I guess it’s only right that we ask our superintendent to lead by example. After all don’t we want our children to learn courtesy from our school leaders?
Dr. Magistro is indeed thankful for the lockstep support she receives from the incumbent board members and is doing her best to express her appreciation.
How else would you explain the 11th hour electioneering that Dr. Magistro is engaging in? What? You mean YOU didn’t receive a personal letter from Dr. Magistro? Well just in case you missed it you can download it from the DOCS section (April 17th letter).
That’s right, Dr. Magistro sent out a letter on April 17th, the Friday before the School Elections. April 17th . . . the last day of the school vacation. April 17th . . . the day after the board cancelled the last public meeting before the school election. April 17th . . . the same day an editorial letter appeared in the Home News questioning the superintendent’s statement that insurance would pay for the lease of Corpus Christie vs. the $775,000 line item in the proposed budget to pay for the lease of Corpus Christie.
This seems to be another one of those patterns: ‘we don’t really want to answer questions in public, but we do need to try and round up SOME support for the incumbents . . . wait, wait!! Let’s cancel the public meeting and have the superintendent send out a letter at the last minute to only the people we think might support us.
Confused yet? No wonder. Here’s what has happened. Dr. Magistro and the board got caught again in their lies about what really is going on at Memorial. It seems between the February letter Dr. Magistro sent out and the newspaper articles that quoted Dr. Magistro and Todd Simmons the board president, and the PTA presentation made by Dr. Magistro that they were telling so many contradictory stories they figured one more might convince a couple of people to vote for the budget and the incumbents.
So here’s the rundown (links and/or documents can be found on the right):
February 24, 2009
The superintendent sends out a letter to ‘Memorial Parents and Staff’ in which she states; “Our insurance carrier has accepted responsibility for the temporary placement of our school at Corpus Christie in South River. These costs include the lease for the South River facility, the clean up and repair to that building in preparation for school opening and any salvage from the old Memorial site.”
The same letter from the superintendent stated: “I spoke at the recent February 16th Memorial PTA meeting and indicated that the architect would be able to present his plan at our February 26th Board of Education meeting. However, the architect has been informed to review his plans again to work out some additional cost saving measures. Therefore, he will not be at this Thursday’s Board meeting. As soon as he is ready to present, you will be notified so you may attend the meeting if you wish.”
March 31, 2009
The superintendent makes a presentation to the Memorial PTA in which she states they plan to “Move forward with the plan for Memorial based on the same educational specifications as recommended by the community committee and approved by the State in 2004.”
The superintendent announces that the “Board gave consensus to a September 2009 bond referendum” and the “Expected opening of New memorial - September 2012”
April 9, 2009
Board President Todd Simmens is quoted in the Star Ledger referring to a bond referendum to raise at least $23 million from the taxpayers “If we can go in June, then Wednesday after election day we’ll break ground.” Simmens also suggests that money shouldn’t be the focus but making things happen as soon as possible should.
April 17, 2009
In a letter to the Home News a reader points out the flat-out lie told by the Superintendent in her Feb 24th letter when she assured parents and staff that the insurance carrier had agreed to cover the cost of leasing Corpus Christi school. Referring to the proposed 2009-2010 budget that includes $775,000 per year for the district to pay the lease on Corpus Christie the reader wondered how quickly the superintendent’s message would change once his letter was printed.
April 17, 2009
The superintendent sends out another letter (but only to Memorial Parents and staff) that now says: “My recent discussions with the President of Corpus Christi’s Parish Council indicate that they are happy to house our students and staff until Memorial is rebuilt.” The superintendent DOES NOT say that the insurance company is going to pay for it - - as she did in her February letter.
In the same letter the superintendent states: “we will prepare for a September 2009 bond referendum.” And “the architect has been asked to refine the plans (which will not in any way delay the bond referendum).”
The superintendent DOES NOT say why the architects have not completed their ‘refinements’ in the nearly two months since they were first scheduled to appear before the board and public.
The superintendent DOES NOT say why there is $100,000 in the 2009-2010 proposed budget for ‘Architectural Fees’.
And the superintendent DOES NOT say when the public will have an opportunity to hear the entire plan, in one place at one time and be able to provide their input.
What the superintendent does say is: “I look forward to your support . . . “ and “appropriate sections of Memorial playground will be relocated to South River. this week.”
