well - "And I use the word ‘trapped' and I use it directly. They are trapped by an educational bureaucracy, they are trapped by a selfish, self-interested, greedy school union that cares more about putting money in their own pocket, and the pockets of members, than they care about educating our most vulnerable and needy children." - Governor Christie
The following piece appears on American Thinker. There are great links associated with this story please go to the American Thinker to view the links.
Governor Christie slams public teacher unions
Greg Halvorson
He's done it again. Governor Christie of blue-turning-red-because-of-him New Jersey, made every American who loves leadership misty-eyed. Speaking to the Federation For Children in Washington D.C., the good governor tore into public teachers unions with customary resolve. For your pleasure:
"Parents and children who are being failed by a public schoolsystem whose costs are exorbitant and whose results are insulting deserve a choice. We don't have to look far around the country to know that vouchers and experiments in school choice are working, that they're producing results.
In D.C., those in that program are now reading 19 months ahead of their peers outside of the program. This isn't a coincidence, we know it's not a coincidence. We know that there's over five-million children trapped in over ten-thousand failing public schools around America.
And I use the word ‘trapped' and I use it directly. They are trapped by an educational bureaucracy, they are trapped by a selfish, self-interested, greedy school union that cares more about putting money in their own pocket, and the pockets of members, than they care about educating our most vulnerable and needy children."
He went on to say that in America's largest cities half of all students don't graduate high school. Citing an example, he pointed out that New Jersey tax-payers spend $24,000 per/student, per/year in Newark on what he said is an "absolutely disgraceful public education system."
"Our children deserve the best education they can get, no matter who is giving it to them," he said, "and it should not be restricted to public school teachers from a public school union that cares more about what they're paying for their health insurance than they care about whether the kids in our cities are graduating. That's disgraceful."
What isn't disgraceful is this marvelous leader. Governor Christie knows the way out.
Friday, May 14, 2010
SAU meeting Next Wednesday
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine
It is the duty of every Croydon resident to make sure that Newport is not wasting our tax dollars and using Croydon as it's own little cash cow. There is also an area agreement meeting on June 2nd. On so many levels Newport has been using us for so many years.
Cathy Peschke
It is the duty of every Croydon resident to make sure that Newport is not wasting our tax dollars and using Croydon as it's own little cash cow. There is also an area agreement meeting on June 2nd. On so many levels Newport has been using us for so many years.
Cathy Peschke
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Puppet Won
A puppet to the PTO and the Newport School Employees won the election. Croydon voters will have to be vigilant to keep Croydon tax dollars in check and the little red school house open. I am really disappointed in some of my fellow Croydon residents who voted for the tax and spend candidate.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Reasons to Support Article 5
Seven Reasons to Support Article 5 - Sent to me via Gayle
1. Croydon is one of the smallest if not the smallest school district in the state. Containing one school and two teachers.
2. In order to provide an education for our children we need to have choice in the schools we send our children to from 4-12 grades.
3. We are locked in an Area agreement with Newport and we sent our children to schools in Newport that did not meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for SIX YEARS IN A ROW
4. Voting yes to article will not end the Area Agreement; it only appoints a committee to look into the possibility. On the committee is two Croydon school board members, one Newport school board member, one Croydon town official, the Superintendent of Schools, and members of the public. After an examination into the possibility of ending the agreement or keeping it a Public vote is required.
5. Cornish did this several years ago and it has the lowest annual increase (5 percent).
6. If the Area Agreement was discontinued, you could still choose to send you children to Newport.
7. It will not raise your taxes; parents would pay any tuition above the standard tuition to send their students to a different school.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
"Whenever people talk glibly of a need to achieve educational 'excellence,' I think of what an improvement it would be if our public schools could just achieve mediocrity" -- Thomas Sowell.
1. Croydon is one of the smallest if not the smallest school district in the state. Containing one school and two teachers.
2. In order to provide an education for our children we need to have choice in the schools we send our children to from 4-12 grades.
3. We are locked in an Area agreement with Newport and we sent our children to schools in Newport that did not meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for SIX YEARS IN A ROW
4. Voting yes to article will not end the Area Agreement; it only appoints a committee to look into the possibility. On the committee is two Croydon school board members, one Newport school board member, one Croydon town official, the Superintendent of Schools, and members of the public. After an examination into the possibility of ending the agreement or keeping it a Public vote is required.
5. Cornish did this several years ago and it has the lowest annual increase (5 percent).
6. If the Area Agreement was discontinued, you could still choose to send you children to Newport.
7. It will not raise your taxes; parents would pay any tuition above the standard tuition to send their students to a different school.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
"Whenever people talk glibly of a need to achieve educational 'excellence,' I think of what an improvement it would be if our public schools could just achieve mediocrity" -- Thomas Sowell.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Taxes will go up way up in Croydon
Taxes will go up way up in Croydon way up, if you do not let your voice be heard. The SAU administration presented the Croydon School Board a budget that included a 29% increase in the monies they are asking from Croydon taxpayers. We have.....
Rising unemployment - "The unadjusted November 2009 unemployment rate for New Hampshire was 6.5 percent, unchanged from the October rate, which was unchanged with revision. The November 2008 unadjusted rate was 4.0 percent."
Decreasing home values - Just ask anyone who has tried to sell a home or refinance their home.
Uh we are in a recession folks.
But the greed of those who want Croydon tax dollars is unrelenting and the insensitivity to the taxpayers of Newport's feeder district appears never ending. Those on social security are not getting a raise this year, but Newport and the SAU wants 29% increase in the tax dollars they receive from us. Many of us are lucky to even have a job or even get a raise. Make sure you tell these people how you feel at the next School Board Meeting and the Town Hall Meeting this year. Seriously have they no sense of shame?
