Passkey, you know so much about the issues. Would you please run for school board? Do you live in North or South Hoboken? Maybe in the middle somewhere? What ward?

Either way let's meet and get your campaign going. You in town this weekend? We can get a committee organized for you

This isn't about you or me--- this is about the Hoboken School District and what has taken place over the past 32 months of control by the political group known as Kids First.

Ah shaddup, and worry about Texas.

My kid and her peers are thriving in Hoboken Public Schools no thanks to you and your trash talk. Move on, buddy.

pASSkey

This is about YOU stealing tens of thousands of dollars (probabaly as much as is owed for the lunch program) from the Hoboken Schools systemn with a no show job that Jack-off, your buddy, set you up with while you had a full time gig in Texas. You can take the grifter out of Hoboken, but you cant take the Hoboken grift out of grifter.

Questionable lawsuits from former mayor and convicted felon Anthony Russo and Anthony Petrosino, childhood buddy and former assistant to the Superintendent Raslowsky, may have contributed to the higher than average legal costs. Both cases were dismissed.

http://www.hobokenhorse.com/2011/12/ex-mayor-anthony-russo-lawsuit-against.html
http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com/2010/01/hoboken-boe-fact-check-dr-petrosinos.html

The whole Russo family should be sued for that frivolous suit. We can garnish Mike's salary as a member of the CC. The man does owe his job to his old man. Now he can pay us back w/ his paycheck b/c of the frivolous suit his old man filed against this city.

I think passkey missed the part about how this problem started 5 years ago and it is completely related to not collecting money from parents. I'd like to know why the money either wasn't collected or the kids kept getting fed even though they weren't on the free or reduced lunch program.

Redrider765- Chartwells came in around 2008 according to my search on the Hoboken Reporter so more like 3 1/2 years than 5. Of that, 32 months (76% of the total) were on the watch of Kids First. Seems like your questions-- all very good--should be directed to District Business Administrator Davis...but I understand he has left the district as of today.

Doesn't change the fact that your buddy started the program that fed people w/o making sure the BOE got paid. Time to end it. Either we get paid or nobody gets fed. Someone has to pay be it the Feds or the parents. No more handouts w/o a darn good reason. And yes, Kids First needs to deal w/ this mess, another mess left by Jack.

Hey, idiot. The 9-member Board has voted as a unit well over 90% of the time. You are just a bitter, political hack from Texas. How about leaving us to run our own district and stop putting down the children enrolled here. You should be ashamed of yourself, playing politics with children.

Disgusting.

Redrider765, parents in the park today said that according to the auditor's report there was a $369,000 deficit from the food program last year alone (2010-2011). Likely a high amount the year before (2009-2010)...all occurring under the current Kids First leadership.
Whatever additional shortfall existed before 2009 has already been written off the books according to the auditor.
There's also some questions the people in the park have on why the auditor didn't find this deficit in previous years. But, seems the auditor said he DID mention this issue the last few years. Interesting...

Wow, the parents in the park. What a great source. What were you doing there? Sleeping on a bench?

I believe they said they saw it on tv--- so I guess the "source" was the Board of Education meeting which is broadcasted on Channel 77. I don't know-- -but they are usually pretty accurate.

What's really interesting from what I hear is watching BA Davis introduce the audit report in the beginning of the meeting--- the usual, "I'm an expert and I know all this and I can assure you this is a fine report with nothing wrong"--- and then to find under closer scrutiny by the some non-Kids First Board members about the astronomical legal fees and the multiple year deficit in the food program amounting to $780,000.
Speaking of Davis -- I hear its also interesting to see how he backed off of his clam last meeting when he said the District received a letter threatening take over by the State after the audit report of 2010 and then this meeting backing off of that assertion when questioned saying instead it was a "conversation he had with the county superintendent". Just a little white lie I guess...perhaps people were OPRAing the letter he mentioned and nothing was found? There's a lot of bravado around that guy---

You are just upset we didn't use this money on that asshat from Texas.

BTW, you aren't helping your case much when you say amounts prior to 09 got written off the books because you are just confirming the people you support did the exact same thing. All you are doing is confirming is that the BOE has had a policy of habitually not collecting lunch money and it goes back years. I agree, it is a horrible sounding policy. It either must be explained why the money is not collected or it must be changed. And if the city is going to continue to not collect the money for some reason, then it must budget for it.

Not trying to make a case--- just reporting back the banter in the park. But to make it more simple...The audit report shows a $369,000 deficit from the food program last year (2010-2011) and a similar loss the year before. The auditor says it was in his last few audit reports and nothing was done. Kids First has been in control for the past 32 months.