The production and mailing costs for the superintendent to send out this last minute electioneering letter likely came out of the $392,361.00 budgeted THIS YEAR for ‘General Administration Communications and Postage’ Account 11-000-230-530.
Maybe we don't want our children to learn courtesy from our school leaders.
Maybe we should ask our school leaders to focus on honesty instead!
When does it end? I like the "appropriate sections of Memorial playground will be relocated to South River. this week.” as though these children are like the unwanted step children from hell.Next they will have to feed them too! this whole Memorial process needs to be managed by an outside agency OR have Ryan, Grekoski and DeStefano take over the process. Everyone, Imagine this one for a second. you crash your car while texting( suspicious fire)and the insurance tells you that they are only going to fix the left side of the car even though you have full coverage(25 million dollars worth of coverage) and you are responsible for the rest. so you have to pay for the right side, all of the wiring, ROOF and you have to accept that. OR your other option is to buy a much bigger car even though you only have you to drive around in for full value(MSRP 2004)you have to wait 3 years to pick it up and pay for your rental car(Memorial school) out of your own pocket for the 3 years. Would you be expected to believe this for one second. Last I checked, FUll coverage means bringing it back to full working condition prior to the accident.(suspicious fire)It is also very odd that this fire occured during a time where no kids were present, on a day that no class was in session and at a time when the school had the summer kids off to a day trip. I wouldn't be surprised if this (suspicious)turns out to not be so suspecious after all hence that lack of payment of memorial school rental(rental car reimbursement) the BS we were fed that the insurance company would only cover the damage to ONLY the 4 rooms damaged(left side of the car) and not the heating system, roof, wiring, plumbing etc(whole car) is ludicrous. IF this is the case, then who picked the insurance company? I think we need to probe into the insurance company and get their point of view and the truth.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how the insurance company can say that only 4 rooms need to be fixed, when the district is saying that the entire infrastructure (heating plumbing wiring etc) was damaged in the fire. Which is it? Why wouldn't the insurance company be responsible for the heating, plumbing and wiring??? Is it true that there was asbestos flying everywhere during the fire? I understand that mold is now a problem too, or is that just a rumor??? If they had acted immediately and repaired what was broken instead of hoping for the brand new school that had already been wanting, wouldn't our children already be back at the Memorial Site??? If the asbestos rumors are true I don't want my kid back at that site, but are they true???? What we seem to have is a total lack of FACTS, everything is rumor or innuendo. The district wanted a new building and saw the fire as a great oppurtunity, but it seems to have backfired. Most of the Memorial parent's I've talked to aren't even going to vote yes in a bond referendum, would we like a new school, sure, but who can afford it. How many of these parents being asked to vote yes are layed off themselves. If Memorial parents aren't even going to vote yes, I doubt anyone else will. My understanding is if it gets voted down in two bond referendums, they can just go ahead and do it anyway, is that true???
ReplyDeleteDrove by Memorial last night on the way home from WAWA and low and behold, a lot of the playground equipment is gone. Memorial parents have been complaining all year about the lack of equipment at South River and low and behold all if took was a little election to get things moving.
ReplyDeleteBasically we have been told that the insurance company said the building was not destroyed by more then 20% and therefore it does not have to be brought up to code or completely replaced. Basically, it didn't burn enough!! Yes this is sad! They claim repairing the 4 classrooms is all that is needed, despite our towns emergency managment telling us the building suffered catestrophic damage. This statement was made before any mold had formed ...assuming this is true. I seem to get the feeling that because Memorial was orginally slated to be included in the first bond referendum, which included the worst schools being central and lawrencebrook, but was eliminated because it would be asking for too much at one time to replace them, the BOE is now looking at the fire situation as a way to get the new school pushed through as an emergency and not just a plain old "our school is old and we need a new one" - which would probably not pass given our economy. I am a Memorial School parent and I want to see the kids back to their school! However,I need to ensure that we are building a school for the right reasons. Have we looked at all options and have we have planned for a fiscally responsibile school? Or have we come up with another plan. If a bond referendum was put to me today, I would vote NO. I don't have all the facts and figures and I have not been satisfied by what the BOE has provided to me to date. I feel that there is something we are not being told. We have been told by the superintendent that if 2 bond referendums fail they can go to the commissioner of education and plead the case to her. Our superintendent was positive that the commssioner would over turn the "no" vote and allow the BOE to build a new school. Therefore, forcing us to pay for the new school. We must also understand that during this time, we are paying for the rent at Corpus Christi. Therefore, by passing this referendum at the first go around is in our best interest becasue it will have the new school built faster, therefore, costing us less in the long run. The BOE seems to be making us feel that the rebuiling of the school is our only option to save money. Is this a scare tatic? While this might be true, it has not been 100% proven to me. I wish everone luck in their quest for the truthful facts ... it looks like we are all going to need it!
