Couple pleads guilty to stealing bingo funds from Matamoras Fire Department
by Beth Brelje of the Pocono Record
Two former officers of the Matamoras Volunteer Fire Department pled guilty to felony theft in the third-degree Friday in Pike County Court. Each Video from the Times Herald-Record's "NewsWatch"
faces a fine of up to $15,000.
Former Fire Chief Kevin DeGroat, 49, and his wife, former department treasurer Theresa DeGroat, 46 were charged in April with stealing more than $68,000 from the department, mainly by pocketing some of money they were supposed to deposit in the bank from bingo fundraisers.
Eastern Pike Regional Police Department reported that the couple also used the fire department credit card to buy personal items at Sam’s Club and used department funds to pay school taxes.
The DeGroats showed no emotion as they entered guilty pleas in front of Judge Joseph Kameen. They must pay restitution of $25,984.93 before the judge sentences them in April.
The couple had been placed on administrative suspension at the time of the charges.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Daily Show - Neil deGrasse Tyson
His book, Space chronicles : facing the ultimate frontier, is available through the Port Jervis Free Library.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Attempted murder charge in Port Jervis razor attack
Nathan Brown from the Times Herald Record:
A Huguenot man is being charged with attempted murder after, police said, Video from the Times Herald-Record's "NewsWatch"
he broke into a residence on Hammond Street early Sunday morning and attacked one of the occupants with a razor.
Carrol W. Dolshun, 26, broke in around 4:32 a.m., assaulted an occupant, and demanded money, according to city police. He then repeatedly tried to slash and stab one of the occupants, cutting him several times.
The injured victim was transported to Bon Secour Communtiy Hospital, treated and released. Dolshun fled the scene on foot and was caught by city police Officer Heremy Eagan after a foot pursuit and struggle.
Dolshun was arraigned in city court and remanded to Orange County Jail in lieu of $300,000 bail.
He is being charged with attempted murder, felony attempted robbery, burglary, assault, attempted assault and weapon possession, and the misdemeanor of resisting arrest.
The investigation is continuing. Anyone with any information is asked to contact city detectives at 845-858-4003.
A Huguenot man is being charged with attempted murder after, police said, Video from the Times Herald-Record's "NewsWatch"
he broke into a residence on Hammond Street early Sunday morning and attacked one of the occupants with a razor.
Carrol W. Dolshun, 26, broke in around 4:32 a.m., assaulted an occupant, and demanded money, according to city police. He then repeatedly tried to slash and stab one of the occupants, cutting him several times.
The injured victim was transported to Bon Secour Communtiy Hospital, treated and released. Dolshun fled the scene on foot and was caught by city police Officer Heremy Eagan after a foot pursuit and struggle.
Dolshun was arraigned in city court and remanded to Orange County Jail in lieu of $300,000 bail.
He is being charged with attempted murder, felony attempted robbery, burglary, assault, attempted assault and weapon possession, and the misdemeanor of resisting arrest.
The investigation is continuing. Anyone with any information is asked to contact city detectives at 845-858-4003.
Movie: The Movie
"a romantically comic political action thriller drama based on the novel Push by Sapphire."
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sherlock Sunday 2.3
Series 2 episode 3 of 3 - "The Reichenbach Fall"
After a series of high-profile cases lead Sherlock to fame, Moriarty launches a simultaneous heist on the Tower of London, Bank of England, and Pentonville Prison, for which he allows himself to be captured and put on trial.
After a series of high-profile cases lead Sherlock to fame, Moriarty launches a simultaneous heist on the Tower of London, Bank of England, and Pentonville Prison, for which he allows himself to be captured and put on trial.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Inside the Meltdown
BBC This World, Inside the Meltdown
When the tsunami struck Japan in 2011, it swamped the Fukushima nuclear complex causing nuclear meltdown and releasing radiation that ultimately would leave hundreds of square miles uninhabitable, and cost a hundred thousand people their homes.
With unique footage and powerful eyewitness testimony from key figures in the drama - the engineers in the plant, firemen, soldiers, pilots, tsunami survivors, the Japanese prime minister and even the MD of the company operating the plant - Inside the Meltdown reveals what really happened in the extraordinary days after the tsunami as a disaster unfolded that Japan's nuclear industry said would never happen.