Sorry Passkey the lunch program problems pre-date the Kids First board majority. How have you so quickly forgotten the scathing 2009 audit of your buddy Raslowsky's tenure? "The audit included the following claims:
--The district was paying stipends for employees without board authorization or documentation that the work was completed, according to the audit.
--In two schools, student-raised activity funds were used to reimburse teachers for lost articles, like a $400 iPod, the audit said.
--Several purchases, for instance janitorial supplies and equipment reconditioning, should have been awarded in a public bidding process, the audit said.
--The audit charged that officials miscatagorized administrative costs as student costs, skewering a metric used by the state to assess the district.
--And then there’s the missing lunch money. Food service funds were short $244,992, and meal reimbursement records were spotty, according to the audit."
http://www.hudsonreporter.com/pages/full_story/push?article--SCHOOL+AUDIT-+Student+funds+reimbursed+teacher+for+lost+-400+iPod-%20&id=4593303

nice try- this is what we know. 2010-2011 there was a $375,000 operations loss on the school lunch program because of the BA's office and their failure to collect funds from parents. We know there was a similar operations loss the year (2009-2010). Both years were within the 32 month oversight of Kids First. Furthermore, we know there is somewhere between a $137,000-$195,000 legal expenses for the district.
The audits you mention that occurred under the previous administration did not cause a single drop in the district's QSAC score in FINANCE (independently and objectively verified by the State of NJ and the County Superintendent). While you may want to equate the questionable funding of a $400 ipod to the current situation, the fact is we are talking about a whole different scale.

A $400 ipod is not the same as $1,000,000 in unexpected losses that were exposed in this year's audit.

Is anybody else sick and tired of this Lone Star BUDINSKY interfering in our district's business?

Shouldn't he be herding cows or clearing brush or riding a mechanical bull in a honky-tonk bar or whatever it is they do over there? How about going to a rodeo?

I've asked Claire to block IPs from the entire state of Texas. In addition, I think it's time to form a lobby to put an end to this nonsense. .. it's called: 'Stop Hateful Interfering Texans', or S.H.I.T.

Who's with me?

What do you think the lawyer said? He said, "thank you very much-- I'm glad I work by the hour and not on salary like the board attorney did under the previous board leadership"

Excessive legal costs at the BOE as identified by an independent auditor....$500,000 in legal fees beyond "do not exceed" limits at City Hall...anyone see a trend here?

Fair enough. I'll retract my prior comment because I don't have backup on Raslowsky. I do, however, have a copy of Petrosino's complaint and I'll stand by my layman's characterization.

The point is this: you are criticizing the BOE for increased legal costs when you were partly responsible for that increase.

Eric Kurta- There is no "backup" on Raslowsky because be never filed a lawsuit like you said he did. Simply irresponsible. Instead of retracting, why don't you apologize for the mischaracterization?

PK, are you saying Petro won the suit against the BoE. I don't think he did. Curious what that suit cost the Board to fight.

FAP- In short, if a court is persuaded that a lawsuit is frivolous or vexatious, it can strike it. No attempt was made by the Board's legal counsel to persuade the court that Dr. Petrosino's suit was frivolous.

"The number of recommendations in the audit, seven, is down from over 30 issued in the 2008 audit." Read more: Hudson Reporter - Stable school tax bills expected again Also at board meeting Positive audit 400 student decrease from 5 years ago

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/16820571/article-Stable-school-tax-bills-expected-again-Also-at-board-meeting--Positive-audit--400-student-decrease-from-5-years-ago-?instance=secondary_stories_left_column

tburns- you know full well that your pals Russo and Petro have helped contribute to the legal costs. Give it up already nobody's buying what you're trying to sell.

http://www.hobokenhorse.com/2011/12/ex-mayor-anthony-russo-lawsuit-against.html
http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com/2010/01/hoboken-boe-fact-check-dr-petrosinos.html

It is important to realize that all audit findings are not the same. There is both quantity and quality. These 6 audit findings this year seem to add up to exposing over $1,000,000 dollars in extra expenses to the district that were not identified before the audit. So it's not like "30 is less than 6, we're better" silliness--- That 20% drop in student enrollment over the past few years isn't looking good either. Seems like the public is voting with their feet concerning Kids First leadership of the Hoboken Public Schools.

