WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

Hits: 0

WPCNR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DAY. By the WPCNR ROVING PHOTOGRAPHER May 22, 2007: On a perfect day for flying, the WPCNR Flying Photog captured the changing White Plains skyline. The view is looking South after takeoff from the newest airline transit HUB…Westchester County Airport…with Captain Sky Katz… Pilot in Command.

White Plains May 22, 2007: The Ritz-Carlton Westchester towers dominate the skyline of the new White Plains today in this view from the air just after takeoff into the East. The view is due South from Westchester County Airport. Photo by the WPCNR Roving (Flying) Photographer.

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. From Westchester County Department of Communications. May 21, 2007: Last year one out of every four limousines stopped by county police during prom season was found to have safety or licensing problems. In addition, alcohol was confiscated, and in one case teenagers were taken to a local emergency room with suspected alcohol poisoning.

Operation Safe Prom 2007 checkpoints are now underway.  For exact locations please contact Kieran O’Leary at the Westchester County Department of Public Safety at (914) 864-7858.

The effort is part of County Executive Andy Spano’s prom initiative. (For details see www.westchestergov.com/news.htm.)

 Overall during the next few weeks, county and local police will stop limousines on their way to 65 proms in Westchester. Prom season started two weeks ago and will continue well into June. The program is funded through the county’s Stop-DWI Office. The county’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (part of the Department of Public Safety) has told the limousine drivers that there is a no-tolerance policy for any underage drinking in the limousines and that drivers of limousines where drinking occurs could lose their licenses.

Hits: 0

WPCNR THE SUNDAY BAILEY. By John F. Bailey. May 14, 2007: At long last, 7 months after the New York State Department of Education sent out a news release on lamenting the plummeting of state math scores from Grades 3 to 8, the 2005-2006 State School Report Cards  have been posted on the New York State Education Department website.

The labyrinth of the State Education Department has done every school district a favor by creating totally unreadable, incomprehensible  School Report Cards—unlike the hard-hitting year-by-year comparison charts available the last six years that told the sad, sad story of New York education as it was. Gone are the graphs that showed flat-out the year-by-year ups and downs of our little scholars across the state.

The new State Education Report Card format is embarrassing in its inept design, and disorganization of data. 

 Far be it from the State Education Department to attempt to obscure how lousy school districts are doing on the assessments year to year, right? It’s hard enough to get the straight story from your school administrations, without having the stats obscured intentionally by the NYSED to discourage reading the reports, and downplay the achievement gap. But, intentionally, or not, that’s what the NYSED has done.

Despite the mystery of why it took the State Education Department webmasters 7 months to post the State Report Cards for 2005-2006, when the results of the 2005-2006 assessments were obviously used to create the October 11, 2006  news release on the declining mathematics scores from grades 5 to 8 (shown here), the results of White Plains and other school districts’ academic performances for 05-06 are finally up on the NYSED website.

When did they go up on the NYSED site, concerned parents?

Four days after statewide school budget votes have been decided. What a coincidence! What convenient, politically correct timing! That is a joke…and it happens every year. Could the Masters Degree-ers and Ph.Ders in the Education welfare program known as the State Education Department do a little work? If they could analyze the math results for the entire state in three months, couldn’t they pop up the scores within 5 months? Did they delay deliberately?

Could they get the scores out faster instead of this one year lag? The lag perpetuates curriculums and techniques that don’t work for one year—to be ineffective for another year. We are talking about children here – not tax breaks. Tax breaks don’t hurt anybody. Lousy education impairs a child for a lifetime.

Come on. This lag in posting the reports is an outrage. The results have got to come out in September so curriculum coordinators can adjust .  The SED has them.

Doesn’t anybody in Albany get that? They don’t.  Instead we hear the same excuses from district administrators across the state every year. Now if districts are told their scores quietly before the school year begins and the districts take their time adjusting that is an even worse scenario to comtemplate. It means educators are slow to adjust or pay lipservice to adjusting.

New format roadblock to the past.

Now, this year the SED comes up with this new State Report Card format that, as far as this reporter is concerned, softfocuses the true picture of district performance by obscuring it by organizing data in an incomprehensible way that discourages trend analysis.  The table graphs have changed and do not give the current year in comparison to last year for the total district. How can they do that?

The 2004-2005 Format Above Compared Current  Assessment Results to Previous Year’s at a Glance. The 2005-2006 Format for White Plains Elementaries (below) does not. It just publishes the latest year’s test scores (2006 Assessments). No comparison is made so trends cannot be tracked easily.