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day - "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. " ~ Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Why should Croydon Stay with the SAU?
Why should Croydon Stay with the SAU, if the SAU won't do their job. At several meetings they have reported how much they do for Croydon. I don't see it.
Stop wasting our tax dollars and do your job.
Cathy
Stop wasting our tax dollars and do your job.
Cathy
Sunday, October 11, 2009
SAU to Raise Budget by 13.4 % are they kidding?
There was an SAU meeting last Thursday. The current SAU budget is 683,297 dollars. The SAU wants to raise the budget to 775,000 dollars or a 13.4% increase. Jim was the only SAU member to object to this increase. A public hearing on the budget will be held in Newport on Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. You can try to reach the SAU board members via this site. Also voice your opinion at the next Croydon School Board meeting on October 21st.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
School Well Update - Gayle Hedrington
Gayle wrote the following piece on Sunacom.com. To also read an interesting story about Croydon's own Bardo Project read the Story on Sunacom.com.
School Well Water Update
Health Officer Steve Cunningham reports that the well used by the school, town hall and Croydon Congregational Church is 45 years old, of unknown depth, and that the water system is maintained by certified water system manger, Pathways Consulting in Lebanon NH.
Steve Cunningham performed his own tests after flushing the system, and sent the water to the NH DES Laboratory, the only federally certified lab in NH. From the test results, Cunningham had the following recommendations:
"In spite of the negative results recently, the issue of a lack of free chlorine should be addressed. The town should be assured that sufficient chlorine went throughout the system. I would suggest a re-treatment of the well with a chlorine concentration of 50ppm or one gallon of sodium hypochlorite 5.25% bleach for 1000 gallons of well reserve, a NH recommendation. If our well is 500' deep, one gallon for the well, the immediately surrounding water bearing substrate, and the water system would be about right. Then testing for both free and total chlorine should be done over the next several days to determine the presence of free chlorine and chlorines compounds.
"If, by some chance, water is still considered to be chronically contaminated two solutions present themselves. First is to install a treatment system (liquid chlorine insertion would probably be simplest). Second is to connect the well at the Morse House (after testing) and disconnecting the school's well.
"I would also suggest allowing the schoolchildren to use the water for hand washing followed by use of an alcohol base hand disinfectant."
Go to Sunacom.com to view the rest of the story.
To my knowledge the problem has not been resolved. We pay a good portion of the SAU budget of over 600,000 dollars to the SAU what is the point of paying all of these tax dollars if the SAU does nothing for Croydon. Last year the cost of the SAU went up dramatically for Croydon yet we are getting less services in return.
Cathy
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
School Well Water Update
Health Officer Steve Cunningham reports that the well used by the school, town hall and Croydon Congregational Church is 45 years old, of unknown depth, and that the water system is maintained by certified water system manger, Pathways Consulting in Lebanon NH.
Steve Cunningham performed his own tests after flushing the system, and sent the water to the NH DES Laboratory, the only federally certified lab in NH. From the test results, Cunningham had the following recommendations:
"In spite of the negative results recently, the issue of a lack of free chlorine should be addressed. The town should be assured that sufficient chlorine went throughout the system. I would suggest a re-treatment of the well with a chlorine concentration of 50ppm or one gallon of sodium hypochlorite 5.25% bleach for 1000 gallons of well reserve, a NH recommendation. If our well is 500' deep, one gallon for the well, the immediately surrounding water bearing substrate, and the water system would be about right. Then testing for both free and total chlorine should be done over the next several days to determine the presence of free chlorine and chlorines compounds.
"If, by some chance, water is still considered to be chronically contaminated two solutions present themselves. First is to install a treatment system (liquid chlorine insertion would probably be simplest). Second is to connect the well at the Morse House (after testing) and disconnecting the school's well.
"I would also suggest allowing the schoolchildren to use the water for hand washing followed by use of an alcohol base hand disinfectant."
Go to Sunacom.com to view the rest of the story.
To my knowledge the problem has not been resolved. We pay a good portion of the SAU budget of over 600,000 dollars to the SAU what is the point of paying all of these tax dollars if the SAU does nothing for Croydon. Last year the cost of the SAU went up dramatically for Croydon yet we are getting less services in return.
Cathy
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
School Board Meeting This Wednesday
Please be sure to attend the school board meeting Wednesday night. It will be interesting to see just how the Newport crowd will try to scare Croydon residents out of school choice Wednesday night? More than anything the want our money they do not care about the wishes of Croydon parents and taxpayers.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Will President Obama Nationalize Public Education?
What would happen to our little red schoolhouse if President Obama nationalizes public education? My guess is we would be forced into Newport or another school district? Anyone else want to venture a guess? What teeny tiny local control we had would be gone in a flash and the cost of public education in America will skyrocket.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following article appears on American Thinker.com.
Nationalizing Public Education Comes After Health Care
By Lee Cary
After Congress passes a national health care plan, nationalizing public education will be next.
John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends (1988), said something to the effect that Ronald Reagan wasn't leading the (conservative) parade; he was riding the horse that was leading the parade.
Barack Obama is leading the progressive parade, and his wagon is hitched to a team of horses that includes a compliant Democrat Congress, well-funded liberal think tanks, a shill media, and the collective mindset of a progressive movement active since the early 20th Century.
The Great Depression chaos gave FDR the opportunity to dramatically alter the nation's socio-political landscape. Likewise, the implosion of the credit market in 2008 gave the Obama administration the chaos needed to cram down its progressive initiatives with breathtaking speed.