Yes, Passkey I'd agree that both quantity and quality of the 2009 audit violations under Raslowsky far and away exceed any current audit findings. 2009 Scathing audit of Hoboken Board of Education shows more than two dozen irregularities. "Including10 administrative positions being paid out of the instructional line to reduce the ratio of management to in-classroom which was too high. In a random sampling, auditors found two cases in which funds raisedby students through candy sales and other activities were used toreimburse teachers for stolen iPods – to the tune of $400 each. In addition, overtime was being improperly approved by consultants, instead of employees, auditor Dieter Lerch said at Tuesday’s Board of Education meeting. Auditors also found that stipends to several employees were either not approved by the board or did not have other necessary documentation."

http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com/2009/11/boe-audit-results-more-than-two-dozen.html

nice try- sorry. A "scathing" report from a biased bully blogger like Eric Kurtha doesn't hold a lot of water in the real world. The real assessment of the triviality of the "30 audit findings from 2009" is a) they were rectified in 3 weeks and b) they resulted in not 1 point lost on the QSAC District report for FINANCE (QSAC is an independent, objective evaluation by the State of NJ). So-- go pontificate with people who don't know any better. The fact is the current 6 new audit violations totally over $1,000,000 is FAR MORE PROBLEMATIC to the district. Remember, former interim superintendent Carter and Kids First were trying to set the stage for the interim superintendent as a savior to the district....rather than the charletons he and Kids First turned out to be.

Sorry Passkey the "2009 scathing audit" headline about Raslowky's tenure has nothing to do with "biased bloggers" unless nj.com is also on your biased blogger list. The article, "Scathing audit of Hoboken Board of Education shows more than two dozen irregularities," states that 20 of the violations were outstanding from the previous year's report. http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2009/11/scathing_audit_of_hoboken_boar.html

tburns-- here is a rough estimate. Hopefully, we'll know exactly soon.
We know the state average for legal expenses was $47 per student from Claire's story. We also know that the Board's legal fees had to be at least 30% above the average to have the negative audit finding. Let's assume legal expenses were somewhere between 30% (minimum overage for audit finding) and double the state average (maximum overage one could imagine). That would give a range of $131,000 to $197,400 in legal expenses for 2009-10 (assuming 2100 students in the district last year).

Actually Breakfast in the Classroom was Jack idea. Carter stopped in his first meeting.
$783,000 = $130,000 recent uncollected payments, $160,000 capital improvements and I believe a large amount of uncollected debt from 5 years ago carried into Chartwell contrat. Something Jack promised going private would correct. guess not.....
Kids First can only administer the contract written by Jack, which must be a doosey!
Thank goodness when Ms. Minutillo asked if there would be changes to the new RFP specs in light of all these problems- Donow said, Yes!
Starting from scratch. Smart man!

And speaking of legal costs- what about that Petrosino contract/lawsuit- unlimited days off, a contract signed within 90 days of execution that had a 90 day claus renewal- How much did that lawsuit alone cost our students/taxpayers? or The 96k hvac guy- whose contract (then lawsuit) had him making calls to service people to fix broken wall airconditioners, or How about making full salary after 8 years? and of course, the wonderful chartwells contract. Great contracts you signed. Definitley looking out for the student's best interests. I can't imagine why the board would have wanted a new attorney to replace Morano. Sounds like he was doing a bang up job!

did you watch the tape? Lawyer said the workers comp is charged to legal line (as mentioned above). As are other firms, like the one currently working on a case about some verbal contract from the former Super Gagliardi.

tburns doesn't care. She no longer lives in town and just wants to help friends of hers like Pupie turn the BOE into a feeding trough again/

Nothing catching your interest in Secaucus?

No attorney in the state of NJ can execute a contract with a client that says he can only be discharged for cause. Absolutely unethical. However, I am not surprised that an attorney hired by the Puppieteers would have an attorney that was hired based upon an unethical contract.

And not surprised that you,as head Puppieteer would not have any problem with that fact.

You had control of the education of those children for most of their years. K-10th? 11th? What about that?

Eh, she likes to ignore the cumulative impact on the children of the poor management practices in effect during her tenure. She still thinks all that dead weight on the payroll over those years and the many years prior to her involvement somehow helped to make things better. Back to the days of hiring every other idiot in town for a make work job as far as she is concerned.

How much will those results improve after the Russos hire a few dozen people for make work jobs if they and their completely corrupt cronies take control again? Probably a great deal b/c they will lie through their teeth when reporting the districts finances & such just like Jack did.

Hey Passkey, how about worrying about the illiterates in Texas, your state of residence.