ReplyDeleteOnce again the superintendent is peddling, at best, half truths.
ReplyDeleteHere's the way it really works:
IF the board approves going to the voters for a bond issue it is put on the ballot. If it passes they spend money with little oversight. If it fails the board and administration should get the essage.
IF the board and administration don't get the message and continue to belive that open public debate is not in their interests than the public indeed has a choice.
The board can only go to a 2nd bond issue if the board votes by majority to do a bond issue. If the public speaks up and elects board members that will represent the students, teachers and taxpayers it is no longer a 'done deal' that the superintendent gets to demand what she wants and gets it from board members that are afraid of her.
If for some reason the board is too weak to stand up to the superintendent and get a REAL proposal for Memorial they can try for a second shot at a bond issue. If it passes -- we get taxed and the superintendent gets what she has wanted all along.
If the bond issue doesn't pass the public still has another chance to be part of the process by again electing board members that have the interests of the township and not the ego of the superintendent at heart.
Before the superintendent can appeal to the Commissioner of Education, the board has to authorize it by a majority vote. If the board doesn't authorize it, the superintendent can't bypass the voters.
So the superintendent would very much like the public to believe that they really have no say in the matter and they might as well just approve what she wants to begin with.
THE TRUTH is that the public still gets to decide (at least for now) whether a bond referendum will be forced on the taxpayers.
Th public has the opportunity to elect THREE BOARD MEMBERS this year and FOUR BOARD MEMBERS next year that will represent the needs of the township and not the ego of the superintendent.
Look at the track record of lies and deceit of the three incumbents running for re-election. Now is the time to turn them out and at least have a chance to discuss what the truth about Memorial is.
You process on how it works, is very different then what the superintendent explained to us at the Memorial meeting. Perhaps she did not get into specifics with us. I don't think most people understand how it works. We have elected officials in the past that have made promises, but once on the board they seem to sing a different tune. Perhaps because of intimidation, or promises. We don't know what happens when these people get elected. We hear the same old promises and the pointing of fingers, etc. This time around we have other issues and we are hoping the change we need is the change we are going to actually get. Most people are very confused and they don't know what is truth anymore.
ReplyDeleteGot Taxes - Given you seem to know how the process really works, I hope you will be present at the meetings when we are being given false and/or misleading information. I hope you will be there to speak up and tell everyone who is not familiar with the process and have no choice to believe what we are being told. Especially when we are being told it will hurt us financially if we do not go ahead with the plan. Question, why does the superintendent want a new school .. what is in it for her? What are the benefits to her and what is her reason for pushing her view upon us and not giving us the real truth. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhile free speech is still free in this country the right to speak up is, unfortunately, severely limited by the people who hold the power. In this case the incumbent board of education and administration.
Personally I got fed up with hearing the same pack of lies year after year and having little opportunity to bring the facts to light. Which is why we created this website and try our best to focus only on THE FACTS.
Based on what we are hearing there is a good chance that the public is fed-up and will vote out the three incumbents in tomorrows election.
REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS this website will continue to provide THE FACTS to the public. This will not be an easy task as the deck is stacked against the public. Just getting copies of board agendas with attachments and meeting minutes is no small task.
However, many, many documents already exist in the public and simply need to be found, downloaded, scanned, etc. Our pledge is to make as many documents as possible available in one place for one purpose - - BRINGING THE FACTS TO THE PUBLIC.
So please go out and vote tomorrow and continue to come back to this website, offer comments, ofer criticism, suggest ideas and ask questions. We will do our best to serve the needs of the public where our elected officials, paid administration, and all too frequently local and regional press have failed the public.
Regardless of who gets elected tomorrow the public will have one more avenue to hold their feet to the fire and address the facts rather than continue to duck and weave and withold the truth.
