WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER 3,374,995 VISITS IN ONE YEAR—65,000 VISITS A WEEK BY 985,281 VISITORS

Hits: 54

The White Plains Board of Education meets Monday to interview two executive search firms to find a new Superintendent of Schools. Details surrounding Dr. Saul Yanofsky’s departure will be made public before next public meeting. “Search” is on schedule. There is competition: 15 school districts in the tri-state area seeking superintendents of schools.

Larry Geiger of the White Plains Board of Education told WPCNR Friday that the Board of Education met with Dr. Saul Yanofsky last Monday afternoon. Geiger said the Board and Yanofsky had what he characterized as a “fruitful discussion.”

New Letter to Come

Geiger said the two parties would inform the public in more detail about the reasons for Dr. Yanofsky’s contract not being renewed. Geiger reports the new information would be sent to parents in a letter shortly before the next scheduled Board of Education meeting (November 19, 8 PM).

Search firms being interviewed.

Meanwhile, Geiger reports the Board of Education will interview two search firms, specializing in conducting national searches for school superintendents. Geiger declined to reveal the firms being considered. The Board member, speaking from his New York City office said the board anticipates choosing the search firm and naming the firm at the November 19 Board of Education meeting.

Twelve to 15 Superintendent positions Open in Tri-State Area

WPCNR talked to a pair of independent observers of the school superintendents’ world. They represent the Montclair, New Jersey School District, a district very similar in population and demographic makeup to White Plains.

The Montclair, New Jersey, Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Michael Osnato, formerly the Pearl River, NY, superintendent told WPCNR that he felt White Plains would have to be very competitive in terms of salary to attract an executive of Yanofsky’s stature to take the position. He said White Plains is searching in a tough market.

Osnato, being active in superintendents’ organizations, familiar with school board activity around the metropolitan area said there are 12 to 15 towns actively searching for new superintendents.

WHITE PLAINS STARTING SEARCH AT RIGHT TIME, says Dr. James Patterson, PersonnelAdministrator, for the Montclair School District in New Jersey, a specialist in superintendent searches. Interviewed by WPCNR in Montclair, a district similar to White Plains, and one that recently hired a new superintendent, Patterson encouraged community involvement by their being able to meet and interact with finalists for the superintendent position, to involve the community input in the final decision. WPCNR PHOTO

White Plains expected to pay a premium

Dr. James Patterson, who is Personnel Administrator for the Montclair school district, a specialist in school superintendent searches, said that White Plains would have to offer approximately a $200,000 salary to attract a superintendent the Yanofsky class. The Elmsford School District, according to Patterson landed its new superintendent at a salary of $165,000 a year.

Stiff Competition from Toney Towns

Osnato also told WPCNR that there are very attractive school districts searching for superintendents simultaneously. He pointed out that Ridgewood, Tenafly, Clifton, Fort Lee, Livingston, and Millburn, all of New Jersey and all “attractive” districts – are searching. He also reported that Southern Westchester BOCES and Rockland BOCES are in superintendent search, too.

Superintendents drawn from three states.

Osnato advised us that there is a “musical chairs” situation with many New Jersey superintendents switching to Westchester County, and vice-versa. He pointed out the new Chappaqua superintendent came from New Jersey, and the new Mount Pleasant Superintendent came from Fairlawn, New Jersey.

White Plains starting at the right time.

Both Patterson and Osnato said White Plains was on schedule and is starting its search in time. Patterson said, ideally, White Plains should have candidates ready to present to parents by the end of January in order that they can have a new superintendent in place by April 1.

Advises presenting finalists to the community.

Patterson said, in view of the White Plains controversy over Dr. Yanofsky’s departure that, he felt it would be in the best interest to involve parents and the community. He suggested presenting the Board’s final choices to the public informally before a decision is made. He points to a recent search he conducted where a finalist for a superintendent’s position was presented to the community who just “skewered” him with questions, and the candidate declined to take the position.

“Secret Agenda,” syndrome need to be defused.