And yes, Kids First is doing a great job.

http://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2011/12/smartboards-and-irs.html

Hobbs-- political smear campaign? Ridiculous. Why did Ms. Pincus write an apology letter for what she did?
"Following a conversation with Etzion Neuer, regional director for the New Jersey Anti-Defamation League, Pincus said later that she realized how her graphic may have caused offense and agreed to issue a letter of apology at Neuer's request."

One of the frivolous suits the BOE had to deal w/ was from Anthony Russo. So that too is part of the conversation. And seeing as those vultures keep circling the BOE, hard to keep them out of the conversation. Perhaps if they stopped trying to get their hooks back into the BOE, we could ignore them.

Does this mean you'll be telling prosbus to stop dragging his jihad against GA into every discussion like he did Friday, Saturday, Sunday and today?

You've come on here and insinuate that 4 hours uncompensated observation is a patronage hire -and you damn well know you did- and you presume to lecture on right and wrong?

Congratulations. You have arrived at your destination.

Please, stay in Secaucus. If you can't tell the difference b/w an uncompensated position and a patronage hire then you really have no clue.

Please identify the ethic violation that you insinuate.

Let me guess....there will be no such statute.

As usual, more lies and induendo-no proof of any wrong doing.

No, this provision is not silent on employment being a condition for violating the policy. If you had bothered to read a little further down to #2, you would have seen that. Unpaid student teachers are not covered by the policy.

Redrider765. With all do respect, please post the actual quote which states student teachers are not covered by the policy. I believe you are either mistaken or purposely trying to spread misinformation. Thank you.

FYI: http://www.njsba.org/training/materials/gov4-admin-code-ethics-act.pdf

Jesus are you lazy. Read section 2 on page 80. It specifically uses the term employed. Employed people get paid. Student teachers don't.
http://www.state.nj.us/education/code/current/title6a/chap23a.pdf

And if you go to the bottom of page 81 you will see student teachers are specifically mentioned as not being covered by the policy at the school board's option. Now that we have that settled, put a sock in it already and thanks for telling me where to go to find what I needed to shoot holes in your argument the size of an aircraft carrier.

CuriousGal. Why are you talking to this nitwit? Infotainmeredrider is a paid political hack brainwashed to do Zimmer's bidding. Your time would be just as well spent banging your head against the wall. See how below is alter ego Infotainme shows up? On que as always.

Thanks to that bit of news from Leaks, a more pressing question would be, why are you - HQ, Prosbus, VinVan, etc - talking to your wife via a message board? Can't you just call across the room?

Ha ha! Good one, Info. Just what I thought. To boot, since HQ got everyone's IDs from the proprietor at H411 he knows he's full of crap. We are many against a pint-sized hack and his nasty bride. Ever the master of projection, he projects his own thousand-screen names on others.

HQ shills for the folks who buy elections. What's to be expected?

Even more pathetic. She didn't even vote on the matter. Take your arguments and put them in the trash with your common sense.

What I find particularly disingenuous is that this person is upset about an unpaid position, acknowledges that the state allows the BOE to opt to allow student teachers who are related to BOE members to study in the district at the BOE's option and doesn't understand that the BOE had a vote to allow just that. How many ways can a person be obtuse and keep promoting the same lame arguments before they realize how wrong they are?

Speaking of 'privilege', makes me think of one using their media connections to pimp nasty stories which harm Hoboken businesses at Christmastime to the television media. The same television media who don't show up to investigate why a politician had 1/2 the number of campaign workers that he had votes. That stuff isn't important because that's A-OK with your ilk.

That's 'special consideration'. The kind you and that piece of garbage prosbus enjoy.

http://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2011/12/team-mason-fox-strikes-hoboken-biz-at.html

Redhaven it's great to have your bitter old self back! I see your legendary sense of proportion has survived intact.

pied piper, this crew is the most ham-handed bunch of ops I've ever seen. One dopey stunt after another.

Eric Kurta- can you please either post the url to the Hoboken BOE's nepotism policy or post a pdf of it on your blog? I did a search on the district web site and it yielded no results. I could not find the language "Per diem substitutes and student employees are excluded from this nepotism policy" anywhere.

N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2, requires that districts implement a nepotism policy that includes the following:
▪ a provision prohibiting the chief school administrator from recommending to the school board pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1 any relative of a school board member or chief school administrator (N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2(a)(3).