The excuse the SED gives is that the 2005-2006 ELA and Math assessments were in a different format than the 2004-2005 tests, so the NYSED says they should not be compared.

The copy where last year’s results should be reads:

New assessments for elementary and middle level English Language Arts and Mathematics were administered in 2006. Results from those assessments cannot be directly compared to results from previously administered tests.

Poppycock!

Your reporter asks why not? Were the tests easier, harder, new format – what was different? Is 2 plus 2 no longer 4? How about an explanation in the State Report Card what was different that you can’t compare year to year?

This is sophistry. 

Are We Measuring Skills or What?

Do they give the same QUESTIONS every year? No. If you change the format, the children should still have the skills to take the test and comparison has to be done.

Since there is no statement in the report as to whether the math and ELA tests in 4^th grade and the math or ELA assessments in 8^th grade were easier or more difficult – or in a different format, not making the comparison year-to-year in a readable graph as done in previous years – hides the true story.

The interested layperson has to go elsewhere in another section of the report to make the comparison. After 15 minutes of figuring out what the report means, the average person is going to go to EBay instead.

Again how convenient to put out a State Report Card format that makes it hard to see progress, or more significantly the continuous lack of progress and dropoff in performance statewide and within one’s own district.

White Plains to be Saluted.

The White Plains City School District did this comparison for its public – two weeks ago with the following charts, and Superintendent Connors is to be commended for not following the SED pedagogues out the window and throwing out past year results. Mr. Connors says White Plains parents should look at White Plains High School Graduation Rates instead (82% after 5 years), as proof the district is addressing its shortfalls in the high school years. The Results, broken down by ethnicity:

4th Grade Math Results–2006

Eighth Grade English Language Arts  Assessment Results, 2006.

The 8th Grade Middle School Math Results

The Graduation Rate Dating Back to the Freshman Class of 2001.

New Format Does Not Cut to the Chase.

The new state Report Cards are in a new format, too, rearranging information to discourage, in this reporter’s opinion, the layperson from delving into the reports to get a true trend reading in how their school district is doing.

It is broken into two sections: The School “Accountability & Overview Report” and the “Comprehensive Information” — which is not comprehensive — breakdowns.

The Accountability & Overview Report slows you down by a series of check marks that show whether the district is making Acceptable Yearly Progress before you get to the graphed statistics for each school, which you click on individually.

 This is meaningless. Give me the stats right away. The checkmarks are like the infamous Food Pyramid the FDA put out several decades ago. The checkmarks slows you down, and prevents you from getting to the nitty gritty. You can’t figure out what the check marks mean.

When you finally scroll down to the Test results, you find the 2005-2006 results without comparison to the previous year.

Performance of Minorities Buried Deep.

In White Plains, being a diverse district, I am interested in how our Black and Latino population of students – making up over 60% of our school population are doing. You cannot find until you scroll through all the grade levels of testing. And, again the results by race are not compared to previous years in the “Overview Reports”. This is softpedaling grim results.

Then in the “Comprehensive Information” section there is the ludicrous prospect of including Regents Exams Result Charts in when Regents exams are not given in elementary schools defying logic – yet conveniently makes the reader scroll forever to get at the individual elementary school results for a Church Street School, Ridgeway, Mamaroneck Road School, Post Road School.

This Overall Breakdown of the District Test Scores by Ethnicity, is no longer included in the current 2005-06 School Report Card. This is from the 2004-2005 report.

Unless I did not know better, I would think the State Education Department was trying to obscure performance of school districts for minorities, and the individual schools in the districts rather than shine a light on them.

Now, I am a staunch supporter of assessment tests. The No Child Left Behind Act is perhaps the Bush Administration’s only achievement – it has shown what a lousy job education is doing nationally with our children. And has spurred progress.

Now is not the time to start sugarcoating a bad news pill, obfuscating the meaning of each year’s test results, and reporting test results in a meaningless format. We get enough of that from City Hall.

Could we explain whether the tests are being dumbed down every year to enhance artificially the passing rates?

Somehow the Education Department never ever explains whether they have lowered the difficulty of the tests each year…or raised them.

If you think I am being unduly harsh on the vaunted academics in Albany, go to the report yourself and see what you think. Assess the White Plains 2005-2006 School Report Card at https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/District.do?county=WESTCHESTER&district=662200010000

You may access the 2004-2005 State Report Card at http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2005/overview-analysis/662200010000.pdf

Hits: 0

WPCNR WESTCHESTER WINGS. May 20, 2007: County Executive Andy Spano notified the Federal Aviation Administration  this week, that its latest proposal to reroute planes operating at Westchester County Airport is still unacceptable and must be changed.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT APPROACH FROM THE NORTH: A noted aviation expert analyzing the FAA rerouting plans told WPCNR there would be more traffic routed over Fairfield County in Connecticut and Northern Westchester from Westchester County Airport,  but more impact on the County would be from rerouting of arrivals and departures to LaGuardia.

