Mayor & Council Approve Gaulton Deal

[Guest Guest]

After two tedious nights of silliness. The mayor did the predictable thing by putting his stamp of approval on the budget. There seems to be a lot of arrogance 750,000 or one percent of an inflated budget is small potatoes. The Mayor thinks or cares nothing about the taxpayers of this town. He calls the newspaper article about Gaulton's parachute deal UNFORTUNATE. Is it because the article told the truth and let the taxpayers know about the high spending practices of the BOE of taxpayers' money that this town cannot afford to spend. The problem is on the Mayor's door step. The Council seems to concur with the Mayor regarding the spending of funds that don't need to be spent. The Planning Board replaces one single family home with two multi family dwellings, thereby loading the schools beyond their capacity to properly fund educational programs without increasing taxes all the time. We had two Council people unable to vote (conflict of interest) because they had family members working for the BOE, then where are the taxpayers interests? This Town is in a very poor financial position yet the hiring continues. There is at the very least another Million that could be cut from this budget (not education, administrative). The one thing that stands out is that the only people that had any input was Gaulton, Mooney, Santos & of course Wilcox, the Mayor's Financial adviser. $80.00 on the average home may not seem like a lot of money. If history has taught us right we can expect another tax increase after the election. The BOE, Mayor & Council had a chance to do the right thing & they couldn't get it done not one of them. We can vote, but are these votes counted?

[Guest Guest]

After two tedious nights  of silliness. The mayor did the predictable thing by putting his stamp of approval on the budget. There seems to be a lot of arrogance 750,000 or one percent of an inflated budget is small potatoes. The Mayor thinks or cares nothing about the taxpayers of this town. He calls the newspaper article about Gaulton's parachute deal UNFORTUNATE.  Is it because the article told the truth and let the taxpayers know about the high spending practices of the BOE of taxpayers' money that this town cannot afford to spend.  The problem is on the Mayor's door step.  The Council seems to concur with the Mayor regarding the spending of funds that don't need to be spent.  The Planning Board  replaces one single family home with two multi family dwellings, thereby loading the schools beyond their capacity to properly fund educational programs without increasing taxes all the time.  We had two Council people unable to vote (conflict of interest) because they had family members working for the BOE, then where are the taxpayers interests?  This Town is in a very poor financial position yet the hiring continues. There is at the very least another Million that could be cut from this budget (not education, administrative).  The one thing that stands out is that the only people that had any input was Gaulton, Mooney, Santos & of course Wilcox, the Mayor's Financial adviser. $80.00 on the average home may not seem like a lot of money. If history has taught us right we can expect another tax increase after the election. The BOE, Mayor & Council had a chance to do the right thing & they couldn't get it done not one of them.  We can vote, but are these votes counted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After defeting all the BOE budgets, how much have your taxes gone down? ........... Well I'm waiting!!! Nothing? So why bother voting no?

[Guest I WAS BORN A RAMBLIN MAN]

After two tedious nights  of silliness. The mayor did the predictable thing by putting his stamp of approval on the budget. There seems to be a lot of arrogance 750,000 or one percent of an inflated budget is small potatoes. The Mayor thinks or cares nothing about the taxpayers of this town. He calls the newspaper article about Gaulton's parachute deal UNFORTUNATE.  Is it because the article told the truth and let the taxpayers know about the high spending practices of the BOE of taxpayers' money that this town cannot afford to spend.  The problem is on the Mayor's door step.  The Council seems to concur with the Mayor regarding the spending of funds that don't need to be spent.  The Planning Board  replaces one single family home with two multi family dwellings, thereby loading the schools beyond their capacity to properly fund educational programs without increasing taxes all the time.  We had two Council people unable to vote (conflict of interest) because they had family members working for the BOE, then where are the taxpayers interests?  This Town is in a very poor financial position yet the hiring continues. There is at the very least another Million that could be cut from this budget (not education, administrative).  The one thing that stands out is that the only people that had any input was Gaulton, Mooney, Santos & of course Wilcox, the Mayor's Financial adviser. $80.00 on the average home may not seem like a lot of money. If history has taught us right we can expect another tax increase after the election. The BOE, Mayor & Council had a chance to do the right thing & they couldn't get it done not one of them.  We can vote, but are these votes counted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What????????????????????????????????????????????

[Guest Guest]

What????????????????????????????????????????????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly what the Mayor & Council should have asked

[Guest Guest]

Exactly what the Mayor & Council should have asked

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This isn't new. They did the very same thing for the last several years when the school budget failed. Yet, you re-elected all of them. So go live with it.

[Guest Guest]

This isn't new. They did the very same thing for the last several years when the school budget failed. Yet, you re-elected all of them. So go live with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's my understanding Mayor Santos was critical of the Gaulton buy-out. Then why didn't he cut that? Was it because it was Mr. Mangin's suggestion? If he was critical of the buy-out why did he publicly criticize the 2 BOE members who voted against it?

[Guest Guest]

Just in case you missed it.

KEARNY — He may have just one month before his well-publicized retirement takes effect, but Kearny School Business Administrator Leslie J. Gaulton is making headlines once again — this time, because of a resolution that was passed by the Board of Education in 2003.

In January of that year, a resolution that was moved by former board member David J. Stevenson approved a memorandum of agreement that awarded Gaulton five years of service on top of the 15 years he had already accumulated to that point.

With the additional five years, Gaulton was automatically made eligible for participation in the board’s “Attendance Incentive” program upon his retirement.

Had Gaulton not received the five-year bump — despite not having, in reality, worked those five years — he would not have been eligible for the attendance incentive program when he retires in June.

Board employees must complete at least 20 years of service to receive the incentive pay. Gaulton was hired by the Kearny Board of Education in 1987, leaving him one year short of the necessary time to get the incentive pay.

When he retires, Gaulton, because of the additional five-year addition, will get a full years’ salary for the first 200 days he didn’t take and $574 a day for the additional 38 days on top of his first 200 days banked — all despite taking around 40 days leave back in 1996 that were not deducted from his sick time.

Board of Education Member Paul Castelli is furious that a former board allowed this to happen.

“He’s already getting above and beyond a fair salary for his retirement,” Castelli said. “Why the board would have done this three years ago — compounded with what happened a couple of months ago — to me is beyond belief.”

A phone call and an e-mail to Gaulton were not immediately returned.