When the tsunami struck Japan in 2011, it swamped the Fukushima nuclear complex causing nuclear meltdown and releasing radiation that ultimately would leave hundreds of square miles uninhabitable, and cost a hundred thousand people their homes.
With unique footage and powerful eyewitness testimony from key figures in the drama - the engineers in the plant, firemen, soldiers, pilots, tsunami survivors, the Japanese prime minister and even the MD of the company operating the plant - Inside the Meltdown reveals what really happened in the extraordinary days after the tsunami as a disaster unfolded that Japan's nuclear industry said would never happen.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Front Street Wall Collapse
Structural engineers investigate the partial collapse of a wall at a downtown Port Jervis building.
For photos, visit:
Port Jervis Unauthorized
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
You'll never see this in Port Jervis...
Greenwich administrators offer to take pay cut to help school budgetand
from PostStar.com
GREENWICH -- As the Greenwich Central School District tries to close a deficit of nearly $1.4 million, it's receiving help from the administrators union, which has offered to accept a 2 percent pay cut.
The Greenwich Administrators Association, a four-member union made of principals and the director of special education, notified the district this week that it wants the wage reduction for 2012-13 to help the district solve its budget constraints, which could require cuts to academic and extracurricular programs.
"We decided a 2 percent pay decrease was the appropriate thing to do," said Benjamin Cronin, association president and assistant high school principal. ...read more...
Amherst teachers OK wage freeze next year; up to 20 layoffs avertedTo be fair, our administrators did agree to take no increase, but you'll never see a pay cut. And, as we saw with last year’s budget, the local teacher's union was far more willing to sacrifice 12 teaching positions rather than take a pay freeze in order to save jobs. Why? I can't say.
from BuffaloNews.com
The Amherst Central School District has become the second district in the last week to negotiate a wage freeze with teachers.
The Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free School District Teachers Association also has agreed to a freeze in wages and step increases in 2012-13.
The agreements come as districts try to bridge gaps in next year's budgets with the added pressure of a tax cap limiting the amount of taxes that can be raised. ...read more...
Monday, February 20, 2012
Neighborhood Watch Meeting
as per Debra Kuen, Orange St. block Captain:
The Next Neighborhood Watch meeting will be:
Wednesday, February 22 at 7pm at the firehouse
on corner of Canal and Orange Streets.
Bring your friends and neighbors and see whats happening in your neighborhood
Visit: Port Jervis City-Wide Neighborhood Watch
Wednesday, February 22 at 7pm at the firehouse
on corner of Canal and Orange Streets.
Bring your friends and neighbors and see whats happening in your neighborhood
Visit: Port Jervis City-Wide Neighborhood Watch
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Teacher Evaluations - updated
Here, via Gov. Cuomo's office, are the bare-bones tenets of the newly struck statewide deal on teacher evaluations:
Teacher Performance – 60 points
Under the agreement, 60 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on rigorous and nationally recognized measures of teacher performance. The agreement requires that a majority of the teacher performance points will be based on classroom observations by an administrator or principal, and at least one observation will be unannounced. The remaining points will be based upon defined standards including observations by independent trained evaluators, peer classroom observations, student and parent feedback from evaluators, and evidence of performance through student portfolios.
Student Achievement in State and Local Assessments– 40 points
Under the agreement, 40 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on student academic achievement, with 20 percent from state testing and 20 percent from a list of three testing options including state tests, third party assessments/tests approved by the SED and locally developed tests that will be subject to SED review and approval. Under the plan, school districts will also have the option of using state tests to measure up to 40 percent of a teacher's rating.
Rating System
The agreement significantly tightens the scoring system to ensure student achievement and teacher performance are both properly taken into account for teacher ratings. Teachers or principals that are rated ineffective in the 40 points could not receive a developing score overall.
