What’s Reasonable? As I went over the contract that we gave Rhau, I noticed the liberal use of the word "reasonable" in the paragraph covering "expenses." It was used three times in that paragraph alone. "Reasonable," a word that crops up a lot, can mean "economical," "likely," "rational," or "cautious," and as we shall see, at times can be twisted into an anti-defining word, arbitrary and whimsical, even "sky’s the limit."   The Voters Have Spoken I would first like to thank the school board for making the right decision when they voted to eliminate that very controversial $100,000 administrative position...you know, the one that Superintendent Rhau claimed was not in the budget. I would especially like to thank board members Donald Tucker, Sam Fisco and Richard Petramale for keeping their promise to the voters that if re-elected, they would trim the fat from the budget. Although Tucker, Fisco and Petramale had tried to make those cuts two months earlier, they were defeated in a six-to-three decision with board members Buono, McCaig, Kovac, Parisian, Brennan and Maclsaac who had been opposed to any cuts. However, after the May 16th budget vote, when such a large number of voters spoke out loudly and clearly to send the Board a mandate, the six dissenting voters changed their minds and joined the more reasonable members, Tucker, Fisco and Petramale, in trimming the budget down to a more respectable 3.16%. While I personally have no doubt that more cuts could and should have been made (especially in the top heavy administration), I do think that, in all fairness to Tucker, Petramale and Fisco, if the voters who put them back in office feel their revised budget is reasonable and are comfortable with the promises they’ve kept and the cuts they’ve made, then they should be supported in their decision by passing the budget on June 20th.   Arrogance Abounds However, the final budget is but one part of spending. How we spend what’s in the budget is another matter, and prudence here will ultimately result in lower future budgets, and thus taxes. The goal shouldn’t be to keep pace with inflation, the goal should be a quality education by quality educators without wasteful or frivolous spending of taxpayer dollars. So, with the above being said, nothing changes my position about holding school board president Vince Buono responsible and accountable for the overseeing of Rhau’s wanton actions. I strongly feel that based on the evidence found in the documents released by the School District that Superintendent Rhau has not only violated the terms of his Contract with us, but he may have also violated the law. There are absolutely no checks and balances or accountability with the Administration. Board president Buono has had knowledge of these allegations for several weeks now but has done absolutely nothing substantive to address them. Other than a motion being made by board member Maclsaac to set policy regarding the review of Rhau’s bills, the allegations have been ignored and no reasonable action has been taken. Apparently Buono and his cronies are concerned about the articles I’ve been writing.....in fact, they are more distressed about the revelations than the transgressions. For example, during a recess from the May 31st Special School Board Meeting which I was attending, I had a conversation with board member Ed Kovac (he’s the board member who defended Rhau’s actions, claiming not to have a problem with Rhau or the fact that he was buying lunches for board members with our money). Kovac criticized me and the articles, calling me a "lousy reporter," telling only half-truths. Of course, I am not a reporter, I write an "opinion" column, and all my material has been obtained through the FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) process and emanated directly from the School District. Except that I have blacked-out credit card numbers for obvious reasons, the documents are unedited, unaltered, factual and accurate. I explained to Kovac that with the volume of documents obtained, it would be virtually impossible to print everything with the opinion, and so I decided to create a web site as an ancillary tool so people could see all information for themselves. The documents speak for themselves, "they are what they are," and I hide nothing. I suggested he visit the site–it might spur him on to want to make changes, but he was not interested. It was as though he had a one-track mind. Kovac is also the same individual who told me I was wasting my time writing letters because people don’t care. How wrong he was!! I’m not sure if Kovac’s attitude is arrogance or just plain ignorance—you be the judge on that one—but when I suggested that he respond to the articles if he felt they were wrong, he flatly declined, refusing to offer any explanations to taxpayers about such important issues as our money. He claimed that "[they] don’t want to." Kovac is not the only one with this arrogant and unreasonable