In short, stay tuned this is just the beginning.
Dear Anonymous (part 2),
ReplyDeleteI will be doing the research so that I can post the exact NJ Statutes and Dept of Education regulations that cover how, when, why, who can commit the taxpayers to millions of dollars in debt via not only a bond issue, but lease-purchase agreements and other financial instruments.
East Brunswick Public Schools have for many years managed to finance the schools without incurring signficant long term debt. That has changed in recent years and the district is now approaching the maximum amount of debt that the state will allow them to take on.
Most residents don't know how much debt we are in or where the money goes or how it got approved. Only a portion of it ever gets voted on in a bond issue. Much of it is done behind the scenes and hidden in the oeprating budget where it is less likely that questions will be asked.
This subject alone could use a community meeting to discuss and answer HONEST questions about.
However the very brief review of how much debt the district is in, as of June 30,2008:
Long Term Bond Debt: $88,766,000
Lease-Purchase Agreements: $16,172,705
Capital Leases: $7,296.412
THIS IS A LITTLE OVER $112 MILLION IN DEBT - - BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION OF A NEW MEMORIAL.
Dear Anonymous (part 3)
ReplyDelete"Question, why does the superintendent want a new school .. what is in it for her? What are the benefits to her and what is her reason for pushing her view upon us and not giving us the real truth."
The only person that can truly answer this is the superintendent herself. I can provide some history and insight that may be helpful in ascertaining why this dishonesty continues.
The superintendent is a long term employee of the district who has been pushing her own agenda for years. She finally accomplished her ultimate position when she was appointed as superintendent. However this was just the culmination of decades of maneuvering inside the public schools. We have spoken with MANY, MANY teachers and administrators, both current and former, who basically have painted the same picture.
If you are part of the 'Magistro Sorority' then you are well taken care of. If you choose the wrong side, or are not admitted to the Sorority than talent, professionalism, hard work, dedication and self sacrifice are not enough to blunt the vindictiveness that will be cast on you by those 'in the sorority'.
This goes on all the time in the corporate world but apparently is even more insidious inside public education and hardly what the public expects or the administration wants the public to see.
There is no small amount of narcisicm or ego-based behavior ocurring in the everyday running of the schools. Nor is there any lack of creativity in attempting to create a 'legacy'.
Most educational (and for that matter public) professionals would be content with leaving a legacy that they truly made a small difference in the life of another human being. Some however are in desperate need of external valadation and have a relentless desire to leave concrete examples of their self-proclaimed leadership.
Walk around the district and take a look at the brass plaques that adorn every school with the self-congratulatory pronouncements of the administration and board members who were 'responsible' for building the school.
Prior to Dr. Magistro, you may recall that the East Brunswick Superintendent of Schools was Dr. Jamie Savedoff who's ego probably approach that of our current superintendent.
Dr Savedoff came to us from Montgomery Township where he managed to spend hundereds of millions of dollars on new schools all which now (and forever) bear expensive brass plaques with his name as the guiding magesty that made it happen.
Dr. Magistro is no different. She has 40+ years in the district and currently earns $209,500. Her husband is also a long standing district employee who earns north of $125,000/year. Don't expect either one of them to stay in the district much beyond the superintendents current contract. They have enough time, pension and perks invested so that they will comfortably retire with likely a $150,000 (or more) yearly pension and full paid health benefits.
So what's left to do before she leaves? Build one more monument to her tenure in East Brunswick and be around long enough to see it completed - - - regardless of the need, regardless of the cost, regardless of the public, regarless of the dishonesty and manuevering it will take to accomplish.
As I said earlier this is speculation based on a lot of research. I would love to hear what the superintendent would say her motiviation is.
You have provided this site with much needed information. You seem to know your stuff and where to go to get your stuff. But who are you? I feel strongly that the old will be out and the new will be in because people are fed up with what we have right now. Then, they will sit back and hope our newly elected incumbents will do the job they promised. What we need is a committe of dedicated individuals who know all the facts, and know the questions to ask, who will check up on and question the board. We need to get the word out about this site and we need the people who read this site to bring the facts to light and before the board. When we are asked to replace Memorial School, how many people know that we are in over $112 million in debt (or even if your facts are right). Who among us will bring this up at any future meetings. Can we get some handouts and provide people with questions to ask .. questions they are not expecting us to ask? The purpose of your site is to keep people informed, but if the people do nothing with this information then what? Thank you for taking the time to put this site together. If all that you are saying is true, we have some serious issues. If the Grekoski, Rayan and DeStefano team get elected, I hope the people who voted them in will make sure they shake things up and keep their promises. Personally, I think people are fed up. Half don't know what to do about it and the rest don't really care.
