.
Feedback

Briarcliff School Split Costly to Both Sides

Suddenly, in a 'no-fault divorce,' superintendent's out of a job—and the public's in the dark.

Briarcliff Manor’s backroom breakup with its relatively new school superintendent stands to damage both parties financially.

Superintendent Neal S. Miller is not only abruptly out of a job, but he could also be out of pocket more than a half-million dollars in uncollected salary and benefits. And the district that sent him packing is itself writing off a six-figure severance of $160,000 in salary and other payouts as well as an undisclosed sum in fringes.

Meanwhile, taxpayers have been kept in the dark. With secrecy reminiscent of the firing of Briarcliff’s teachers aides a year ago, Miller’s ouster was neither disclosed nor discussed publicly before the school board carried it out at its January 15 meeting.

Since that meeting, school officials, elected or appointed, uniformly deflect all questions on the matter, referring them to a hired public relations firm on eastern Long Island.

Even obtaining a copy of the district’s financial settlement with Miller required a Freedom of Information request. Miller and, with a raise, will finish this July at a salary of $240,875 annually.

In theory, even without a further raise, Miller stood to make $722,625 in salary alone in the remaining three years of his five-year employment contract.

Instead, he’s likely out most of it, or $562,625. In what school officials style as something of a no-fault divorce, the board offered, and Miller accepted, just an extension of his current salary to year’s end, roughly $120,000, along with a $20,000 contribution to his annuity account and another $20,000 in cash.

Although the January 7 accord spells out a date on which Miller’s fringe benefits must end, it does not appear to do so for his salary. In response to a question of possible ambiguity in the contract, Deirdre Gilligan, director of media relations at Syntax, the Bohemia, L.I., PR firm retained by the district, insisted Miller “will receive no more salary after Dec. 31.“

Harvard-educated, Miller came to Briarcliff after two years in a markedly different school environment outside Buffalo. As superintendent of the Medina Central School District, which has an average household income one-fifth the size of Briarcliff’s, Miller endured tight budgets, staff cuts and other economies before being tapped for the Briarcliff job.

When the school board meets Monday evening—the first opportunity for public discussion of Miller’s ouster—it will come almost a year after one of the superintendent’s more highly charged moves sparked a public uproar.

Last February, parents turned out in numbers to protest the firing of 27 longtime teacher aides and replacing them with lower-paid, but teacher-certified, assistants. Among other things, critics cited lack of transparency in the decision-making that went into it. Championed by Miller as saving money while raising qualifications for classroom help, the controversial initiative went on to win school board approval.

In March, parents made it clear they wanted the voices of the principals from Briarcliff’s elementary, middle and high schools to be heard and heeded in the district’s budget-making process. Dina Brantman, who would be elected to the school board less than two months later, urged an expanded role for the building principals in spending decisions.

“How else can you gather information for a budget other than talking with the people who live with—and manage—that budget every day?” she asked.

But perhaps recalling his fiscal struggles in Medina, Miller, while acknowledging the value of the principals’ input, said he would not likely seek it on budget matters.

“I do want principals to present,” he said at that time. “I’m just not sure it’s going to be within the budget [process].”

At that time, Sal Maglietta and Jennifer Rosen were trustees on the five-member school board—and the only ones to oppose the teacher aides’ firings. Today, lone holdovers from last year’s board, they are president and vice president, respectively, of a brand-new board. And in May, voters elected Brantman and Michael Haberman, both of whom have expressed reservations about the aide firings.

But Brantman insisted it would be wrong to draw a connection between Miller’s sudden departure and his 2012 controversies.

“In Briarcliff, the principals have always been a big part of the budget,” she said. “Our complaint last year was that we were not hearing directly from the principals [on] what they wanted their budgets to look like.”

While refusing direct comment on Miller’s leaving, she said, “This decision is not a reflection on what happened last year at all.”

Like every school official reached for comment, Brantman referred further questions to the hired PR firm.