The Republicans have neither the votes nor the collective will to turn back the tide of Obama-style change that represents a mix of socialist and fascist economic policies not new to the planet, but new in their current intensity in America. The Democrats are playing hardball; the Republicans are lobbing mush pounders.
Though not yet in great numbers, some who voted for Obama are now being heard to say that they didn't vote for what's happening. Those confessions illustrate their failure to do due diligence on the candidate of their choice. His intentions were clearly laid out in his campaign documents and in many of his non-primetime speeches.
Click on the this link to read the full story.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following article appears on American Thinker.com.
Nationalizing Public Education Comes After Health Care
By Lee Cary
After Congress passes a national health care plan, nationalizing public education will be next.
John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends (1988), said something to the effect that Ronald Reagan wasn't leading the (conservative) parade; he was riding the horse that was leading the parade.
Barack Obama is leading the progressive parade, and his wagon is hitched to a team of horses that includes a compliant Democrat Congress, well-funded liberal think tanks, a shill media, and the collective mindset of a progressive movement active since the early 20th Century.
The Great Depression chaos gave FDR the opportunity to dramatically alter the nation's socio-political landscape. Likewise, the implosion of the credit market in 2008 gave the Obama administration the chaos needed to cram down its progressive initiatives with breathtaking speed.
The Republicans have neither the votes nor the collective will to turn back the tide of Obama-style change that represents a mix of socialist and fascist economic policies not new to the planet, but new in their current intensity in America. The Democrats are playing hardball; the Republicans are lobbing mush pounders.
Though not yet in great numbers, some who voted for Obama are now being heard to say that they didn't vote for what's happening. Those confessions illustrate their failure to do due diligence on the candidate of their choice. His intentions were clearly laid out in his campaign documents and in many of his non-primetime speeches.
Click on the this link to read the full story.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Does only one Croydon School Board Member Represent the People of Croydon?
At the school board meeting this past week two Croydon School Board members authorized more spending in the school budget than was authorized during the town hall meeting. You can guess which two.
In April the three school board members sat down to make the necessary cuts to meet the budget as voted on by the residents at the town hall meeting. Jim suggested a budget that did not cut teachers. Linda and George approved a budget that cut teachers. The teachers and employees of Croydon were not happy with it so at the last two school board meetings they pestered the school board until two caved. Can you guess which two?
Last year by a nearly two to one margin 70 households in Croydon responded to the long term planning committee that they want school choice. Michelle Caccavaro, Marilyn Brannigan, other Newport and SAU employees not happy with this are trying to say the people of Croydon really don't want this and do not know what is best for themselves. Jim was told three times by Newport people and SAU people as well as least once by Carol Marsh and Matt Wittasek that it is his job as a school board member to tell the people of Croydon what they want. Jim said no he represents the people of Croydon. These people clearly appear to not believe in a representative government. So the "we know what is best for you crowd", persuaded George and Linda to have an "information" meeting about how bad leaving Newport will be for Croydon residents. This meeting will probably be nothing but scare tactics, threats, intimidation and propaganda by the "we know what is best for you crowd" because they care more about Croydon tax dollars in their pockets then the desires of all those that expressed they want choice for their families and the residents of Croydon.
Don't think the only care about money. At the school meeting Monday the state representative from the department of ed told us that we could send our children to other schools. A Newport employee questioned even if the child does not go to Newport Schools, Croydon would still have to pay us that child's tuition. See folks Newport only wants our tax dollars they don't care that the majority of residents want choice. They will push until they get what they want unless Croydon residents speak up.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
In April the three school board members sat down to make the necessary cuts to meet the budget as voted on by the residents at the town hall meeting. Jim suggested a budget that did not cut teachers. Linda and George approved a budget that cut teachers. The teachers and employees of Croydon were not happy with it so at the last two school board meetings they pestered the school board until two caved. Can you guess which two?
Last year by a nearly two to one margin 70 households in Croydon responded to the long term planning committee that they want school choice. Michelle Caccavaro, Marilyn Brannigan, other Newport and SAU employees not happy with this are trying to say the people of Croydon really don't want this and do not know what is best for themselves. Jim was told three times by Newport people and SAU people as well as least once by Carol Marsh and Matt Wittasek that it is his job as a school board member to tell the people of Croydon what they want. Jim said no he represents the people of Croydon. These people clearly appear to not believe in a representative government. So the "we know what is best for you crowd", persuaded George and Linda to have an "information" meeting about how bad leaving Newport will be for Croydon residents. This meeting will probably be nothing but scare tactics, threats, intimidation and propaganda by the "we know what is best for you crowd" because they care more about Croydon tax dollars in their pockets then the desires of all those that expressed they want choice for their families and the residents of Croydon.
Don't think the only care about money. At the school meeting Monday the state representative from the department of ed told us that we could send our children to other schools. A Newport employee questioned even if the child does not go to Newport Schools, Croydon would still have to pay us that child's tuition. See folks Newport only wants our tax dollars they don't care that the majority of residents want choice. They will push until they get what they want unless Croydon residents speak up.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
School Meeting - June 8th
Last night I attended the meeting at Town Hall regarding the AREA agreement.
Miscellaneous information and my thoughts from the meeting......
SAU members told Jim three times that it was his job to tell the people of Croydon what they want and what is best for them. Jim responded that we are representatives, not kings. Our job is to do what the people want, not to tell them what they want. The board members either did not understand what Jim was saying or they didn't care. This incident brings to mind a quote:
"The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them." - Benito Mussolini
I must remind my readers of the Delphi Technique. Delphi is a technique used by educrats to lead the audience into what the educrats want and away from what you want.