Ineffective: 0 – 64
Developing: 65 – 74
Effective: 75 – 90
Highly Effective: 91 – 100
Below is the law guiding it, Section 3012 c of the Education Law:
Teacher Performance – 60 points
Under the agreement, 60 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on rigorous and nationally recognized measures of teacher performance. The agreement requires that a majority of the teacher performance points will be based on classroom observations by an administrator or principal, and at least one observation will be unannounced. The remaining points will be based upon defined standards including observations by independent trained evaluators, peer classroom observations, student and parent feedback from evaluators, and evidence of performance through student portfolios.
Student Achievement in State and Local Assessments– 40 points
Under the agreement, 40 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on student academic achievement, with 20 percent from state testing and 20 percent from a list of three testing options including state tests, third party assessments/tests approved by the SED and locally developed tests that will be subject to SED review and approval. Under the plan, school districts will also have the option of using state tests to measure up to 40 percent of a teacher's rating.
Rating System
The agreement significantly tightens the scoring system to ensure student achievement and teacher performance are both properly taken into account for teacher ratings. Teachers or principals that are rated ineffective in the 40 points could not receive a developing score overall.
Ineffective: 0 – 64
Developing: 65 – 74
Effective: 75 – 90
Highly Effective: 91 – 100
Below is the law guiding it, Section 3012 c of the Education Law:
§ 3012-c. Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers
and building principals. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
rule or regulation to the contrary, the annual professional performance
reviews of all classroom teachers and building principals employed by
school districts or boards of cooperative educational services shall be
conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such
performance reviews which are conducted on or after July first, two
thousand eleven, or on or after the date specified in paragraph c of
subdivision two of this section where applicable, shall include measures
of student achievement and be conducted in accordance with this section.
Such annual professional performance reviews shall be a significant
factor for employment decisions including but not limited to, promotion,
retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental
compensation, which decisions are to be made in accordance with locally
developed procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article
fourteen of the civil service law. Such performance reviews shall also
be a significant factor in teacher and principal development, including
but not limited to, coaching, induction support and differentiated
professional development, which are to be locally established in
accordance with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of
article fourteen of the civil service law.
2. a. The annual professional performance reviews conducted pursuant
to this section for classroom teachers and building principals shall
differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using the following
quality rating categories: highly effective, effective, developing and
ineffective, with explicit minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each
category, as prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner. Such
annual professional performance reviews shall result in a single
composite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates
multiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in
the regulations of the commissioner. Except for the student growth
measures prescribed in paragraphs e, f and g of this subdivision, the
elements comprising the composite effectiveness score shall be locally
developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the regulations
of the commissioner, through negotiations conducted, pursuant to the
requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law.
b. Annual professional performance reviews conducted by school
districts on or after July first, two thousand eleven of classroom
teachers of common branch subjects or English language arts or
mathematics in grades four to eight and all building principals of
schools in which such teachers are employed shall be conducted pursuant
to this subdivision and shall use two thousand ten--two thousand eleven
school year student data as the baseline for the initial computation of
the composite teacher or principal effectiveness score for such
classroom teachers and principals.
c. Annual professional performance reviews conducted by school
districts or boards of cooperative educational services on or after July
first, two thousand twelve of all classroom teachers and all building
principals shall be conducted pursuant to this subdivision and shall use
two thousand eleven--two thousand twelve school year student data as the
baseline for the initial computation of the composite teacher or
principal effectiveness score for such classroom teachers and
principals. For purposes of this section, an administrator in charge of
an instructional program of a board of cooperative educational services
shall be deemed to be a building principal.
d. Prior to any evaluation being conducted in accordance with this
section, each individual who is responsible for conducting an evaluation
of a teacher or building principal shall receive appropriate training in
accordance with the regulations of the commissioner of education.
e. For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance
with paragraph b of this subdivision in the two thousand eleven--two
thousand twelve school year, forty percent of the composite score of
effectiveness shall be based on student achievement measures as follows:
(i) twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth
data on state assessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a
comparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not
available; and (ii) twenty percent shall be based on other locally
selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be
rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the
regulations of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner
consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of
article fourteen of the civil service law.