Spano criticized the lack of advance notice to review the new plan, charging the FAA failed to release “detailed” information needed to fully understand and comment upon the noise impacts until May 9, two days before the comment period closed. (County consultants informed the county they needed another month to evaluate the “voluminous (new noise mitigation ) data” the county had been given by the FAA May 9.)

Demands new Environmental Impact Study

In his letter, the county executive complains that the FAA is focused on comparing its first plan to its second plan – as opposed to comparing the latest plan to current flight routing. Spano urged the agency to “return to the drawing board and prepare a supplement DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) that addresses and clarifies all relevant issues. He also requests an extension of the comment period – something the FAA has so far failed to do,” according to the county news release.

In a statement, Spano said, “To not issue a supplemental DEIS and to not extend the comment period is disgraceful.”

In April 2007, the release reports, “the FAA issued a Noise Mitigation Report for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and announced it was  proposing the  “2001 Integrated Airspace Mitigated Preferred Alternative Variation with Integrated Control Complex (ICC)” as its preferred alternative. It allowed one month – until May 11,2007 – for public comment. It has indicated it will not issue a Supplemental DEIS.”

Spano complains – “the proposed reassignment of air traffic could undo decades of hard work, public understanding and good will and is unacceptable.”

Pilot and Aviation Safety Analyst Looks at Plan

WPCNR turned to Peter Katz, national aviation columnist, publisher of the international monthly report on aviation safety issues, Aviation Monthly,  who is a private pilot flying  out of Westchester County Airport, intimately familiar with county airport patterns. He is a former network correspondent, and co-anchors White Plains Week, the incisive hard-hitting weekly news roundup show on Channel 76 in White Plains. WPCNR asked Mr. Katz to clarify what is at stake. Mr. Katz notes this is standard FAA procedure:

“Spano’s position as stated is correct. What the FAA has released is highly complex. The FAA’s pattern typically has been not to allow adequate public comment periods when it makes a proposal. In most cases, when there has been an outcry from those who would be affected by the proposal, the FAA relents and extends the comment period.

Not releasing vital information until two days before the public comment period ends, as Spano alleges the FAA has done, is not tolerable. I have not attempted to independently verify that claim.

Of course, the poetic justice in this is that Spano finds himself complaining that government is trying to shut folks out of the decision-making process and that government needs to be more open with its information and listen to what people have to say. Where have we heard that complaint before?”

Katz on the FAA intent on the rerouting:

“I have tried to review and understand the FAA’s noise mitigation documents. They are complex. You have to look very hard to see if there are omissions, lies, or errors. None of it is written for the lay person.

Understanding from the documents exactly what are the proposed changes in routings for arrivals and departures at all of the affected airports (not just Westchester) is difficult. In some cases, headings (course direction based on the compass) are changed only a few degrees from what is currently being done. In other cases, increased use of less desirable navigational aids is proposed – such as, use of an LDA (Landing Directional Aid) for a certain approach to LaGuardia, instead of the much better ILS (Instrument Landing System).

New Routing over affluent Fairfield County and Northern Westchester

In Westchester’s case, the proposal includes changing certain departure practices to keep aircraft further away from airspace used by Newark. It looks as if more airplanes using Runway 16 (South South East Direction 160 degrees) for takeoff to the south would be turned to the east, then north, then west, (circle to the east, going over a big part of southwestern Fairfield County and northern Westchester County).

Westchester County Airport Approach Into the South (Runway 16): Aircraft taking off South and circling east would fly over the southern shore of Long Island Sound and the communities of southern Fairfield County, Connecticut to the left of your picture Stamford is on the horizon.  Kensico Dam is in the foreground above command console of the aircraft.

Westchester residents also would be affected by changes made to arrival routes into LaGuardia. I think this would be the biggest impact, since the airplanes are larger and more frequent than at Westchester. In the case of Westchester arrivals/departures,  it looks as if there would be little to no effect on overall noise levels, though some noise impact would be shifted from one area to another.”

