Guest Just asking Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 I was wondering if anyone had any comments on all the new, additional, "cost saving" supervisory positions created at the BOE, as reported on the front page of the Observer. The temporary elimination of the assistant superintendent's position will be a wash because we are paying two superintendent's salaries and, I understand, there have been several other additional non-supervisory positions created, as well. Does anyone know if all this is correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Reality Check Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 The position of Asst Superintendent has not been eliminated. It's being kept vacant as insurance in the event Ferraro's involuntary leave is terminated and he is returned to the Superintendent's position. If that happens, this Board majority will place Blood in the Asst Superintendent position. None of what they're doing is about the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oh really? Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 The position of Asst Superintendent has not been eliminated. It's being kept vacant as insurance in the event Ferraro's involuntary leave is terminated and he is returned to the Superintendent's position. If that happens, this Board majority will place Blood in the Asst Superintendent position. None of what they're doing is about the taxpayer. A- the ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT position was ELIMINATED, not vacated. Savings of approx $150K B- the superintendent on involuntary leave will not be returned because NOBODY wants to go BACKWARD. doubtful that even his "supporters" still support him. None of what you're saying is FACT. Shocking, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Just asking Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 The Observer reported that these new positions were created to be cost saving to the taxpayers. A. Normally we have one superintendent; we currently are paying two superintendents. Therefore, cutting the asst. superintendent's position is a wash. No savings there. B. I was just told that the board created seven or eight new positions, none of which are classroom teaching positions, so how is that cost-saving? These positions might very well be needed, however, why try to tell the public they are being created to save money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yes, really. Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 A- the Kearny Board of Education cannot eliminate a position established by State law. They can choose not to fill it. I agree with the original post that it's being kept open as 'insurance' for Acting Superintendent Blood. B- Ferraro is still the Superintendent. He was put on involuntary leave, with full salary, by the Kearny Board of Ed. If there isn't 'good cause' for his termination, he returns to the office until the end of his contract in 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Read the Letter Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Perhaps the most self-serving letter by a Kearny administrator: Blood's letter to the Board of Education says the position of Assistant Superintendent will not be filled "AT THIS TIME". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spin This Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 A- the Kearny Board of Education cannot eliminate a position established by State law. They can choose not to fill it. I agree with the original post that it's being kept open as 'insurance' for Acting Superintendent Blood. B- Ferraro is still the Superintendent. He was put on involuntary leave, with full salary, by the Kearny Board of Ed. If there isn't 'good cause' for his termination, he returns to the office until the end of his contract in 2016. A - Show me where the position of Assistant Superintendent is "established by State Law". Superintendent, yes. Assistant Superintendent? No. That's a completely ridiculous statement. Show me. B - I suggest IF he returns that his new office is in the so called mold infested basement at Midland Avenue. No windows, no phone & let him sit it out where he can't do any damage. But I doubt he'll be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spin Check Posted August 21, 2014 Report Share Posted August 21, 2014 A - Show me where the position of Assistant Superintendent is "established by State Law". Superintendent, yes. Assistant Superintendent? No. That's a completely ridiculous statement. Show me. B - I suggest IF he returns that his new office is in the so called mold infested basement at Midland Avenue. No windows, no phone & let him sit it out where he can't do any damage. But I doubt he'll be back. Dear Spinner,Read Blood's letter. The position is not to be filled "AT THIS TIME". Mold infested basement, really? I don't know if he's coming back. If he does, no one gets hired or promoted without his recommendation. I doubt you or anyone else would put him in a basement. At least not with your name attached to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Much of the reason for these new positions goes to the new teacher observation laws requiring a great deal more time spent by administrators observing and evaluating their teachers - there isn't much time for much else to happen. In order for an employee to observe and evaluate that person must have the title of supervisor. Up