f. For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance
with paragraph c of this subdivision in any school year prior to the
first school year for which the board of regents has approved use of a
value-added growth model, but not earlier than the two thousand
twelve--two thousand thirteen school year, forty percent of the
composite score of effectiveness shall be based on student achievement
measures as follows: (i) twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based
upon student growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the
commissioner or a comparable measure of student growth if such growth
data is not available; and (ii) twenty percent shall be based on other
locally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to
be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the
regulations of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner
consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of
article fourteen of the civil service law.
g. For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance
with paragraph c of this subdivision in the first school year for which
the board of regents has approved use of a value-added growth model and
thereafter, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness shall
be based on student achievement measures as follows: (i) twenty-five
percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on
state assessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a comparable
measure of student growth if such growth data is not available; and (ii)
fifteen percent shall be based on other locally selected measures of
student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable
across classrooms in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner
and as are locally developed in a manner consistent with procedures
negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil
service law. The department shall develop the value-added growth model
and shall consult with the advisory committee established pursuant to
subdivision seven of this section prior to recommending that the board
of regents approve its use in evaluations.
h. The remaining percent of the evaluations, ratings and effectiveness
scores shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards
prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner, through negotiations
conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law.
i. For purposes of this section, student growth means the change in
student achievement for an individual student between two or more points
in time.
3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to excuse school
districts or boards of cooperative educational services from complying
with the standards set forth in the regulations of the commissioner for
conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers
or principals, including but not limited to required quality rating
categories, in conducting evaluations prior to July first, two thousand
eleven, or, for classroom teachers or principals subject to paragraph c
of subdivision two of this section, prior to July first, two thousand
twelve.
4. Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary,
upon rating a teacher or a principal as developing or ineffective
through an annual professional performance review conducted pursuant to
subdivision two of this section, the school district or board of
cooperative educational services shall formulate and commence
implementation of a teacher or principal improvement plan for such
teacher or principal as soon as practicable but in no case later than
ten days after the date on which teachers are required to report prior
to the opening of classes for the school year. Such improvement plan
shall be consistent with the regulations of the commissioner and
developed locally through negotiations conducted pursuant to article
fourteen of the civil service law. Such improvement plan shall include,
but need not be limited to, identification of needed areas of
improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner in which
improvement will be assessed, and, where appropriate, differentiated
activities to support a teacher's or principal's improvement in those
areas.
5. An appeals procedure shall be locally established in each school
district and in each board of cooperative educational services by which
the evaluated teacher or principal may only challenge the substance of
the annual professional performance review, the school district's or
board of cooperative educational services' adherence to the standards
and methodologies required for such reviews, pursuant to this section,
the adherence to the regulations of the commissioner and compliance with
any applicable locally negotiated procedures, as well as the school
district's or board of cooperative educational services' issuance and/or
implementation of the terms of the teacher or principal improvement
plan, as required under this section. The specifics of the appeal
procedure shall be locally established through negotiations conducted
pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law. An evaluation
which is the subject of an appeal shall not be sought to be offered in
evidence or placed in evidence in any proceeding conducted pursuant to
either section three thousand twenty-a of this article or any locally
negotiated alternate disciplinary procedure, until the appeal process is
concluded.
6. For purposes of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to sections three
thousand twenty and three thousand twenty-a of this article, a pattern
of ineffective teaching or performance shall be defined to mean two
consecutive annual ineffective ratings received by a classroom teacher
or building principal pursuant to annual professional performance
reviews conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section.
7. The regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall be developed
in consultation with an advisory committee consisting of representatives
of teachers, principals, superintendents of schools, school boards,
school district and board of cooperative educational services officials
and other interested parties. The regulations shall also take into
account any (i) professional teaching standards; (ii) standards for
professional contexts; and (iii) standards for a continuum of system
support for teachers and principals developed in consultation with the
advisory committee. Regulations promulgated pursuant to this section
shall be effective no later than July first, two thousand eleven, for
implementation in the two thousand eleven--two thousand twelve school
year.
8. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to
the contrary, all collective bargaining agreements applicable to
classroom teachers or building principals entered into after July first,
two thousand ten shall be consistent with requirements of this section.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting
provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect on July
first, two thousand ten during the term of such agreement and until the
entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement, provided that
notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, upon
expiration of such term and the entry into a successor collective
bargaining agreement the provisions of this section shall apply.