What a load of crap! Did you think people would be too lazy to look up your bogus nonsense?
The statute you quote: N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1 is renewal/non renewal of employees: By its terms, the statute provides, inter alia, that a board may renew an employee's contract “only” if the CSA so recommends, and that it may decline to follow a CSA's recommendation for renewal but may not do so arbitrarily and capriciously "..the statute speaks in terms of renewal of an employee's “employment contract,”

And the other statute you quote:N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2(a) SPECIFICALLY notes:
In accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2(a)6.(b), per diem substitutes and student employees who are relatives of a Board member or the Superintendent of Schools shall be excluded from the provisions of this Policy and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2.

Good for you pied piper. They are a contemptible bunch of liars who crumble under scrutiny every time.

If you are going to do a smear campaign Curiouslyobtusegal, how about you go do your research before you get proven wrong. Go check out the district policy manual on the BOE website. Go read part 4112.8. If you can't absorb the information visually by reading it, perhaps you should print it out and eat it.

Now please, stop w/ the baseless and completely incorrect accusations already.

The person in question is NEITHER a per diem substitute teacher nor a student employee. So, NEITHER provision applies to the Board President's relative. I'm sorry but, in short, the provision is immaterial.

Burn- your comments do you no favors: OPERATIVE WORD: in your own words:
HIRING of relatives.
Definition of HIRE. 1. a: payment for the temporary use of something b: payment for labor or personal services : wages. 2. a: the act or an instance of hiring b: the ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hire - Cached
More results from merriam-webster.com »

You CAN'T HIRE someone who doesn't get paid.

How's Raia doing with that 100k awarded contract for the school board he sits on? Lets talk about some SERIOUS ethics and nepotism violations.

How are you going to get the stink out of that contract? Could he be any more blatent?
.

What really is unfair is that some nosy busybody who doesn't live in this town and can't tell the difference b/w an unpaid student teacher and a hired employee keeps interjecting herself into the conversation.

BTW - how the hell is the board president's daughter ever going to learn anything at another school outside of town and bring those tools back to Hoboken to be used in our schools here if the BOE nepotism policy forbids the BOE from hiring her to teach here in Hoboken so long as her mom is a member? Yeah, bet you didn't even bother to think that far ahead.

Re: Nepotism policy adoption:

which has you, Ms. Burns- against the adoption of the nepotism policy:

"....Several school board members reacted passionately to the resolution, with former Board President James Farina, who is also the longtime city clerk, describing the policy as "unconstitutional" and warning of potential litigation against the district as a result.

Similarly, board Member Frank Raia, who two months ago tabled the resolution, described it as a "nightmare [that] I think is prejudiced against poor people."

Raia was referring to the fact that only Abbot Districts are required by the state to adopt such a policy, whereas the state's more than 500 other districts are not.

Raia's sentiment was supported by at least two members of the public, former school board member THERESA BURNS and 3rd Ward Councilman Michael Russo, who spoke on the issue.

Russo, who is often the only city councilperson at Board of Education meetings, argued that the nepotism policy gave more importance to whom the candidate is related to rather than to the candidate's qualifications."

So maybe tburns was for nepotism before she was against it?

Okay, now you have gone past being uninformed to being just plain stupid. What the hell do you call a student teacher? I'll give you a hint, the first word is student and the second word starts w/ an E.

Just like the dopey prosbus/HQ, you think you're the smartest one in the room. NOT.

You and hubby are miserable vampires, and other people's kids are your targets. How about taking care of your own?

Then by extension an unpaid college student doesn't fall under any of the nepotism policies and there is absolutely no restriction on hiring or using them b/c they are unpaid and not employed by the district in any capacity what so ever.

Yes, to answer your question, you are stupid and you are uninformed. You launched into a series of baseless accusations w/o even bothering to understand the nepotism policies at the state or BOE level and you have been backpeddling ever since. And BTW, you are completely wrong on your characterization of student teachers. They are in fact student employees and they are being compensated, they are being given an opportunity to learn through observation and that is their compensation. Please do pursue your ethics investigation so you can have the investigator laugh in your face the way I have been laughing at your feeble arguments the last couple days.

When exactly was this manufactured "issue" not personal and off topic? People who are actually concerned with the ethical issues raised by nepotism know the difference between real issues and fake ones so while you may be neither uninformed nor stupid you are clearly someone who could care less about real nepotism issues.

A lecture on 'good form' from YOU? That's like getting a lecture on table manners from Pol Pot.

You and hubby are a cancer on this town. WHY the intensity of this attack on Markle's child is truly bizarre. Like getting money under the table from an elected official for political operative work when you're truly lousy at it. Doesn't add up.

Perhaps you are the one tryng to get the conversation off-topic.

Btw, did YOU see any of those intercepted emails?

Bozo, you cant file an ethics violation against someone who didnt vote.