Last year a survey of the people of Croydon told the school board by a margin of over two to one that they want choice. Last night's meeting orchestrated by the SAU and not the Croydon School Board seemed intent on informing Croydon that freedom from the Newport monopoly agreement will be nearly impossible and they will do everything in their power to ensure that school choice will never become an option.
The first step is to establish a group to investigate the feasibility of leaving the AREA agreement with Newport. Thanks to the ethically questionable acts of the legislators and educrats the laws are such that you can't just leave the agreement once the contract expires. If the committee recommends leaving the AREA agreement, the town will get to vote on whether to leave the AREA agreement. Once this vote passes, the state must approve the dissolution of the agreement.
This is the twisted world of public education. In a sane world the town would vote at the end of a contract and abide by that vote. The decision would not rest in the hands of some committee or the department of education. Blatant obstructionism at its finest.
When the department of ed representative mentioned the "Best interest of the child" and "Manifest educational hardship", a Newport board member had the gall to suggest that Croydon should remain bound to pay the tuition of any students removed from Newport through these perfectly legal processes. The Croydon crowd groaned and even those who oppose choice were not happy with that comment. I hope my readers can see the greed inherent in such a statement; they simply want our money and don't care about the parents or the taxpayers.
At the meeting Jim Vezina said Croydon was getting a deal on Newport tuition because it is based on the prior years' budget. He also said our tuition is going up a year later because of the raises given at Newport schools. The tax warrant in Newport was not supposed to impact the taxpayers and therefore should not impact Croydon tuition. He stated that the budget is going up 600,000 because of the wage increases but 10 teachers were to be cut to offset those wage increases. So Newport is not going to feel the impact of the wage increases but Croydon is? Either someone is mistaken or Croydon is getting screwed.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Miscellaneous information and my thoughts from the meeting......
SAU members told Jim three times that it was his job to tell the people of Croydon what they want and what is best for them. Jim responded that we are representatives, not kings. Our job is to do what the people want, not to tell them what they want. The board members either did not understand what Jim was saying or they didn't care. This incident brings to mind a quote:
"The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them." - Benito Mussolini
I must remind my readers of the Delphi Technique. Delphi is a technique used by educrats to lead the audience into what the educrats want and away from what you want.
Last year a survey of the people of Croydon told the school board by a margin of over two to one that they want choice. Last night's meeting orchestrated by the SAU and not the Croydon School Board seemed intent on informing Croydon that freedom from the Newport monopoly agreement will be nearly impossible and they will do everything in their power to ensure that school choice will never become an option.
The first step is to establish a group to investigate the feasibility of leaving the AREA agreement with Newport. Thanks to the ethically questionable acts of the legislators and educrats the laws are such that you can't just leave the agreement once the contract expires. If the committee recommends leaving the AREA agreement, the town will get to vote on whether to leave the AREA agreement. Once this vote passes, the state must approve the dissolution of the agreement.
This is the twisted world of public education. In a sane world the town would vote at the end of a contract and abide by that vote. The decision would not rest in the hands of some committee or the department of education. Blatant obstructionism at its finest.
When the department of ed representative mentioned the "Best interest of the child" and "Manifest educational hardship", a Newport board member had the gall to suggest that Croydon should remain bound to pay the tuition of any students removed from Newport through these perfectly legal processes. The Croydon crowd groaned and even those who oppose choice were not happy with that comment. I hope my readers can see the greed inherent in such a statement; they simply want our money and don't care about the parents or the taxpayers.
At the meeting Jim Vezina said Croydon was getting a deal on Newport tuition because it is based on the prior years' budget. He also said our tuition is going up a year later because of the raises given at Newport schools. The tax warrant in Newport was not supposed to impact the taxpayers and therefore should not impact Croydon tuition. He stated that the budget is going up 600,000 because of the wage increases but 10 teachers were to be cut to offset those wage increases. So Newport is not going to feel the impact of the wage increases but Croydon is? Either someone is mistaken or Croydon is getting screwed.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Greedy Educrats Sue and its about Money, no Surprise There
Governor Mark Sanford did absolutely the right thing when he rejected 700 million dollars in federal stimulus funds. We are in debt in this country to the tune of $200,000 per person. It is irresponsible for any state or city government to accept funds from the federal government when our Country is so far in debt. But greedy educrats sued Governor Mark Sanford and won and now he must take money that he knew was wrong to take.
The only responsible solution to our children and future generations is to cut spending and start paying back our debt now. Our debt level today will take 293 years to payback if no further debt is accumulated. I won't be alive then and I could be like the drunken power hunger Democrats and not care, but I do care as should every responsible American. The stimulus package that Bush approved at the end of his term was not only irresponsible but wrong. The debt that Obama has tacked on is more debt than was accumulated over the last 40 years is wrong. When are sensible Democrats and Republicans going to stand up and say enough is enough? Where are the principles and values being utilized on which this wonderful Country was built?
We must elect people who believe in small government and freedom we must stop electing Democrats and Republicans who believe in big government and the elimination of personal freedom.
Croydon is trying to set itself free from the greed of Newport Schools will the desire for choice by Croydon citizens win over the Greed of some in SAU 43 and some of the Newport School employees? Find out June 8th at 6:00 p.m. in the Croydon Town Hall.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day - "... increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations." Governor Mark Sanford
The following piece appears on CNN.