attitude. I’ve been told that the primary reason Rhau and cronies are not addressing any of these issues (or settling the teachers’ contract) is because they don’t want to jeopardize the vote on June 20th. If that’s so, they will most likely stall until "the coast is clear" and then brush away the charges with the justification that Rhau is entitled to these amenities under his contract (and at that point it will be just too bad if we don’t like it). They will further justify that Rhau taking his wife with him on these excursions, for instance, is not costing us any additional money anyway. Perhaps he did pay for some of these items, but regardless, that is not the point, the point is what would the trips have cost had they not included a family vacation? If he hadn’t taken his wife, he probably would have only stayed overnight instead of seven or eight days, and let’s face it, the hotel room for the four or five days we paid for is much more than an "overnighter," and a one-day car rental is still cheaper than the "economical" weekly rate, whether it includes mileage or not (in fact, a taxi from the hotel to the Conference Center and back would have been even cheaper yet, and thus more reasonable—and I verified that taxi fare is approximately $21 each way (plus tip, and Rhau has proven to be a very generous tipper, at least when the taxpayer is footing the bill)). And what about meals? Imagine the savings there. Assuming for argument’s sake that this "conference" should have been attended at all, the District should only be paying for expenses directly relating to his one-day appearance at the conference itself, with only one overnight stay, and nothing for the rest of the vacation. And any reimbursement already or to be made by Rhau should include everything over and above that. I reiterate what I've already said: Rhau is a polished individual—slick, you might say—who, two-years ago, came to Saugerties with a pocket full of tricks and ready to use them on the "country bumpkins." Remember, I searched the records of Rhau’s predecessors’ expenditures and found virtually nothing compared to his almost giddy, "nouveau riche" squandering.   Rhau’s Wiggle Room One of the reasons Rhau has such a much wider range of spending freedom over his predecessors is due to the wording in his contract. For example, the following is what his predecessor’s contract stated, in part, regarding "Expense Reimbursements": "The Board will pay or reimburse the superintendent for all such expenses up to that budgeted for in the annual budget, upon presentation, within the budget year, of an itemized account of such expenditures. Any expenditures in excess of such budgeted amount shall not be paid unless the board acts to do so by resolution at an open meeting (emphasis added)." However, that language was "tweaked" a bit in Rhau’s contract. Following is the language relating to expenses in the contract with Rhau: "The Board will pay or reimburse the superintendent for all such reasonable and customary expenses, upon presentation, within the budget year, of an itemized account of such expenditures (emphasis added)." As you can see, the new, revised terminology adds the element of discretion....a judgment call, wiggle room. For obviously what is "reasonable" to me (and, apparently many others), is not reasonable at all to Rhau. He obviously has a much broader definition of the concept of "reasonable" (in his favor, of course), and I have a feeling that whatever Rhau spends is deemed to be "reasonable" by Rhau. For another example, the following language appeared in the predecessors’ contracts: "The superintendent shall be provided with a car phone and telephone credit card to be used to conduct district business and the Board shall pay the expenses therefor. All out-of-state travel shall require the Board’s prior approval (emphasis added)." However, this language was also "tweaked" a bit, and for the Rhau contract now reads: "The superintendent shall be provided with a cellular phone and a credit card to be used to conduct district business and the Board shall pay the expense therefor. Reasonable personal cellar phone use shall not be prohibited. The Board shall receive notification of all out-of-state travel (emphasis added)." So, now, "reasonable" has entered into the equation once again, which simply amounts to a password for "just do whatever you want." Apparently Rhau has also gained wiggle room over his travel, as well. Theoretically, Rhau can travel to Alaska and Hawaii as long he let’s them know when he returns. No matter how intensely Superintendent Rhau attempts to justify his extravagant actions, I will not be deterred from the posting of his excessive expenditures on conferences, seminars, phone calls, credit card bills, and the copious number of eateries where he dines at the expense of the District. The bottom line is, "The Watchdog Will Be Watching" Visit www.saugertieswatchdog.com .   George D Heidcamp, Sr. June 8, 2006