“I never noticed the apple until it was pointed out to me this week along with its explanation. Mark is spot on. It looks like the PSEA will support candidates that will be sympathetic to them at contract time. Not me. I guess I negotiate too hard. No tax increases for 6 years straight now. Test scores are still up and we ranked 3rrd in the county last year for SAT scores.”
Brant Miller’s Facebook comment
Regarding an apple that appeared on campaign signs
So Brant Miller negotiates too hard . . .
Fort Cherry administrators receive a benefit package known as the Act 93 Compensation Plan. Act 93 is statewide, but each school district negotiates its own Act 93 plan.
The Act 93 that gives FC administrators bonuses for doctorate degrees, full tuition reimbursement, 5% of grant money, a generous insurance buy-out, and on and on . . .
The “bad apples” we talked about in the last post have gotten tens of thousands of dollars in bonus money from their “papers”.
Brant Miller was on the board in 2005 when the “doctorate bonus” was added to the Act 93 agreement.
==================================================
Fort Cherry School Board
--------------------------------------------------
Observer-Reporter (Washington, PA)-June 29, 2005
* Date: June 27
* Action: The board unanimously approved a five-year administrative compensation plan effective at the beginning of the 2005-06 school year. There are two new provisions in the plan.
If teachers before 2009 have a co-pay as part of their health-care coverage, administrators also will be subject to a co-pay. After 2009, when the current collective bargaining agreement with the teachers union expires, if teachers are subject to a co-pay, administrators also will be subject to a co-pay.
The second provision creates an annual $5,000 payment, over and above the base salary, for administrators who obtain a doctorate degree. Business manager Paul Sroka equated the compensation to which teachers receive when they obtain a master's degree.
For being such a “hard negotiator”, Miller seems pretty soft when it comes to administrative perks.
(For a closer look at Miller’s self-described negotiating style, refer to Nov. 5, 2011, post:
Let’s take a look at the Act 93 to see just how “hard” the administration has it at FC:
Here are the highlights (the entire document can be viewed at http://www.observer-reporter.com/www/PDF/ftcherryact93.pdf):
D. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
1. The Board shall reimburse each school Administrator for tuition in the amount of one hundred percent of the first eighteen (18) credits per year, at the University of Pittsburgh rate, for furthering their education in the field of educational administration, or other related fields of education. In order to be eligible for reimbursement, the administrator must obtain prior approval by the Superintendent of the course(s) and submit evidence of successful completion. (B- or better grade or P if class is pass/fail.)
The University of Pittsburgh’s part-time per credit rate for the School of Education, Dept. of Administration and Policy, is currently $760 per credit.
Cost to taxpayers per year: $13,760.
Total cost to taxpayers: ???
------------
E. EDUCATIONAL COMPENSATION
Any administrator that earns a doctorate degree from an accredited university will receive an annual stipend of $5,000.
Cost to taxpayers so far for Dinnen’s two doctorates: approximately $70,000, plus the cost of tuition reimbursement for the second doctorate.
Cost to taxpayers so far for Jacoby’s doctorate: approximately $25,000, plus the cost of tuition reimbursement.
Cost to taxpayers so far for Craig’s doctorate: approximately $25,000, plus the cost of tuition reimbursement.
Every year, until the Act 93 is renegotiated, Dinnen will receive $10,000 per year, Jacoby and Craig, $5000 each.
According to a former board member who was on the board in 2005, the doctorate stipend was initiated by Dinnen.
As the former board member described it, it was Dinnen who approached the board in 2005 and requested the $5000 bonus be added to the Act 93 compensation plan.
He went on to say that Dinnen told the board that it was the only way FC could hang on to Jacoby, who was working on her doctorate at the time.
At the time of the addition of the $5000 stipend to the Act 93, Dinnen had acquired his second doctorate (full tuition reimbursement courtesy of FC taxpayers), entitling him to $10,000 per year.
------------
2. An Administrator on approved leave shall continue one’s membership in the School Employees’ Retirement Association. The School District shall pay when required into the School Employees’ Retirement Fund on the behalf of each such Administrator the full amount of the contribution required by law to be paid by and on account of such person so that retirement rights shall be in no way affected by such leave of absence.