If this is the case then it is all Jack's fault, period, end of story.

So say Redrider765--- what a joke. The auditor said at the 12/13/11 meeting that $365,000 was not collected last year (2010-2011) and a comparable amount the year before. The fact that this board does not take responsibility for this uncollected money does not mean it is anyone else's fault. Amazing---

Yeah, it apparently wasn't collected b/c nobody bought the food but the BOE is required to pay for it even if it isn't eaten b/c Jack signed a shitty contract. Jack's fault - the moron ordered food nobody planned on eating.

The Board of Education must have approved at least 2 and maybe 3 contracts with the food vendor since 2009. I'm sure they reviewed the contract with the BA and must have found it more than satisfactory or else they would have made adjustments.
Is your job to make up excuses for these people? ;-) really---

She is student employee and explicitly that is not covered by the nepotism policy at both the state and local level. Stop being an idiot.

You can't have it both ways. Either she was recommended for employment in which case she falls under the student employee exception. Or she isn't an employee in which case she can't be recommended for employment and she doesn't fall under the nepotism policy at all. Take your pick. We are talking about a college student doing observation in classrooms. She isn't a contractor doing business in town, not a paid employee, there is no financial remuneration involved, no supervision by her mother, etc... You have gone so far over the edge on this it is beyond belief.

Bingo, Hobbs.

From an earlier post---
The auditor said at the 12/13/11 meeting that $365,000 was not collected last year (2010-2011) and a comparable amount the year before. The fact that this board does not take responsibility for this uncollected money does not mean it is anyone else's fault. The Board of Education must have approved at least 2 and maybe 3 contracts with the food vendor since 2009. I'm sure they reviewed the contract each time with the BA and must have found it more than satisfactory or else they would have made adjustments or not sign off.
In short, the Board had a number of opportunities to change the terms of the original contract with the food vendor and either failed to do so or felt it was a fair contract.
Is that sticking to the topic enough for you?

Curiousgirl - I am curious. Was the contract renewed during that period or was it a 3 year contract that just expired? If you're suggesting that the Board somehow "ratified" an existing in force contract by not unilaterally renegotiating it then your suggestion reflects a lack of understanding of contract law. Perhaps they should have attempted to renegotiate this bad agreement but its hard to see where the leverage would have come to do so. the damage was done when the legally binding contract was signed, especially since the guaranteed minimum would have established the damages if the city defaulted by wrongfully terminating the contract in mid term.

So let me see if I got this right:

"Pupie's" good friend Jack locked the HBOE into a not so great contract that ended costing too much money.

Then when the guy "Pupie" recently got elected to the HBOE is asked for a comment he and glosses over the reason for the problem.

Then oppsie when the facts come out about the contract, the friends of "Pupie" desperately try to change the subject with lame personal attacks.

That is a whole lot of "Pupie" going on. :-)

By the very fact that you are now clinging to "a sense of nepotism" as the justification for another 3 days of character assassination, it is clear that you know there is no actual case for it.

Next will be "a whiff of nepotism". A hint. A fog. You, who have no trouble with taped evidence of Russo accepting a bribe, Mason buying elections, Raia's votes-for-dollars operations - YOU see an ethical crisis here. And more people will need to have their character questioned and damaged by you and your core of snide, half-educated cyber thug friends and family members.... It remains a 4 hour uncompensated observation at one's own high school. Something to be encouraged and applauded in the wider world, but not by the likes of you for whom every act is to be assessed as possible fuel for the fire of your 24/7/365 campaign to "destroy the enemy". Now we add a young woman returning to observe her own high school to that fire.

Cue Joe Welch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQD4dzVkwk

I was using a form of literary repetition you ignorant minion--- for clarity, my last sentence says it all: Employment IS NOT a necessary condition for nepotism.

Unless you can prove in any of those instances that someone else wanted that unpaid job that went to the relative, that the other people applying were more qualified and they still lost out to the relative, then you have absolutely no case what so ever and no judicial body will ever agree that it was nepotism. Your examples are just useless hypotheticals just like all the arguments your wife used yesterday are similarly useless.

Speaking of unpaid-for-friendship unhired PIOs, WHO's been paying you all these years? Why weren't you on Mason's ELECs?

Has the I.R.S. gotten their piece of the pie?

F.B.I. Tip Line here: http://www.fbi.gov/news/videos/inside-the-fbis-internet-tip-line

According to state statute and the board attorney (juris doctorate with years and years of experience specializing in educational law) there is no conflict.
What makes you think you know more than the state law and the experienced attorney?

Just more smear and inuendo.