South Carolina governor trumped, must take stimulus money
(CNN) -- South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Gov. Mark Sanford must accept $700 million in federal stimulus money, ending the only formal effort by a governor to reject funding intended to jump-start an ailing economy.
Gov. Mark Sanford became the conservative face of opposition to the federal stimulus package.
The two-term Republican said he would abide by the court ruling, but called it a bad day for South Carolina and the country.
"This decision is terrible news for every taxpayer in South Carolina, and even more so for future taxpayers who will ultimately bear the responsibility of paying for this so-called 'stimulus' without seeing any benefit from it," he said in a statement.
Considered a potential future Republican presidential candidate, Sanford led the party's resistance to the $787 billion stimulus package. He warned the increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations.
Sanford initially tried to require that any stimulus money pay down the state debt, a stance rejected by the Obama administration.
Sanford had resisted taking the money even when the Republican-controlled legislature passed a budget that included the funds.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.
"At this stage in the process, the Governor certainly has no discretion to make a contradictory decision on behalf of the State," the ruling said. "We hold the Governor must apply for the ... funds." Watch report on Gov. Sanford's policy defeat »
However, the court distanced itself from any role in setting policy on the issue.
"Our decision today should not be construed as a comment on the policy differences between Governor Sanford and the General Assembly respecting the wisdom or necessity of South Carolina accepting the" money, it said. ... "We discharge our duty to honor the rule of law, nothing more."
The ruling was in response to lawsuits filed by two students and a school administrators' association that sought to force the state to accept the stimulus money, some of which will go for education needs.
The only responsible solution to our children and future generations is to cut spending and start paying back our debt now. Our debt level today will take 293 years to payback if no further debt is accumulated. I won't be alive then and I could be like the drunken power hunger Democrats and not care, but I do care as should every responsible American. The stimulus package that Bush approved at the end of his term was not only irresponsible but wrong. The debt that Obama has tacked on is more debt than was accumulated over the last 40 years is wrong. When are sensible Democrats and Republicans going to stand up and say enough is enough? Where are the principles and values being utilized on which this wonderful Country was built?
We must elect people who believe in small government and freedom we must stop electing Democrats and Republicans who believe in big government and the elimination of personal freedom.
Croydon is trying to set itself free from the greed of Newport Schools will the desire for choice by Croydon citizens win over the Greed of some in SAU 43 and some of the Newport School employees? Find out June 8th at 6:00 p.m. in the Croydon Town Hall.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Quote of the Day - "... increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations." Governor Mark Sanford
The following piece appears on CNN.
South Carolina governor trumped, must take stimulus money
(CNN) -- South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Gov. Mark Sanford must accept $700 million in federal stimulus money, ending the only formal effort by a governor to reject funding intended to jump-start an ailing economy.
Gov. Mark Sanford became the conservative face of opposition to the federal stimulus package.
The two-term Republican said he would abide by the court ruling, but called it a bad day for South Carolina and the country.
"This decision is terrible news for every taxpayer in South Carolina, and even more so for future taxpayers who will ultimately bear the responsibility of paying for this so-called 'stimulus' without seeing any benefit from it," he said in a statement.
Considered a potential future Republican presidential candidate, Sanford led the party's resistance to the $787 billion stimulus package. He warned the increased spending will bring an insurmountable debt burden on future generations.
Sanford initially tried to require that any stimulus money pay down the state debt, a stance rejected by the Obama administration.
Sanford had resisted taking the money even when the Republican-controlled legislature passed a budget that included the funds.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.
"At this stage in the process, the Governor certainly has no discretion to make a contradictory decision on behalf of the State," the ruling said. "We hold the Governor must apply for the ... funds." Watch report on Gov. Sanford's policy defeat »
However, the court distanced itself from any role in setting policy on the issue.
"Our decision today should not be construed as a comment on the policy differences between Governor Sanford and the General Assembly respecting the wisdom or necessity of South Carolina accepting the" money, it said. ... "We discharge our duty to honor the rule of law, nothing more."
The ruling was in response to lawsuits filed by two students and a school administrators' association that sought to force the state to accept the stimulus money, some of which will go for education needs.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Croydon News
I finally put a link to Gayle Hedrington's column on our links of interest. Her column now appears at Sunacom.com. I miss reading her column in the Eagle Times.
Gayle Hedrington is reporting that there is an SAU 43 meeting June 8th to discuss the area agreement. Why the SAU is involved in our agreement between Newport and Croydon is beyond me. The decision is that of the Croydon School Board and they should follow the wishes of the Croydon taxpayers and voters. Newport's and the SAU's action show not only their level of greed but the state to which they like to bully Croydon taxpayers and parents around. Shame on the whole lot of them. Most parents would choose Newport, but Newport should not be chaining other parents and students to their poorly performing school system.
Cathy Peschke
One Very Upset Croydon Parent and Taxpayer
Gayle Hedrington is reporting that there is an SAU 43 meeting June 8th to discuss the area agreement. Why the SAU is involved in our agreement between Newport and Croydon is beyond me. The decision is that of the Croydon School Board and they should follow the wishes of the Croydon taxpayers and voters. Newport's and the SAU's action show not only their level of greed but the state to which they like to bully Croydon taxpayers and parents around. Shame on the whole lot of them. Most parents would choose Newport, but Newport should not be chaining other parents and students to their poorly performing school system.
Cathy Peschke
One Very Upset Croydon Parent and Taxpayer
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Consolidation of Schools
While surfing through New Hampshire Newspapers online I ran across an article on the CV Spectator titled Board to proceed with consolidation plans. The story got me thinking about "Big Public Ed", SAU 43, the Newport School district and our own district here in Croydon. Here are some random thoughts on the four items I just listed.