Cost to taxpayers: ???
------------
7. DOCTORAL LEAVE
Administrators covered by provisions of this salary/benefit plan shall be eligible for a doctoral leave of absence with full pay during the period of July 1 through December 31 of a single school year.
If Jacoby was on paid doctoral leave . . .
Cost to taxpayers: Jacoby’s full salary, plus benefits, plus the cost of a substitute.
According to the official board minutes from October 22, 2007, the cost of a substitute was $60 per day.
“Mrs. Schwab made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Duran, that the board appoint Mrs. Frances Harrig as Interim Elementary Principal at a rate of $60.00 per day, with the start date to be determined. Motion passed unanimously.”
Total cost to taxpayers: ???
L. MILEAGE
The district shall allow mileage to Administrators for distance incurred as a result of administrative duties performed for the district. The current IRS allowance shall be used for reimbursement purposes.
As shown on previous posts, mileage adds up, especially when you are out of the office as much as some FC administrators.
Cost to taxpayers: $.50 to $.57 per mile - number of miles: ?????
Total cost to taxpayers: ???
P. RETIREMENT AND EARLY RETIREMENT BONUSES
In the event an Administrator retires during the length of this agreement, the Fort Cherry School Board/District agrees to the following:
1. The retirement must be voluntary.
2. The Administrator shall give written notice to the Superintendent, as per teacher contract or board discretion.
3. Provide health coverage of $600.00 per month in cash or insurance reduction with the employee paying the remainder of the premium.
4. Give the employee a $25,000 bonus. This provision applies only to administrators currently employed in the District, as of January 25, 2010.
5. Pay $75.00 for each day of unused sick leave.
A $25,000 bonus upon retirement???!!!!
This is hard negotiating????!!!!
Total cost to taxpayers: ???
2. Administrators will be awarded five (5) percent of any grants they obtain for the district, with the maximum amount not to exceed $5,000, except for someone hired into the School District with the express purpose of grant solicitation.
And finally, there’s that 5% bonus for grants.
As stated previously in this blog, until the district stops spending taxpayer money fighting the release of the administrators’ W-2s and 1099 forms, the taxpayers have no way of knowing exactly how much money has been skimmed off the grants for bonuses (see Oct.15th post, http://fortcherryinfo.blogspot.com/2011/10/whats-up-with-w-2s.html).
Total cost to taxpayers: ???
------------
Currently the Business Manager and High School Principal are attending universities – on Fort Cherry taxpayers’ dime.
In the course of researching the information contained in this blog, the authors spoke to former administrators.
According to one former administrator, Dinnen also allegedly offered him the use of his papers. He refused. Allegedly, at a later date, Dinnen told him that another administrator had no problem submitting Dinnen’s work as his own.
According to one former administrator, Dinnen also allegedly offered him the use of his papers. He refused. Allegedly, at a later date, Dinnen told him that another administrator had no problem submitting Dinnen’s work as his own.
Uh-oh . . . “another administrator had no problem submitting Dinnen’s work as his own”??!!
How far has this gone?
Will FC ever get its truth, honor and integrity back???
Additional Costs to FC Taxpayers???
Going back to the two dissertations presented in the last post (“One Bad Apple . . . “), the cost to FC taxpayers may include more than cost of tuition reimbursement, doctoral bonuses, and a substitute principal:
Consider this:
Dinnen’s paper, Appendix D:
Dinnen sent an initial cover letter and questionnaire guide on May 1, 2002
These letters were composed with an atypical Fort Cherry Letterhead with a FC address.
The mailings included a cover letter with a questionnaire guide (on the reverse side), a questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope. The address was Dinnen's home address on the SASE.
These questionnaires consisted of 6 pages, copied on 3 sheets of paper.
Dinnen refers to these mailings as "survey packets". That would be bulk mail; certainly extra postage would be involved.
They were mailed to 484 superintendents; 164 responded at 33.88%.