Furthermore, nothing in this section or in any rule or regulation
promulgated hereunder shall in any way, alter, impair or diminish the
rights of a local collective bargaining representative to negotiate
evaluation procedures in accordance with article fourteen of the civil
service law with the school district or board of cooperative educational
services.
Four School Board seats up for election
Deadline to file petition to run is April 16
Four of the nine seats on the Port Jervis School District Board of Education are up for election May 15. Board President William Onofry, Thomas Sexton and Michael Bello are completing their three-year terms. The term for temporary appointee Earl Walker is also ending.
Walker was appointed by the Board in November to fill the seat vacated by Patrick Witherow. His appointment ends May 15. The person elected to this seat will serve the remainder of Witherow’s term, which is one year.
Petitions to nominate candidates for the school board must be filed with the District Clerk no later than Monday, April 16. Petitions are available in the office of the District Clerk at 9 Thompson Street, weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Step up and put your ideas to work! Change doesn't happen on its own, good people are needed to help it along... and you can do it!
Here are the eligibility requirements:
• Must be able to read and write.
• Must be a qualified voter of the district, a U.S. citizen and 18 or older, and not a convicted felon or adjudged an incompetent.
• Must be and have been a resident of the district for at least one year prior to the election but need not be a taxpayer.
• Must not have been removed from district office within preceding year.
• Must not reside with another member of the same school board as a member of the same family.
• Must not be a current district employee.
• Cannot simultaneously hold another incompatible public office.
Four of the nine seats on the Port Jervis School District Board of Education are up for election May 15. Board President William Onofry, Thomas Sexton and Michael Bello are completing their three-year terms. The term for temporary appointee Earl Walker is also ending.
Walker was appointed by the Board in November to fill the seat vacated by Patrick Witherow. His appointment ends May 15. The person elected to this seat will serve the remainder of Witherow’s term, which is one year.
Petitions to nominate candidates for the school board must be filed with the District Clerk no later than Monday, April 16. Petitions are available in the office of the District Clerk at 9 Thompson Street, weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Step up and put your ideas to work! Change doesn't happen on its own, good people are needed to help it along... and you can do it!
Here are the eligibility requirements:
• Must be able to read and write.
• Must be a qualified voter of the district, a U.S. citizen and 18 or older, and not a convicted felon or adjudged an incompetent.
• Must be and have been a resident of the district for at least one year prior to the election but need not be a taxpayer.
• Must not have been removed from district office within preceding year.
• Must not reside with another member of the same school board as a member of the same family.
• Must not be a current district employee.
• Cannot simultaneously hold another incompatible public office.
Sherlock Sunday 2.2
Series 2 episode 2 of 3 - "The Hounds of Baskerville"
Holmes and Watson are contacted by Henry Knight, a man plagued by the traumatic memories of the death of his father at the hands of a monstrous hound years before.
Holmes and Watson are contacted by Henry Knight, a man plagued by the traumatic memories of the death of his father at the hands of a monstrous hound years before.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
I realized as I was shaving today...
... that this song is almost 50years old, was recorded before I was born and it's still better than all the crap that gets played on the radio today.
Friday, February 17, 2012
VIDEO: Port Jervis Common Council - 2/13/2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Video by George Belcher
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sherlock Sunday 2.1
Series 2 episode 1 of 3 - "A Scandal in Belgravia"
Holmes and Watson are hired to retrieve compromising photos of a minor royal held on the camera phone of Irene Adler, a ruthless and brilliant dominatrix.
Holmes and Watson are hired to retrieve compromising photos of a minor royal held on the camera phone of Irene Adler, a ruthless and brilliant dominatrix.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
VIDEO: Port Jervis School Board 2/7/2012
Port Jervis Board of Education
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Sherlock Sunday 1.3
Series 1 episode 3 of 3 - "The Great Game"
Sherlock Holmes is commissioned to investigate the suspicious death of a government employee who was working on a topsecret defence project.