Despite their denial "Big Ed" in general in public schools promotes some ideas that are counter productive to their existence. Through the promotion of a homosexual agenda, women's rights, abortion and birth control they reduce the number of children in the world which reduces the students they need to keep their schools running. Than they wonder why enrollment keeps dropping or remains flat. Now I am not making judgement on any of the above just making an observation.
Marilyn Brannigan is the Superintendent of SAU 43 I have read the statutes regarding her duties. Those duties do not include meddling in the Croydon's citizens and taxpayers decision as to what to do with the area agreement once it expires. If she and the educators at Newport would spend as much time trying to educate the students of Newport as they are trying to merge Newport and Croydon into one district the students could achieve so much more academically. Croydon is a separate district from Newport we are not just another school within the Newport school system. Stop worrying about job preservation and start educating your students and Croydon's students.
The merger of Newport and Croydon into one school district would be very bad for Croydon residents and taxpayers we as voters would carry less weight when it comes to controlling education costs. The bigger the district the harder it is to control costs.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Despite their denial "Big Ed" in general in public schools promotes some ideas that are counter productive to their existence. Through the promotion of a homosexual agenda, women's rights, abortion and birth control they reduce the number of children in the world which reduces the students they need to keep their schools running. Than they wonder why enrollment keeps dropping or remains flat. Now I am not making judgement on any of the above just making an observation.
Marilyn Brannigan is the Superintendent of SAU 43 I have read the statutes regarding her duties. Those duties do not include meddling in the Croydon's citizens and taxpayers decision as to what to do with the area agreement once it expires. If she and the educators at Newport would spend as much time trying to educate the students of Newport as they are trying to merge Newport and Croydon into one district the students could achieve so much more academically. Croydon is a separate district from Newport we are not just another school within the Newport school system. Stop worrying about job preservation and start educating your students and Croydon's students.
The merger of Newport and Croydon into one school district would be very bad for Croydon residents and taxpayers we as voters would carry less weight when it comes to controlling education costs. The bigger the district the harder it is to control costs.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Newport Schools to Receive $390,000 from "Obama's Let's Bankrupt the US Funds"
The Valley News is reporting that Newport Schools will receive $390,000 from the "Let's put our children and grandchildren in debt for the rest of their lives fund." The story is titled "A Windfall for Twin State Schools" and appears in the March 26th addition of the Valley News.
The money comes with stipulations that could create problems for Newport taxpayers in the future. The stipulations are that the money must supplement current budgets it cannot be used within the current budget thus giving taxpayers a rebate at the end of the school year. There is also no guarantee that that this money will be available again in 2011 (which is a good thing because this is just printed money that has been added to the US debt). Once enacted these programs will either be dropped after 2011 or the Newport Taxpayers will be asked to increase their property taxes yet again in 2011.
I believe that Newport schools and all schools should just reject this money as that it is just funds that are bankrupting our Country. Rejection of the funds would set a good example for the students of Newport about fiscal responsibility and living within your means. But, Newport schools rejecting these funds is about as likely as a crack addict giving up crack.
Since Newport and Croydon are part of SAU 43 will Newport share the funds with Croydon? If Newport keeps the money they should offer it to Croydon as a good faith measure since our contract is expiring in 2010 with Newport schools. I would hope that the Croydon board would reject the funds but we will have to see what happens at the next school board meeting if it is indeed offered. Than again sharing of the funds is about as likely as an 18 month old sharing his favorite toy.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What are You Doing to Control Costs?
At the town hall meeting Gayle asked Jim Vezina the SAU 43 business manger "What are you doing to control costs?" Beyond the mention of cutting staff he did not say much else. He also failed to mention while cutting staff positions the new budget also includes $500,000 dollars for teacher raises. Yes, the majority of 18% of Newport voters supported the increase but he should have been more open about that at the town meeting.
I have heard a number of Newport teachers and at least two Croydon residents would like Croydon's students to go to Newport Schools when the contract expires in 2010. SAU 43 should be willing to work to mutually adjust their contract with Croydon schools now as a good faith measure, with hopes of an upcoming contract beyond 2010. Currently Newport has one of the highest unemployment rates, many residents in Newport and Croydon are getting cuts in pay, have to pay a larger portion of insurance costs and no longer are getting matching funds in their 401k. Also many retired private sector employees have taken large hits to their retirement savings.
Public sector employees are constantly asking taxpayers to give, when are public sector employees going to give a little back to the taxpayers for their generosity over the years?
It seems that in other parts of New Hamsphire it won't be anytime soon.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.
I have heard a number of Newport teachers and at least two Croydon residents would like Croydon's students to go to Newport Schools when the contract expires in 2010. SAU 43 should be willing to work to mutually adjust their contract with Croydon schools now as a good faith measure, with hopes of an upcoming contract beyond 2010. Currently Newport has one of the highest unemployment rates, many residents in Newport and Croydon are getting cuts in pay, have to pay a larger portion of insurance costs and no longer are getting matching funds in their 401k. Also many retired private sector employees have taken large hits to their retirement savings.
Public sector employees are constantly asking taxpayers to give, when are public sector employees going to give a little back to the taxpayers for their generosity over the years?
It seems that in other parts of New Hamsphire it won't be anytime soon.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
John Stossel: Sorry, but you don't own your job
Yesterday's post pointed out how it appears that the taxpayers work for the schools and not vice versa. We also pointed out the entitlement mentality of school employees. Educrats talk of how it is "for the kids" when pushing tax warrants but how come there are so many laws to protect school employees? When are we going to see education laws that are for the Children of America and not for the educrats that are suppose to educate our children? Until the money follows the child and not the institution we are serving those that are to serve us and not vice versa.