Dinnen wanted to increase the number of responses so he decided with a follow-up mailing to 320 superintendents. Dinnen states in his paper, "Because of the time that had elapsed from the initial mailing, the entire survey packet was again sent to all 320 superintendents who had not responded to the initial survey."
The second mailing was sent September 6, 2002.
Jacoby's paper p. 101, Appendix:
The initial cover letter consisted of 1 page, with the University of Pittsburgh, Department of Administration and Policy letterhead.
This included two copies of University of Pittsburgh Adult Consent Forms - 1 was kept by the responder and the 2nd returned. The consent form was consisted of 4 pages, but it's not sure if both the front and back were used for a 2-page mailing.
Jacoby invited 300 principals in western Pennsylvania to respond.
Those who participated were included in a $50 BP gas card drawing.
In order to increase participation, a second mailing went out. It also included a cover letter and the 2 consent forms along with a paper survey - a 4-page document.
So how does this affect the FC taxpayer?
More than likely, ALL survey packets, from both administrators, went through FC mailings/postage.
AND, it’s possible that FC secretaries typed these documents at the request of the administrator.
In addition, possibly ALL the paper and envelopes were from FC supplies. And don’t forget about the $50 BP gas card . . . if Jacoby feels comfortable charging FC taxpayers for “Halloween Items for Faculty Meetings and Grade Level Meetings” (after all, what's a meeting without the “proper atmosphere”), she probably would not be opposed to making the taxpayers pay for the $50 BP gift card . . .
In the end, once again, the likelihood is that Fort Cherry taxpayers footed the bill.
Think about this . . .
If a citizen submits a right-to-know request to the district, FC charges the citizen 25 cents per page for the document. If the document is mailed from FC to the requestor, additional charges are added for postage.
Let’s assume that as taxpayers we can charge Dinnen and Jacoby at that rate:
Dinnen (initial mailing):
· 484 superintendents @ 4 pages = 1936 pages
· 484 self-addresses stamped envelopes
· 484 envelopes mailed with 484 SASEs = 968 envelopes
Dinnen (2nd mailing):
· 320 superintendents @ 4 pages = 1280 pages
· 320 S self-addresses stamped envelopes
· 320 envelopes mailed with 320 SASEs = 640 envelopes
Dinnen (totals):
· 3216 pages @ .25= $804.00
· 1608 envelopes
Since we're not sure what the postage was, let's use today's .44 for a simple mailing.
· 1608 envelopes @ .44 for postage = $707.52.
Minimum total cost for Dinnen’s mailings: $1511.52.
Keep in mind that postage to mail out what Dinnen refers to as “survey packets” would have been much more than that amount, so postage could very well have been over $2000.00.
Jacoby's initial mailing alone may have consisted of 3 pages sent to 300 principals plus a self-addressed stamped envelope. Of that initial mailing only 36 responded. A second mailing went out which included the cover letter, the 2 consent forms, a SASE, and a survey which consisted of roughly 9 pages, possibly front and back now at 4.5 pages. Let's round down- for the benefit of the doubt, and say that the survey packet consisted of 7 pages. Here's the math:
Jacoby (initial mailing):
· 300 principals @ 3pages = 900 pages
· 300 self-addressed stamped envelopes
· 300 envelopes mailed with 300 SASEs = 600 envelopes
Jacoby (2nd mailing):
· 273 principals @ 7pages = 1911pages
· 273 self-addressed stamped envelopes
· 273 envelopes mailed with 273 SASEs = 546 envelopes
Jacoby (totals):
· 2811 pages @ .25 = $702.75
· 1146 envelopes
We’ll use simple postage again, although it too would have been much more.
· 1146 envelopes @ .44 for postage= $504.24
Minimum total cost for Jacoby’s mailings: $1206.99.
This could possibly be closer to $1500.00.
So, should Dinnen and Jacoby have had to pay for the supplies and postage for the 2 dissertations, the cost may have ranged between $2700.00 to $3500.00 and more.
Was the former School Board aware of these potential financial burdens placed on unsuspecting taxpayers? Did it even occur to them to ask during those years if these practices were occurring?
It is our hope that the new board president and the new board members will demand to be kept informed of how our tax dollars are spent.