At the sparsely attended Jan. 15 meeting, board President Maglietta enlivened the agenda’s routine business with a series of “oral resolutions,” reflecting actions completed at least a week earlier. The first added resolution declared that Miller was through as superintendent, effective June 30. The next hired James Kaishian, the high school principal, as Miller’s $240,000-a-year successor. Debora French, the school’s assistant principal, will succeed Kaishian.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 05:07 pm
CORRECTION TO LAST POST: The last sentence should read: "Let's continue to share, butRead More face-to-face." Thx - Sonny
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 06:06 am
Thanks, Jon - you raise important considerations and in a calm, dispassionate way, which IRead More appreciate. As for alternative funding mechanisms, in hindsight I believe they should have been examined and addressed this earlier this year had the decision-making been opened up to the public in a completely bidirectional manner much earlier in this year's budget cycle. A real take-away from this situation, in my opinion, is that we in the community were not given the opportunity to sit down together with sharpened pencils in a public forum and allowed to vet and actually challenge the Administration's assumptions in order to arrive at budget alternatives with the Administration and Board. The comparison you make with Washington is indeed apt in that it reflects the way decisions have slid back to being made in a vacuum and handed down to the voters instead of in a democratic fashion based on budget-to-actuals instead of budget-to-budget figures combined with the practice of over-reserving for expense items while under-estimating revenues. Although the Board did indeed reach out to me and 2 others asking for suggestions, when we re-iterated our request for an open meeting format to include other financially savvy community members, these requests were consistently ignored. Which is why we are in the current position we are in having to decide on Tues on a tax levy cap-busting budget requiring 60% super-majority. Which the public will decide, of course, and we will live with the consequences: either it passes, or the Board and Administration will be forced to rein in the excesses. And much as I love open debate, I restate that online posting leaves does leave a lot to be desired. Let's continue to share, but not face-to-face. Respectfully - Sonny
Jon Satran May 18, 2013 at 12:16 am
Sonny, I like the idea of brainstorming together, thinking outside of the box, but there are someRead More major obstacles that I think you need to consider: 1) A Bond referendum requires a 45 days’ notice period. It cannot be presented for a vote before this year's budget process is concluded. 2) To release reserves based on the hope that a future bond vote would be successful is reckless. What happens if reserves are released and then the bond referendum fails? You would not risk your home finances with this type of risk, would you really risk your school’s financial health? 3) Our tax certiorari reserve was just recently reviewed in consultation with our attorneys and we are appropriately reserved for today’s commercial real estate market. 4) Most importantly, this proposal would create a larger and tougher tax increase next year. In other words, adding $1,000,000 of revenue this year through a loan would require replacing that revenue with an additional $1,000,000 again next year and the year after. Borrow and spend economics does not work as we have seen from the national level. Deficit spending, which has been suggested may or may not work in Washington, but it certainly does not in Briarcliff Manor. When the school’s reserves are exhausted, we will face impactful program cuts or much larger tax levy increases. Respectfully - Jon Satran
JanFisher May 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm
It is so wonderful that, recognizing the importance of STEM and following the recommendation of ourRead More educators, Sal Maglietta and Jon Satran agreed to bring on the district's first director of instructional technology.
McKey Rivers May 10, 2013 at 07:36 pm
Thank you Dr. Sternberg for your thoughtful letter. You hit on an important facet of this electionRead More few if any others have stated: electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder will provide the added benefit of diversity of thought as the Board continues to address difficult, ongoing educational and financial issues. There is a woeful absence of synergy produced by articulation of different views among the current Board members. The absence of a “check and balance” on the current Board is reflected in the inexplicable decision to cancel the May 13 BOE meeting (scheduled since last summer), which is the last meeting prior to the May 21 budget vote and board election. Is there no business for the Board to conduct at this critical juncture or could it be that the Board does not want Briarcliff residents to hear members of the community question the Board about the proposed budget right before the election? Electing either Mr. Linder and/or Mr. Wasserman will immediately benefit the public as the highest vote getter will be seated on May 22 and thus participate in formulating a second budget for public vote that, notwithstanding current BOE scare tactics, can be tax levy compliant and not involve additional program elimination or reduction. There is no doubt that electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder to the Briarcliff School Board will substantially benefit the entire Briarcliff community and provide a much needed check on Board decision making.
Herman Sexton May 10, 2013 at 03:48 pm
Electing Paul Wasserman alone would add a diversity of thought. The guy hears at least a dozenRead More voices in his head. Have you ever spoken to him? Did you pay attention when he was running for Congress for a few weeks? Ugh.
W Obermeyer May 10, 2013 at 03:41 pm
Not too diffiicult to play with figures. Look at the budget decrease and the increase in state aid,Read More then claim the budget is actually less.
Mike Valenti May 1, 2013 at 04:50 pm
Second, Mr. Sternberg comments “The previous Board reversed that trend but now a new schoolRead More Board reversed that and we are back to square one.” This is without question factually and ideologically incorrect. The previous Board, populated by Janet Marinaccio, Guy Rotundo, Eric Bashford and Rosella Ranno, were sponsored by the folks in our District who are of the fiscal conservative/tea-party-like taxation ideology. Yes, they aggressively cut the school budget over the course of their term. However, this year’s school budget is actually lower than last years. So, to suggest that the current Board has reversed tack on this issue is factually incorrect.
Mike Valenti May 1, 2013 at 04:49 pm
I commend Mr. Sternberg for his thoughtful, well written letter. However, I must take issue withRead More several of his points. First, he offers an analysis of various interests in our District and their motives regarding our school budget. If I may, here is another more simplified viewpoint. The predominance of District residents moved here for the school district (whether for its value to their children or its value for their real estate). These folks have a very supportive ideology with respect to taxation in support of the District. On the other side of the ledger stands a group who has a fiscal conservative, tea-party-like taxation ideology. They seek to cut, cut, cut with disregard to the integrity and depth of the educational program and resources. (continued)...