Nobody trusts you CG. You and your husband Lane don't have an honest bone left in your bodies.

HO HO HO! Are you ready to SING tburns? Well, then it's time for the...

12 DAYS of Burns' BOE CHRISTMAS

12 unlawful administrator contracts (and years of Theresa Burns on the BoE)
11 years without new textbooks
10 x 2 = 20 teachers fired that year
9 old board members voted to hire their inexperienced friend as Superintendent
8 admin salaries hidden in "library media services"
7 hudred thousand to pay off Gagliardi
6 years of Raia
5 yr food service contract creating a large deficit
4 shilling BoE members left
3 costly bogus lawsuits
2 year full time contract for part time work
1 main goal - to retake the school board to begin same old song

HO HO HO!

And Santa's bringing some orange jumpsuits for Burn's friends on Hoboken411, the vicious political operative's smear-tabloid where she's a regular poster!

HO HO HO!

https://twitter.com/HobokenT
HobokenT Theresa Burns
#Frank Raia is simply the best qualified candidate. Real experience. Real solutions for #Hoboken. www.FrankRaiaforMayor.com
10 Oct 09

So says Theresa Burns about the man most associated with rigging elections in the entire city. Tell us more about the corrupting influence of a college student sitting in a highschool classroom for 4 hours watching the goings-on, Secaucus air bag. It's nothing compared to what Frank's money has done to you.

Here's another song that comes to mind.

She works hard for his money,
so hard for it, honey.
She works hard for his money
there ain't nothing she won't do.

So this person lives somewhere else but is posting here about this town's schools daily? Why?

A very Bajardi Christmas, a few hours off and back to hissing and spitting. Tell Beth you don't need the money that bad and you and Lane want the day off like the rest of the world.

Clearly the concept of price elasticity is a tad too complicated for Curiouslyobtusegal

CuriousGirl, not curious about context? New lawyer came in 2009? What was happening before then? Was previous attorney really cheaper or did he give away the store? What about the 12 or so unlawful contracts before 2009, no costs with that?

Lane Bajardi has never appeared in an ELEC report for Beth Mason or Tim Occhipinti. He appears in this midnight video for Occhipinti's campaign leaders. http://www.hobokenhorse.com/2010/10/grist-for-mill-midnight-monday-meeting.html
Is he credited in Beth Mason's IRS filings? Does he credit her in his tax forms?
http://www.fbi.gov/news/videos/inside-the-fbis-internet-tip-line

Its easy to ask questions johnsmith-- but not playing that game with you. If you know the expenses of the 12 contracts, share it. If not, shut your trap.

pied piper- big numbers obviously mesmerize you like a child looking in the window of a candy store. Legal fees are for services---not for payouts.

Point 1: Me nor other parents are especially interested in what happened in the schools 3 years ago, 5 years ago, or 20 years ago. Its time for the Zimmer backed Kids First group to be grownups and take responsibility.
Point 2: If the district had an attorney on salary, the accounting for that in the budget is probably on a separate line item. My guess is they paid between $115,000-$135,000 for full time in house counsel. Not hundreds of thousands more ;-)
Point 3: Legal reserve are funds set aside not necessarily expended. Maybe the district was self insured? I don't know. Again, too far in the past for me to really care about.
Point 4: Food service-- Even more revealing is this excerpt from the 2010 Hoboken School District Management Report: "The food service management contract for the 2010/2011 year has guaranteed that the operations will at least break even. According to District management, the District has also implemented certain other cost reductions and increased food sales prices in an effort to reduce the deficit. Therefore, no recommendation is deemed warranted"

Clearly, corrective action that was promised in 2010 never took place. The result, as the article in PATCH points out is that the 2011 Hoboken School District Audit Report indicates an additional $365,000 deficit in the food service program!

So- to recap:As a parent, you don't know what legal fees were prior to a certain date nor do you care. You have been shown that food costs have come down and don't care about that either. You also don't care that there were no new text books for 12 years nor that in the past 2 years there have been: (to name a few)
smartboards added to every k-7 class
laptops for grade 7-9 students
foss science kits
sitton spelling
increase in hhs math classes (from 2 to 9 classes per week)
School Day state mandated/approved gifted and talented program k-12
continuation and expansion of the Johns Hopkins Gifted and Talented after school program
continuation of theater arts program
districtwide staff development
new curriculum implemented
a highly experienced business dept hired
a highly experienced legal firm contracted
and for the first time in HBOE history an well accomplished, experienced superintendent hired
all while losing millions in state funding and still providing the legally, lowest allowable tax levy.