Educrats should not have protected jobs (tenure). School boards should be able to hire the best individuals to provide the best education for our children as efficiently and effectively as possible. For example keeping math teachers who can't teach calculus is not in the best interest of our children. Children suffer because someone's job security has taken precedent over the education of our children.
When will children truly come first?
Cathy Peschke
The Union Leader had a great article today titled Sorry, but you don't own your job by John Stossel.
John Stossel: Sorry, but you don't own your job
ONE VIEWER SAID:
"Stossel is a pig."
"Wait and see how he is going to react when he (gets) fired by ABC News without a reason, just because he is skinny like a monkey."
Lots of "20/20" viewers hated what I said about age discrimination laws on TV.
Most everyone says anti-discrimination laws are good laws, especially those that protect older workers.
But they're not.
This year, Kansas City DJs Max Floyd and Tanna Guthrie sued their radio station for firing them.
"The reason for firing was (that) they're changing formats, which they didn't really," Max Floyd told me for my "Give Me a Break" segment.
"Why wouldn't they keep us?" Tanna Guthrie asks. "We've been there, loyal with the company, and they didn't change the music a lot."
Discrimination lawsuits like theirs are common today. They create nasty, unintended consequences: Older workers find it more difficult to get hired since companies are reluctant to hire people who could become lawsuit age-discrimination bombs. I'm told some companies set aside $100,000 for legal fees and settlement money for every older worker who isn't doing a good job. What a waste.
Lawyer Murray Schwartz has won millions suing companies for age discrimination. He told me, "A company shouldn't be able to say, 'A 36-year-old fellow would do it better than the 52-year-old fellow.'"
They just shouldn't be allowed?
"Never. And that's what the law says."
The law does. But the law can be an ass, and American law contradicts itself. FBI agents must retire at 57, airline pilots by 65. But it's illegal for ABC to fire me if my boss thinks I'm too old?
Bruce Morrow has been a radio star for decades. When the Beatles came to America, "Cousin Brucie" introduced them.
Three years ago, he was fired. Abruptly.
He was furious, but Morrow has a new perspective on the issue because he's owned radio stations.
"I've fired several disc jockeys. We are in a business of change. Many people on the radio station who have worked there 15, 20 years don't fit there anymore. They might not sound, age-wise, proper. There's ethics here. But (then) there's reality."
American labor law clashes with reality. The government once even tried to force Hooters, that restaurant chain famous for sexy waitresses, to hire men to wait on tables. Only after Hooters mocked the government by running ads depicting a hairy Hooters man in a skimpy waitress outfit did the EEOC lawyers drop their case.
Protecting older workers interferes with the market's "creative destruction," the dynamic process that allows businesses to grow though constant change. That growth creates new opportunity for other workers, including older workers.
Roger Pilon of the libertarian Cato Institute says workers should stop thinking they own their jobs: "Freedom permits unfairness, and free markets sometimes encourage it; but what's the alternative? Since the categories in which discrimination might be prohibited are in principle infinite, down that road is the death of individual choice."
Pilon asks the basic question: "Whose business is it? Suppose you're an Italian restaurateur and you want to have only Italian men as your waiters because that's the ambience you want. Shouldn't you be able to do that?"
I would think so, but American law says no.
We don't need laws against discrimination. We need a free, competitive marketplace. Competition is better at punishing sexists, racists and "ageists" than clumsy laws. If a boss discriminated against, say, women, he would be demolished by a competitor who obtains better workers by hiring the women the first boss turned away. If an entire group of bosses turned women away, then men's wages would be bid up over women's, and a new competitor would defeat the discriminators by hiring only women.
Schwartz indignantly asked me, "Who has the right to say that you should stop working when you're 50 or 52 or 53? The boss?"
I said yes, the guy who's paying you ought to get to decide.
"No," he said. "You own your job as long as you're performing effectively."
That's the attitude of today's parasitic labor lawyers: You "own" your job. And this attitude is winning in the arena of public opinion. Never have I received such consistently hostile e-mail.
"I hope you get fired."
"You think that mid-50s is too old to hold a job?"
"Give me a break! Unless you plan on supporting me for the next 10 years, I suggest you revise your segment."
Give me a break. I didn't say older workers ought to be fired. Heck, I'm 61. Viewers are so invested in job "rights" that they missed the point about freedom of association, private property, an employer's right to control a business he created, etc.
Good intentions are irrelevant. Public policy always has unintended bad consequences. One reason France has nasty riots over high unemployment is France's restrictive labor laws. French employers think, "I don't want to hire someone whom I'll never be able to fire."
Schwartz says repealing the worker-protection laws would be a "disaster."
No, innovation-stifling laws and lawsuits are the disaster.
John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity."
Educrats should not have protected jobs (tenure). School boards should be able to hire the best individuals to provide the best education for our children as efficiently and effectively as possible. For example keeping math teachers who can't teach calculus is not in the best interest of our children. Children suffer because someone's job security has taken precedent over the education of our children.
When will children truly come first?
Cathy Peschke
The Union Leader had a great article today titled Sorry, but you don't own your job by John Stossel.
John Stossel: Sorry, but you don't own your job
ONE VIEWER SAID:
"Stossel is a pig."
"Wait and see how he is going to react when he (gets) fired by ABC News without a reason, just because he is skinny like a monkey."
Lots of "20/20" viewers hated what I said about age discrimination laws on TV.
