04/20/06 Saugerties Taxpayers Continue Paying Did you know that school taxes account for approximately 68 percent of total real property taxes? Yet, in spite of that, and in spite of the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and other automobile expenses, home heating (fuel oil, gas or electric), health insurance and food, enormous capital expenditures for school, town and county projects (such as school repairs and jail costs), a 49% increase in County taxes, lawsuits, state and town taxes, and millions in school bonds, within a couple of weeks the Saugerties Central School Board will ask voters to approve the 2006-2007 school budget at a proposed increase of roughly 7.32% over last year. Mind you, that is more than twice the Consumer Price Index for last year! By the time this article is printed, the School Board will already have met to discuss a reduction of this percentage due to an increased amount of "State aid," which, as we all know, is just an artful way of taking our money from a different pocket. Of course, even if the "reduction" brought us down to six percent, it would still amount to almost twice the CPI for last year. Superintendent Rhau calls the budget "status quo." Perhaps "status quo" better explains why Rhau and Buono want to create a new $100,000 position and then hire another principal for an additional $100,000 (plus benefits and "perks"), while the teachers continue working without a contract. It would behoove Rhau, Buono and other board members who vote along with them, to undertake settling the teachers' contract first and perhaps purchasing more books for the students before pressing forward with this fiasco. With taxes at such an all-time high, many ask how and why they got so out of control? Obviously you can't put your finger on any one specific item or reason–and in fact, it is likely complex–but it is, nevertheless, a problem that needs to be addressed. Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to share some information I have gathered through FOIL. Perhaps this will shed a little light on some of the reasons why. I will begin with the hiring of Karen Hong as superintendent. According to the February 21, 1995 school board minutes, board president Flo Hyatt made a motion to hire Ms. Hong and approve a contract which contained a clause that the District will continue paying 100% of Hong's medical health and dental insurance after she retires. In addition, a clause would allow her to accumulate up to 50-days' vacation which, upon separation from employment, would be paid for at a daily rate of 1/220th of her "current" salary. The motion was seconded by Richard Greco and carried. At the March 13, 2001 school board meeting, another motion made by Flo Hyatt (and seconded by Lanny Walter and supported by board members McCaig, Bach and Johnson) to hire Michael Singleton as superintendent of schools and approve his contract which contained a clause that upon retirement the District would pay 90% of his health and dental insurance (for himself and his spouse) for the remainder of their lives. Opposed were board members Sommers, Macarille, Brennan and Lippman. Between March 13, 2001 and June 29, 2002, taxpayers were paying in excess of $200,000 in salaries plus tens of thousands of dollars in benefits for two superintendents at the same time. On May 20, 2002 Superintendent Hong notified the School Board via letter that she would officially be retiring effective June 29, 2002, and demanded that the District continue paying 100% of her health insurance after her retirement and further that the District pay her $23,350 in "unused vacation days, as outlined in the Contract." Both Karen Hong and Michael Singleton have now retired but we continue paying health insurance for both of them. To date taxpayers have paid $21, 513.72 for Karen Hong's health insurance and will continue paying for it for the rest of her natural life (currently the annual rate for this is $6,206.04 but the premium cost will undoubtedly increase). In addition, we have paid $31,539.13 for Michael Singleton and his wife's health insurance (who incidentally are non-residents) and we will continue paying $12,411.52 a year for them for the rest of their natural lives (amount also to be adjusted for future premium increases). All this when many people, such as seniors on fixed incomes, are struggling to make ends meet, and those who can least afford it, are fighting (and doing without other necessities) to pay for their own health insurance. This is just one example of where some of our money is going. Do we really need to create a new $100,000 position and hire another $100,000 principal on top of all the other lavish spending? You be the judge. Stay tuned... much more to come... George D Heidcamp, Sr.