Sherlock Holmes is commissioned to investigate the suspicious death of a government employee who was working on a topsecret defence project.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Terror At Sea: The Sinking Of The Concordia
The $400 million cruise ship - which got off to a bad start when the champagne bottle failed to break on its launch - fell prey to the omens when it sank on Friday 13 January 2012 off the Italian coast. This programme pieces together the mistakes that led to the disaster.
Watters World - Super Bowl Sunday
The O'Reilly Factor's Jesse Watters asks Washington politicians for their Super Bowl predictions...
Thursday, February 2, 2012
New Open Meeting Law in Effect Today
From the NYS Committee on Open Government:
Effective February 2, 2012: Disclosure of Records Scheduled for Discussion at Open Meetings
Members of the public have on many occasions complained that they cannot fully understand discussions among members of public bodies, even though the discussions occur in public. For example, a board member might refer to the second paragraph of page 3 of a record without disclosing its content prior to the meeting. Although the public has the right to be present, the ability to understand or contribute to the decision-making process may be minimal and frustrating.
Effective February 2, 2012, a new section 103(e) is added to the Open Meetings Law. The purpose of the legislation is simple: those interested in the work of public bodies should have the ability, within reasonable limitations, to see the records scheduled to be discussed during open meetings prior to the meetings. The language of the amendment appears in the text of the Open Meetings Law.
The amendment addresses two types of records: first, those that are required to be made available pursuant to FOIL; and second, proposed resolutions, law, rules, regulations, policies or amendments thereto. When either is scheduled to be discussed during an open meeting, the law requires that they be made available to the public, to the extent practicable, either prior to or at the meeting.
To comply with the new provisions, copies of records must be made available to the public prior to or at the meeting for a reasonable fee, or by posting them online prior to the meeting. The amendment authorizes an agency to determine when and what may be “practicable” in making records available.
It is important to stress that the amendment involves an effort to take advantage of today’s information technology to promote transparency and citizens’ participation in government, and to reduce waste. If the agency in which a public body functions (i.e., a state department, a county, city, town, village or school district) “maintains a regularly and routinely updated website and utilizes a high speed internet connection,” the records described above that are scheduled to be discussed in public “shall be posted on the website to the extent practicable as determined by the agency…”
Posting records online can reduce an agency’s costs associated with requests made under FOIL. Staff does not have spend time retrieving paper records, photocopying the records, or carrying out the administrative tasks involved with charging fees for copies.
The phrase quoted twice in section 103(e), “to the extent practicable as determined by the agency”, is intended to ensure that the amendment is implemented reasonably and without undue burden or cost to an agency. Many units of government are small and lack information technology resources or the knowledge or expertise to implement the new provision. If that is so, and they do not have the ability to give effect to the amendment with reasonable effort, they are not required to do so. In recognition of fiscal realities, the new provision specifies that an agency “may, but shall not be required to, expend additional moneys to implement the provisions of this subdivision.”
In the “News” section of this website, there is a link to a report prepared for the Committee on Open Government that may be especially useful to governmental entities that have neither the resources nor the expertise to give effect to the amendment. Entitled “Evaluating the Importance of Technology and the Role of Information Providers within Local Governments in New York”, the report offers guidance that may enable those entities to gain the knowledge and resources needed to do so at minimal cost.
It is emphasized that the potential obligation to make records available on request or online is limited to records that are “scheduled to be the subject of a discussion” during an open meeting. If there is a basis for conducting an executive session, a portion of a meeting that may be closed, records scheduled to be discussed during the executive session would not be required to be disclosed. Further, if, for example, a proposed policy offered by the head of an agency, a mayor, a town supervisor or a superintendent of schools was preceded by recommendations or opinions expressed by staff or members of a public body, those recommendations, opinions or similar materials fall outside the coverage of the amendment and (may but) need not be disclosed [see FOIL, section 87(2)(g)].
Through the disclosure of records scheduled to be discussed during open meetings, the public can gain the ability to better understand and appreciate the issues faced by government. Interested and civic-minded citizens can offer information and points of view that can assist in improving the operation of government to the benefit of our communities.