“When a community feels that their Board of Education has a secret agenda, candidates can sense that, and will not take the position,” Patterson said. “The Board’s motivation will be second-guessed. The secret agenda of a School Board is always an issue.”

Patterson suggests picking two finalists.

Patterson advised also that the Board of Education decide on two finalists to maintain a strong negotiating position.

Hits: 53

Saul Yanofsky never intended to stay with the School District another four years. When he indicated this to the Board of Education last April and explored a short-term contract, the School Board said “They didn’t want to do that,” according to Yanofsky. Yanofsky, is however, open to staying on, if the Board wants him back, according to a White Plains Watch report on their website.
Yanofsky:”No specific discussion about the length of the contract.”

Yanofsky clarified to WPCNR Friday saying:” I never mentioned my age in discussions with the Board. There are things I want to do while I can. I was not looking for a job. I felt the timing was right for a lot of things. I said I felt it was a good time for the Board to consider when would be the best time for a transition in leadership. I did not make a request for a certain extension. We never talked about a specific number.”

White Plains Watch interview confirms this.

On the White Plains Watch website Monday, Susan Chang confirmed that Yanofsky said he would take another job when he left White Plains and preferred to stay with White Plains “another few years.”

Saul Leaves Door Open.

Ms. Chang quotes Dr. Yanofsky, as indicating he would continue as Superintendent, if the Board of Education wanted him:
“There is a lot of water under the bridge but I would not preclude any options,” he is quoted as saying on the Watch website. He also supports what he told WPCNR last week: “I had never wanted a full extension of my contract but I didn’t feel that this year was a good time for change given the number of new administrators and the prospects of others leaving. I would have felt guilty leaving the district this year because of that.”

Board Denies Him.

According to what WPCNR has pieced together, a short-term extension of any duration was rejected by the Board, and no four-year extension was offered. Yanofsky denied flatly that he had requested a one-year extension (from June 2002 to June 2003) in his letter to the Board declaring his intentions last Spring.

WPCNR has been told by a close friend of Dr. Yanofsky that Yanofsky had told him the Board of Education refused to grant him a one-year contract extension, which he had wanted. (This had been learned by WPCNR one week ago, but Dr. Yanofsky denied to us that he had asked for a one-year extenstion). WPCNR asked the Superintendent what the Board reaction was to his plans, implying a short-term contract extension request, he said,
“I was told they weren’t going to do it.”

WPCNR asked if the Board told him why:“No reason. They said it was a good time for me and them to move on.”

Yanofsky asked to resign.

We asked the Superintendent what happened next:“We agreed that April was not a good time to announce this and that the fall was a more appropriate time.”

WPCNR asked him one last question, what he made of Ms. McLaughlin’s statement about having “vigorously encouraged” him to “communicate his departure.” He said,“They asked me to resign.”

WPCNR learned last week the hard decision the Board of Education wrestled with last April.

27 Words Indicate Board Pressed Yanofsky to Announce His Plans. Could Not Wait.

“We vigorously encouraged Saul to pursue other options for communicating his departure from the district. . It was his decision that we pursue the one that we did.”

So said Donna McLaughlin, President of the Board of Education in her Monday night statement to the concerned, critical audience at Education House, there to hear about curriculum. The audience gave Dr. Saul Yanofsky a standing ovation as he entered the room that lasted for several minutes.

In light of what WPCNR has learned, McLaughlin’s statement becomes very significant. The 27 words we quote indicate the Board felt their hand was forced into making the announcement they released by letter last week.

They needed to begin the search for a new superintendent. The words indicate they appeared irritated that the Superintendent had not officially resigned yet. They did not believe the announcement letter they issued, would be perceived the way the public perceived it, and are aghast at the reaction of the community.

Board Thinking:

Reading Ms. McLaughlin’s entire statement against Dr. Yanofsky’s statements to us Wednesday, the dilemma the Board faced is apparent. They faced the prospect of a potentially volatile negotiation confronting Yanofsky’s successor in his or her first months on the job ( approximately July 2003), if they granted Yanofsky a one-year extension, which Yanofsky denies he asked for.