until now, supervisors were available in the high school in the way of department heads. In the elementary schools the only administrators available were principals, vice principals, and district supervisors. With these new supervisors the district has at least 3 more people who have the ability to evaluate teachers without the cost of hiring true administrators. These new supervisors will be working 11 months and most likely only getting a 10% raise in their salaries for working the additional month. A VP would be bumped up to about $130,000. The highest paid teacher (and 2 of the 3 new supervisors aren't there) would be making approximately $100,000 so her new salary is $20,000 less than a new VP would be. The other two young women won't be getting nearly that much even with their bump in salary to an 11 month position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Just asking Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Dear Guest - Thanks for the straight answer regarding the new positions. I can see that our problem (the taxpayers and the parents) is with the State and Federal Departments of Education and not our local school administration. Politicians are, again, meddling in areas in which they have little or no experience. What a shame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spin This Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Dear Spinner, Read Blood's letter. The position is not to be filled "AT THIS TIME". Mold infested basement, really? I don't know if he's coming back. If he does, no one gets hired or promoted without his recommendation. I doubt you or anyone else would put him in a basement. At least not with your name attached to it. Saying that a position is not to be filled "AT THIS TIME" does not mean that it is STATE LAW and a REQUIRED POSITION, which is what you claimed. And yeah, I would gladly put him in a basement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spin Check Posted August 23, 2014 Report Share Posted August 23, 2014 Saying that a position is not to be filled "AT THIS TIME" does not mean that it is STATE LAW and a REQUIRED POSITION, which is what you claimed. And yeah, I would gladly put him in a basement. Dear Spinster:A. Position of Asst Superintendent in Kearny district was NOT eliminated. It's being held for Blood if Ferraro is reinstated from involuntary leave. B. Again you make my point - put him in a basement? not for attribution you won't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spun Posted August 24, 2014 Report Share Posted August 24, 2014 Saying that a position is not to be filled "AT THIS TIME" does not mean that it is STATE LAW and a REQUIRED POSITION, which is what you claimed. And yeah, I would gladly put him in a basement. Yeah, all the hacks jumped up and down and screamed and cried when the undermining, not so "confidential" secretary to the Super was "relocated" to another office within the board offices, but it would be perfectly fine to "put the Super in a basement, with no windows, no phone". This just proves the how the evil, self serving, "its ok to do things to others, just don't do it to me" attitude is alive and thriving at the BOE !!! I hope the State places Ferraro back into his position and he, with precision, cuts out all the cancer which is festering within this BOE, so that students, staff, taxpayers and applicants for employment ALL get a fair shake, as they deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spin Check Posted August 24, 2014 Report Share Posted August 24, 2014 Saying that a position is not to be filled "AT THIS TIME" does not mean that it is STATE LAW and a REQUIRED POSITION, which is what you claimed. And yeah, I would gladly put him in a basement. Oh Really said it was "eliminated". That's wrong. The Board has nothing to eliminate. The position is permitted by State law. Ms. Blood has only decided not to recommend that it be filled "at this time". That's incredibly self-serving.You'll put him in a basement only with the shield of anonymity that this forum provides. At an open Board meeting, you'd never say that. If Mr. Ferraro gets his job back, you'll probably be one of those courting his favor to get someone hired. But you'll do it behind the scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 26, 2014 Report Share Posted August 26, 2014 I hope the State places Ferraro back into his position and he, with precision, cuts out all the cancer which is festering within this BOE, so that students, staff, taxpayers and applicants for employment ALL get a fair shake, as they deserve. Why would the State be putting Ferraro back into his position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest State has Final Say Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 Why would the State be putting Ferraro back into his position? Because by law, the State has to approve all Superintendent appointments and contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 Because by law, the State has to approve all Superintendent appointments and contracts. I think technically it's the Hudson County Superintendent of Schools who approves local administrator contracts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 29, 2014 Report Share Posted August 29, 2014 Because by law, the State has to approve all Superintendent appointments and contracts. Again with the law. Most of the knuckleheads here that refer to THE LAW don't have a clue