Most everyone says anti-discrimination laws are good laws, especially those that protect older workers.
But they're not.
This year, Kansas City DJs Max Floyd and Tanna Guthrie sued their radio station for firing them.
"The reason for firing was (that) they're changing formats, which they didn't really," Max Floyd told me for my "Give Me a Break" segment.
"Why wouldn't they keep us?" Tanna Guthrie asks. "We've been there, loyal with the company, and they didn't change the music a lot."
Discrimination lawsuits like theirs are common today. They create nasty, unintended consequences: Older workers find it more difficult to get hired since companies are reluctant to hire people who could become lawsuit age-discrimination bombs. I'm told some companies set aside $100,000 for legal fees and settlement money for every older worker who isn't doing a good job. What a waste.
Lawyer Murray Schwartz has won millions suing companies for age discrimination. He told me, "A company shouldn't be able to say, 'A 36-year-old fellow would do it better than the 52-year-old fellow.'"
They just shouldn't be allowed?
"Never. And that's what the law says."
The law does. But the law can be an ass, and American law contradicts itself. FBI agents must retire at 57, airline pilots by 65. But it's illegal for ABC to fire me if my boss thinks I'm too old?
Bruce Morrow has been a radio star for decades. When the Beatles came to America, "Cousin Brucie" introduced them.
Three years ago, he was fired. Abruptly.
He was furious, but Morrow has a new perspective on the issue because he's owned radio stations.
"I've fired several disc jockeys. We are in a business of change. Many people on the radio station who have worked there 15, 20 years don't fit there anymore. They might not sound, age-wise, proper. There's ethics here. But (then) there's reality."
American labor law clashes with reality. The government once even tried to force Hooters, that restaurant chain famous for sexy waitresses, to hire men to wait on tables. Only after Hooters mocked the government by running ads depicting a hairy Hooters man in a skimpy waitress outfit did the EEOC lawyers drop their case.
Protecting older workers interferes with the market's "creative destruction," the dynamic process that allows businesses to grow though constant change. That growth creates new opportunity for other workers, including older workers.
Roger Pilon of the libertarian Cato Institute says workers should stop thinking they own their jobs: "Freedom permits unfairness, and free markets sometimes encourage it; but what's the alternative? Since the categories in which discrimination might be prohibited are in principle infinite, down that road is the death of individual choice."
Pilon asks the basic question: "Whose business is it? Suppose you're an Italian restaurateur and you want to have only Italian men as your waiters because that's the ambience you want. Shouldn't you be able to do that?"
I would think so, but American law says no.
We don't need laws against discrimination. We need a free, competitive marketplace. Competition is better at punishing sexists, racists and "ageists" than clumsy laws. If a boss discriminated against, say, women, he would be demolished by a competitor who obtains better workers by hiring the women the first boss turned away. If an entire group of bosses turned women away, then men's wages would be bid up over women's, and a new competitor would defeat the discriminators by hiring only women.
Schwartz indignantly asked me, "Who has the right to say that you should stop working when you're 50 or 52 or 53? The boss?"
I said yes, the guy who's paying you ought to get to decide.
"No," he said. "You own your job as long as you're performing effectively."
That's the attitude of today's parasitic labor lawyers: You "own" your job. And this attitude is winning in the arena of public opinion. Never have I received such consistently hostile e-mail.
"I hope you get fired."
"You think that mid-50s is too old to hold a job?"
"Give me a break! Unless you plan on supporting me for the next 10 years, I suggest you revise your segment."
Give me a break. I didn't say older workers ought to be fired. Heck, I'm 61. Viewers are so invested in job "rights" that they missed the point about freedom of association, private property, an employer's right to control a business he created, etc.
Good intentions are irrelevant. Public policy always has unintended bad consequences. One reason France has nasty riots over high unemployment is France's restrictive labor laws. French employers think, "I don't want to hire someone whom I'll never be able to fire."
Schwartz says repealing the worker-protection laws would be a "disaster."
No, innovation-stifling laws and lawsuits are the disaster.
John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Croydon School Board Meeting - Reported on by Union Leader Reporter
Last night was a packed house at the Croydon School Board Meeting. If you have not picked up a copy of the Union Leader you should, unfortunately the story is not online.
The reason the meeting was packed was because for years Croydon residents have been paying for students who live outside of the district to attend our schools. Our district received one year of tuition from Kearsarge Regional Schools for two children. However Grantham is contesting our school districts request to pay close to 40,000 dollars for three students. This tuition comes to 54,000 dollars for one year. With the size of Croydon's school budget this makes a difference in a Croydon's resident taxes. I know this is money that we could use in our home. I am sure with the rising gas prices many other Croydon residents could use that money too.
Our public school is a government school, like many other forms of government our tax dollars will be wasted unless we keep an eye on how our tax dollars are spent.
Cathy
Quote of the Day - "If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops." ~Kelvin Throop
The reason the meeting was packed was because for years Croydon residents have been paying for students who live outside of the district to attend our schools. Our district received one year of tuition from Kearsarge Regional Schools for two children. However Grantham is contesting our school districts request to pay close to 40,000 dollars for three students. This tuition comes to 54,000 dollars for one year. With the size of Croydon's school budget this makes a difference in a Croydon's resident taxes. I know this is money that we could use in our home. I am sure with the rising gas prices many other Croydon residents could use that money too.
Our public school is a government school, like many other forms of government our tax dollars will be wasted unless we keep an eye on how our tax dollars are spent.
Cathy
Quote of the Day - "If people behaved like governments, you'd call the cops." ~Kelvin Throop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)