Hits: 0

WPCNR Common Council Chronicle-Examiner. By John F. Bailey, May 17, 2007: As predicted by WPCNR and White Plains Week months ago, the Common Council approved the building of 55 Bank Street today, a $260 Million development of two apartment towers 24 stories each, including 429 market rate apartments and 107 units of affordable housing (rentable to earners making 60%, 80% and 100% of median income ($73,000) on the present city municipal parking lot adjacent Bank Street Commons.

City Commissioners and appointed officials were given a 4% raise by the Common Council, but the Council declined to award themselves 4 per cents, and denied the Mayor a raise.

The Bank Street Job

 2 Buildings Built on city Commuter Parking Lot, 29 Stories each, 272 feet tall, 536 Apartment Rentals, 109 “below market,”costing $260 Million Approved Thursday Evening at this week’s second Special Meeting of the Common Council.

 The LCOR Bank Street project now moves to the site plan stage – with no date set for groundbreaking. The first payment for the land, $6 Million, is due by June 30. The agreement eliminated the controversial Plan B option where if the 107 units were scaled back to 32 for failure to receive tax abatement – LCOR would pay the city $8 Million for the land.

Instead, the city has agreed to a repurchase option to protect LCOR’s interest:  if tax abatement to the sum of $39 Million or $29 Million, depending on who is figuring it, the county or the city, is not approved by the city by January 15 2008, the city would have the option to buy back the property from LCOR at fair market value but no less than the $6 Million LCOR will have paid. The Repurchase Option, cynics were saying after the meeting is an interest-free loan to the city to help them balance the budget. LCOR would have right of first refusal if the city were to offer the land to anyone else after the city had repurchased it. The Repurchase Agreement gives LCOR leverage, should they find the project unbuildable for some reason

After the initial LCOR $6 Million payment this June 30, the balance of the purchase price for the city municipal parking lot of  $9,500,000 will not be fully paid to the city until June 30, 2010. The sum of $5 Million will be paid by June 30, 2008; $2.25 Million paid on or before June 30,2009; and the final payment of $2.25 Million paid June 30, 2010.

Mayor denied a Raise

In the discussions on raises for 34 appointed city employees, including the Director of Information Services,  Commissioner of Building, Commissioner of Recreation and Parks, Commissioner of Planning, Commissioner of Parking, Commissioner of Traffic, Executive Officer, Personnel Officer, Library Director, City Clerk, among the Commissioners watching intently currently on the payroll, the council approved raises of 4% across-the-board, totaling $174,565, plus $2,531 in Medicare Costs and $17,457 in additional retirement costs.

The council split on whether to give raises to themselves and the Mayor. Glen Hockley and Arnold Bernstein felt the council has worked very hard this year and deserved the 4% raise. Dennis Power, Rita Malmud, Benjamin Boykin, and Tom Roach, who was not present but conveyed his impressions to Mrs. Malmud, earlier, she said felt elected officials should not receive a raise.

The Mayor learning he was not going to receive the $5,835 raise that 4% would have given him, took it like a man, very gracefully.  The Mayor noted that the total savings by eliminating council raises and his raise was only $9,000 on a $154.7 Million budget, but said if that was what the council wanted, “whatever you want to do.”

Mr. Hockley, joining in the council’s spirit of self-sacrifice and aggressive budget restraint, suggested the Council President’s stipend be reduced, as a further gesture. Mrs. Malmud, the Council President, ignored the suggestion.

The $9,000 cut was the only cut the Common Council made in the city budget. The Common Council will continue to be paid $36,471 a year, with the Common Council President earning $38,971. The Mayor will continue at this year’s salary of $145,881.

Mayor Uses School District Salaries as Selling Point.

In justifying the 4% increase for his appointed staff the Mayor, made pointed reference to the recently published salaries of the White Plains City School District Administration. He noted that one of the two Middle School Principals at $173,134 makes more than the City’s Commissioner of Public Safety, Dr. Frank Straub, who with his new 4% raise will make $165,236, the highest paid city official.

As a selling point to support his call for 4% raises, the mayor passed out copies of the listing of School District Administrator’s salaries to the Common Council.

Cappelli thinks it Over.

The Council was set to approve the 23 affordable apartments in the City Center Municipal Garage, when the developer, Louis Cappelli, through a spokesman asked the resolution be withdrawn, because, according to Paul Wood, city Executive Officer, Cappelli thought he might be able to “do better” than the HUD guidelines in subsidizing the heating costs for the affordable apartments. Wood said Cappelli wanted to look at it a little more. The 23 units are being proposed by Mr. Cappelli to enable him to open the Ritz-Carlton Westchester Hotel on time in September, by which time the 23 units associated with that development are to be built, according to council approval of the 221 Main project.