what they're talking about. Ferraro already has a contract, and he was already appointed, so why would the State be putting him back into a position he already has? As Judge Judy would say - don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walking Tall Posted August 30, 2014 Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 Because he was terminated without cause. You know the deal........arbitrary and capricious, Now because you wanted him out of the way so you can HIRE all your friends and family and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars..........paying 2 Supers.......oh actually only 1 super, Frank Ferraro and one wannna be Super Puppet. Read about what happened in Perth Amboy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 Because he was terminated without cause. You know the deal........arbitrary and capricious, Now because you wanted him out of the way so you can HIRE all your friends and family and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars..........paying 2 Supers.......oh actually only 1 super, Frank Ferraro and one wannna be Super Puppet. Read about what happened in Perth Amboy. Genius, he hasn't been terminated, with OR without cause. Arbitrary and capricious and whatever other legal words you want to throw around are just that - words. The question about why the State would be giving FF his position back still hasn't been answered, but i don't expect it will be. At least not by you. And for the record, I don't have anything to do with hiring anybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Again with the law. Most of the knuckleheads here that refer to THE LAW don't have a clue what they're talking about. Ferraro already has a contract, and he was already appointed, so why would the State be putting him back into a position he already has? As Judge Judy would say - don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining! Because by law you CANNOT have 2 Superintendents at the same time. The State will have to act and reinstate Ferraro unless the Board of Ed can demonstrate cause to terminate at the same level of proof as a tenure dismissal. That's exactly what occurred in Perth Amboy a couple of years ago. Why do you mock someone for making a point and not responding with anything substantial? I think you're the bully that emerges on all Kearny school issues that don't line up with what this Board of Ed is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 3, 2014 Report Share Posted September 3, 2014 Because by law you CANNOT have 2 Superintendents at the same time. The State will have to act and reinstate Ferraro unless the Board of Ed can demonstrate cause to terminate at the same level of proof as a tenure dismissal. That's exactly what occurred in Perth Amboy a couple of years ago. Why do you mock someone for making a point and not responding with anything substantial? I think you're the bully that emerges on all Kearny school issues that don't line up with what this Board of Ed is doing. There is 1 superintendent and 1 acting superintendent, so, duh, I guess by LAW you CAN have 2 superintendents at the same time. But only 1 of the 2 is worth the salary! Now try & guess which 1 that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest In the Know Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 There is 1 superintendent and 1 acting superintendent, so, duh, I guess by LAW you CAN have 2 superintendents at the same time. But only 1 of the 2 is worth the salary! Now try & guess which 1 that is. Acting is limited to 6 months under State law. That already expired. Plus Blood lacks the certification for a permanent appointment. The majority of this Board hopes the State won't intervene until Blood fulfills all the requirements for the Superintendent's certification, which even if Blood passes everything, she can't get before January 1, 2015. The ball is in Ferraro's court since the acting time period for Blood has expired. The irony of all this is that Board members Sherry, McDonald, Viscuso and Doran's principal argument for putting Ferraro on involuntary leave is that he lacked the requirements for the Superintendent's certification which is PRECISELY what Blood lacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 Acting is limited to 6 months under State law. That already expired. Plus Blood lacks the certification for a permanent appointment. The majority of this Board hopes the State won't intervene until Blood fulfills all the requirements for the Superintendent's certification, which even if Blood passes everything, she can't get before January 1, 2015. The ball is in Ferraro's court since the acting time period for Blood has expired. The irony of all this is that Board members Sherry, McDonald, Viscuso and Doran's principal argument for putting Ferraro on involuntary leave is that he lacked the requirements for the Superintendent's certification which is PRECISELY what Blood lacks. And AGAIN with the LAW. And AGAIN, you're wrong. Did you get your "law" degree in the mail? Acting superintendent is limited to 12 months under State LAW. And you forgot Ms. Lindenfelser. If you're going to throw stones, at least be precise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Having some fun Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 She didn't lie about her certifications JACKASS. The guy with the BOW TIE DID. Hi Bobby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.