Effective February 2, 2012: Disclosure of Records Scheduled for Discussion at Open Meetings
Members of the public have on many occasions complained that they cannot fully understand discussions among members of public bodies, even though the discussions occur in public. For example, a board member might refer to the second paragraph of page 3 of a record without disclosing its content prior to the meeting. Although the public has the right to be present, the ability to understand or contribute to the decision-making process may be minimal and frustrating.
Effective February 2, 2012, a new section 103(e) is added to the Open Meetings Law. The purpose of the legislation is simple: those interested in the work of public bodies should have the ability, within reasonable limitations, to see the records scheduled to be discussed during open meetings prior to the meetings. The language of the amendment appears in the text of the Open Meetings Law.
The amendment addresses two types of records: first, those that are required to be made available pursuant to FOIL; and second, proposed resolutions, law, rules, regulations, policies or amendments thereto. When either is scheduled to be discussed during an open meeting, the law requires that they be made available to the public, to the extent practicable, either prior to or at the meeting.
To comply with the new provisions, copies of records must be made available to the public prior to or at the meeting for a reasonable fee, or by posting them online prior to the meeting. The amendment authorizes an agency to determine when and what may be “practicable” in making records available.
It is important to stress that the amendment involves an effort to take advantage of today’s information technology to promote transparency and citizens’ participation in government, and to reduce waste. If the agency in which a public body functions (i.e., a state department, a county, city, town, village or school district) “maintains a regularly and routinely updated website and utilizes a high speed internet connection,” the records described above that are scheduled to be discussed in public “shall be posted on the website to the extent practicable as determined by the agency…”
Posting records online can reduce an agency’s costs associated with requests made under FOIL. Staff does not have spend time retrieving paper records, photocopying the records, or carrying out the administrative tasks involved with charging fees for copies.
The phrase quoted twice in section 103(e), “to the extent practicable as determined by the agency”, is intended to ensure that the amendment is implemented reasonably and without undue burden or cost to an agency. Many units of government are small and lack information technology resources or the knowledge or expertise to implement the new provision. If that is so, and they do not have the ability to give effect to the amendment with reasonable effort, they are not required to do so. In recognition of fiscal realities, the new provision specifies that an agency “may, but shall not be required to, expend additional moneys to implement the provisions of this subdivision.”
In the “News” section of this website, there is a link to a report prepared for the Committee on Open Government that may be especially useful to governmental entities that have neither the resources nor the expertise to give effect to the amendment. Entitled “Evaluating the Importance of Technology and the Role of Information Providers within Local Governments in New York”, the report offers guidance that may enable those entities to gain the knowledge and resources needed to do so at minimal cost.
It is emphasized that the potential obligation to make records available on request or online is limited to records that are “scheduled to be the subject of a discussion” during an open meeting. If there is a basis for conducting an executive session, a portion of a meeting that may be closed, records scheduled to be discussed during the executive session would not be required to be disclosed. Further, if, for example, a proposed policy offered by the head of an agency, a mayor, a town supervisor or a superintendent of schools was preceded by recommendations or opinions expressed by staff or members of a public body, those recommendations, opinions or similar materials fall outside the coverage of the amendment and (may but) need not be disclosed [see FOIL, section 87(2)(g)].
Through the disclosure of records scheduled to be discussed during open meetings, the public can gain the ability to better understand and appreciate the issues faced by government. Interested and civic-minded citizens can offer information and points of view that can assist in improving the operation of government to the benefit of our communities.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Stossel - Stupid In America
School spending has gone through the roof and test scores are flat.
While most every other service in life has gotten faster, better, and cheaper, one of the most important things we buy -- education -- has remained completely stagnant, unchanged since we started measuring it in 1970. Why? John Stossel offers some solutions...
Some time after, Stossel offered this "Reaction to Stupid in America":
See also:
Waiting for Superman
While most every other service in life has gotten faster, better, and cheaper, one of the most important things we buy -- education -- has remained completely stagnant, unchanged since we started measuring it in 1970. Why? John Stossel offers some solutions...
Some time after, Stossel offered this "Reaction to Stupid in America":
Waiting for Superman