ReplyDeleteYour points about the reason the superintendent would build a new school are valid. She has already told us that Memorial is not safe and she is afraid of the children with allergies and future health risks. She feels that the district could potentially have law suits from this. She feels this would be the case even if we replaced only the 4 rooms. I wonder why the insurance company does not concur. After all if there were health risks wouldn't the insurance company be responsiblibe for now allowing us to build a new school ... a school that had health risks? Wouldn't they be afraid of the same law suits. I know we are not being told the complete truth. But the majority of us do not know how to combat against the information we are being given. We don't know the facts and we don't know what questions to ask. Do we just replace the 4 rooms .. many people feel that is the way to go. Do we build a new school, many people feel that Central and Lawrencebrook have new schools then so should we, after all we are paying the same taxes and we were slated to be on the next bond referendum. What are other options .. we don't know. Thank you for the information you have provided.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI too share your frustration. I would suggest that Grekoski, Ryan and DeStefano have one of the most workable ways to do what you ask. . . . They have called for a COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD with a seat at the Board table.
It will take the majority of the board approving this committee so G-R-D can't do it without your support and pressure on the entire board.
The LAST thing we need is another Administration-run committee of yes people whose voice only gets heard throug the administration filter.
We need community members at the table for these discussions IN PUBLIC so we can all figure out what the truth is.
Naturally the current power-brokers answer will be "well that's just not how it's done". DUH!
That IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE and the Board of Education HAS THE POWER TO DO IT.
You didn't answer whether or not you (whoever you are) will be at Board Meetings to ask the questions we don't know to ask. Will you??? If we go in sighting facts from your website that we can't back up, they will poo-poo us out of there. I'm sure you are the one they mean when the paper says not to listen to "people spreading false" information. How do we spread it at a meeting if we don't know how to back it up, other than by pulling out your docs which we don't understand??
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree, how can we represent ourselves when we don't understand the facts nor can we back up what we do understand. I would guess to say that the person or persons spearheading this site happen to be the Gretkoski, & Ryan, DeStefano Team, or someone they are feeding this information too. I say this because the responses have the same style of writing technique as the recent Sentinel Ariticle, April 16, 2009, page 21. It also has the same writing style as the G, R, & D website at www.TheChangeWeNeedIn2009.com. This site has us believing that your are in favor of these candidates, but you never say you are these candidtates. I would think such would be a conflict of interest and I would be so bold to say that such would be the same type of cover up you are accusing the current BOE of doing. I really hope that is not the case. If it is not the case then you will be at the meetings and it won't be hard to spot you. You will be the person with the facts, questions, and back up. By not telling us who you are only leads me to believe that my gut instinct is right. This would not mean that all that you are saying is not true. I do know one thing for sure. I was never told that that insurance company would be picking up the rental tab beyond the first year for Memorial School. The Superindentant told us the rental for the Corpus Christi School was paid for by the insurance company for school year 08-09. This included the school clean up, the move, and the replacement of materials lost in the fire. Subsequent years were in question. The lease agreement had been left open so the Board can come back after the year was up and renegotiate the rental amount. So the fact that the rental amount exists on the budget for 09-10 school year does not come as a surprise to me. If you are saying that the insurance company did not cover it for the 08-09 school year, then I would say something is not right. Please expain exactly what you are saying. I respectfully request that you deny that you are either Grekoski, Ryan, or Destefano and that you have nothing to do with this web site. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteLook, this website is about THE FACTS, not about the candidates or who is doing the research.
ReplyDeleteI CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVALLY STATE THAT this website had no connection whatsoever with Grekoski, Ryan or Destefano. That this website is not the author of any of their campaign material and that this website is not owned, operated or supported by ANY of the candidates running in this election.
AGAIN - - this website and the opinions expressed here have no connection whatsoever to ANY OF THE SIX CANDIDATES RUNNING for election, nor is it in any way sponsored, supported by or supporting any of the candidates.