BUT you do care who zimmer backs.
Got it.

re:Point 2: If the district had an attorney on salary, the accounting for that in the budget is probably on a separate line item. My guess is they paid between $115,000-$135,000 for full time in house counsel. Not hundreds of thousands more ;-)

Gagliardi's buy out cost close to 700k, which line item would that have been under? That certainly was hundreds of thousands more- and that was just ONE contractual legal fee issue. I think you need to do a lot more research if you would like to be taken seriously :)

pied piper- your generous list of "accomplishments" is simply a gross example of hyperbole. The fact is the end result of this list is now a district designated as "in need of improvement" for the first time in its history. A district where over 90% of its students attend a school that has failed to meet state and federal minimum requirements and a district whose fiances are beginning to look increasingly questionable.

pied piper- once again you are confusing legal costs with settlements, judgements, and buy outs. At the end of the day, the legal costs are more than 125% over the state average this year.

2009-2010: $126* ($277,000)
2010-2011: $160* ($336,000)
2011-2012: $91* (estimate) ($191,000)
* According to the State of New Jersey guidelines and based on a state average $47 per student, legal costs should equal @ $84,600 for the Hoboken School District based on student population (All data obtained by open public records requested documents and information)

Sorry Probus, there were no legal fees prior to 09 noted in any boe budget. I noticed you say they have skyrocketed. What were those fees prior to 09?

"The debt, Takacs continued, has been building for four or five years."

Total Food Services Costs-per pupil
2005-373
2006-174
2007-226
2008-213
2009-158
2010-0

(scroll from the bottom for easier reading).
http://www.hoboken.k12.nj.us/files/board/budget/userfr.htm
http://www.hoboken.k12.nj.us/files/User%20Friendly%20Budget%202011-2012.pdf

From the 2010 Hoboken School District Audit Report:
Finding 2009-3: Our audit revealed a year end deficit of $244, 992 in unrestricted net assets in the Food Service Fund.
From the 2011 Hoboken School District Audit Report:
there's a $365,000 year end deficit.

The BA promised this would be "fixed" last year, correct? from the 2010 Hoboken School District Management Report: "The food service management contract for the 2010/2011 year has guaranteed that the operations will at least break even. According to District management, the District has also implemented certain other cost reductions and increased food sales prices in an effort to reduce the deficit. Therefore, no recommendation is deemed warranted"

Lane Bajardi has never appeared in an ELEC report for Beth Mason or Tim Occhipinti. He appears in this midnight video for Occhipinti's campaign leaders. http://www.hobokenhorse.com/2010/10/grist-for-mill-midnight-monday-meeting.html
Is he credited in Beth Mason's IRS filings? Does he credit her in his tax forms?
http://www.fbi.gov/news/videos/inside-the-fbis-internet-tip-line

New text books to replace 12 year old books
smartboards added to every k-7 class
laptops for grade 7-9 students
foss science kits
sitton spelling
increase in hhs math classes (from 2 to 9 classes per week)
School Day state mandated/approved gifted and talented program k-12
continuation and expansion of the Johns Hopkins Gifted and Talented after school program
continuation of theater arts program
districtwide staff development
new curriculum implemented
a highly experienced business dept hired
a highly experienced legal firm contracted
and for the first time in HBOE history an well accomplished, experienced superintendent hired
all while losing millions in state funding and still providing the legally, lowest allowable tax levy

Re: food service-$130k was from uncollected funds, 160k from capital improvements and the rest from years past all negotiated in a contract by your pal Raslowski.
130k is a lot less than
2005-373
2006-174
2007-226
2008-213
2009-158

Amazing that so much money was able to go directly to the kids with all of the cuts that the district received and still they provided the lowest tax levy allowable by law. Why weren't these initiatives and monies provided to the students in the years your people were in charge?

Sorry pied piper-- I have no "people"-- clearly you do.

The purchase and installation of smartboards in a school district is certainly an interesting utilization of technology. But, it should not be viewed as some sort of panacea. Like many other things, success often hinges on effective professional development and support. The purchase and installation are the simplest aspects. It seems like pied piper and johnsmith are basically intellectual lemmings spouting the latest "talking points" in an uncritical and unreflective manner. Par for the course from what I can tell...
However, here is a thoughtful even handed entry on the pros and cons of smartboards for those interested:
http://www.science20.com/chemical_education/notsosmart_use_smart_boards-77463

Hopefully, the smartboards will be used in an effective and instructionally challenging manner that will lead to solid student learning gains- but it will not occur simply by installation and purchase.