Yes, this is all very confusing and I suggest that is by the design of the administration and board. They have an agenda and are trying to pursue it at whatever cost.
The purpose of this website is to GET FACTS out in the public view where the public can make their own decision.
Regardless of who wins the election the FACTS are still the FACTS and we plan on continuing to research and report them as completely as we possibly can no matter who gets elected.
This is not a tea party, it's not a Kool-Aid party it's just an effort to document the enormous frustration that many residents have expressed about being kept in the dark, or lied to by people we trust to represent the residents of this town children, teachers and taxpayers alike.
Personally, I think we're long overdue for a change on the board and in the superintendent's office. I think the budget deserves to be defeated and a board made up of new faces should be held accountable for coming up with a budget that makes more sense.
Every voter has to make up their own mind. I hope that deciding who to vote for can be based on facts and not emotions.
No matter how the election turns out one thing is certain: there needs to be A LOT MORE TRANSPARENCY AND A LOT MORE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT in what goes on in this school district.
As for the rental tab for Corpus Christie the letter from the superintendent (available here) on 2/24/09 said that insurance would cover the cost.
One person standing up at Board meetings is not going to make a difference. Many people getting informed, getting involved and refusing to accept lies or dodges will make a difference. We all need to do our part and I am willing to help if I can.
I took the following from a Sentinel Article from this site:
ReplyDelete"The school board will pay $60,493 per month to lease the building and grounds, according to school Business Administrator Bernardo Giuliana, who said that initially the cost will be covered by the district's insurance company. He expects insurance to pick up the tab at least for the coming school year, and possibly longer. It remains unclear whether Memorial will be able to reopen for the 2009-2010 school year, and the school district will have the option of ending its Corpus Christi lease early or extending it, if needed.
When I read this it does concur with what the Superintendent said .. it will be covered for this year 08-09, possibly longer is the key statment here. Possibly does not mean definitely. We were directly told that subsequent years are in question .. I heard that with my own ears! I have also looked at the 2/24 letter and it states that the insurance company has accepted responsibility for the temporary placement. The use of the word temporary is open ended. Is it for the full time we are temporarily displaced, for half, for just the first year? It is not clear and it would be not be fair to interpret that as being for as long as we are there the rent would be covered. I directly heard the Superintendent say that it was for this year. They left the lease open ended so that if the insurance company did not pay the second year they would be able to go back and renegotiate -she felt she would be able to bargain given we will be returning a school to them that is in much better shape then when we received it. These were her words as I remember them. I was never under the impression that the Insurance company would pay the rent after this year 08-09. We are all upset about Memorial School, but we need to get the facts straight. Leading people to believe that we have been told it would be covered for the entire time and now that the money is in the budget for the full rent is misleading. While there are some very powerful information to support that the BOE has some explaining to do, I don't feel that the information supplied to us by THE SUPERINTENDENT, was misleading. If anyone has any document to support that it was, please post it.
OK so you claim not to be affiliated in anyway shape or form with the GR&S candidates. I have no other choice but to believe what you are telling me and everyone here. OK then, who are you?. Why do we all need to remain anonymous? What are we all afraid of? Our fear of someone knowing who we are will keep up from the very job we want to accomplish, getting to the truth. Our voices need a face to be heard. What do the rest of you think?
ReplyDeleteI believe that you are right and our voices need to be heard and our faces need to be seen at Board of Ed Meetings. Even if the three new candidates get in, it will be 6 to 3, and life as it is will continue, but at least there should be some debate. This website has to get a larger audience. Everyone who knows about it should email their friends with the name if you haven't already done so. I imagine most have. I hope this site continues regardless of who wins or loses.
ReplyDeleteI am all for that. I would go to the meetings. Here is one problem though, I don't know all the facts or the laws. I don't know where to get the information to support any facts I might have. We need someone .. the author of this site ... hint .... hint ..... to step forward and help us. There is no doubt that this person has knowledge that goes way beyond the average EB tax payer. This person cites laws and knows where to find the info ... he/she also understands the entire process. If we become a large group of people who uderstand and can combat against this, the fear is then removed. Information is power and power comes in numbers. Here is the way I look at it, for every $ that is being mismagaged that I can save, is one more dollar I have for my children for college. There are no bond referendums for college. Each time taxes go up, I save less for their future. So we are "for the Children" "the future of our Children".
ReplyDelete