Let us look at the entire text of Ms. McLaughlin’s statement presented to district administrators and teachers at the beginning of the Monday evening work session this week. (Document was released to WPCNR by Michelle Schoenfeld of the School District, at the request of Board Member Larry Geiger):

REMARKS BY BOARD PRESIDENT DONNA McLAUGHLIN BEFORE 10/22/01 BOARD MEETING

Thank you for coming tonight. While the primary purpose of tonight’s long-scheduled meeting is for the Board to receive a Curriculum presentation from our new Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, JoAnna Maccario, we recognize that most of you are here to express your reaction to the announcement last week that the Board is initiating a search for a new superintendent.

Accordingly, we will reorganize our schedule and accept public comments, but in fairness to the administrators and others, who have prepared for and come for the curriculum presentation, we will keep the floor open only until 9 o’clock.

We understand that the decision to seek a new superintendent was, and is, a surprise to the community. Like you, the Board is proud of the district and proud of our staff. We have been fortunate that Dr. Yanofsky has been our Superintendent for the past 12 years. We recognize his many fine qualities as an educator and administrator and appreciate the many initiatives which have been implemented under his leadership. That’s why he was selected in 1990 and why the Board has extended his contract on three occasions.

Please be assured that the Board continues to support cornerstones of the district that have been instituted while Saul has been superintendent, such as the Controlled Parents’ Choice Program, the multi-year technology plan and our many enrichment programs.

So, you may ask, if things are so good, why rock the boat? Why move to change leadership now when things are quote, “fine,” and life in America has suddenly become so unsettled? First, I want to make one thing perfectly clear – there have been no improprieties on the Superintendent’s part, nor any single event which precipitated this decision.

The Board has a responsibility for planning and evaluation. Choosing a superintendent is one of our foremost responsibilities. The decision not to extend Saul’s contract was made after months of deliberation, and some of the issues that contributed to the decision have been discussed with the Superintendent for years. While clearly the easiest course of action for us would have been to make no change, we believe that it is in the long-term interest of our schools to seek a new superintendent who can take a fresh look at the district.

Just so everyone will understand the timing, we were required by contract to notify Saul of our intention to extend his contract by the end of April of this year. So he has known since April that we would not be extending his contract. We vigorously encouraged Saul to pursue other options for communicating his departure from the district. It was his decision that we pursue the one that we did.

The announcement was made at this time to provide us with sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive and thorough superintendent search, casting a broad net to attract the best candidates possible. And the short letter we distributed was written in conjunction with the Superintendent and reflects his input.

We hope and expect that this year will continue to run smoothly and efficiently, with all programs continuing. Saul remains our superintendent, with the full scope and authority of that position…and he has our full support. We look forward to engaging the school community in the search for a new superintendent who will join us next July.

While we understand that many people would like a detailed explanation, the Board and Saul have agreed not to discuss “the significant differences” we have. The Board is committed to maintaining that agreement. We believe that it would serve no purpose to do so. We are all interested in looking ahead, not back.

Thanks for your patience. Now we’re ready for comments. Please state your name and address. And, in the interest of time, please limit your remarks to no more than five minutes so many different speakers have a chance to be heard.

“Apres-Moi, le deluge.”

When Ms. McLoughlin finished reading, she and the six other members of the Board, were met with a passionate barrage of criticism from administrators, educators, and parents from a crowd reported to be fifty persons. This attendance, WPCNR can assure you, is astounding for a Board of Education Work Session.

One instructor, passionately advocating for Yanofsky, stood out from among others. She said she had served in good superintendent districts and poor superintendent districts, and she knew the difference. She questioned how persons who were not educators could possibly not involve educators on deciding that a new superintendent was needed.

Another parent, blushingly indignant, trembling with anger, said, “I am outraged,” prefacing her comments, focusing on the board not consulting parents or PTAs on the decision.

One night a standing “O,” the next, quiet acceptance by the district’s teachers.

Despite the passion for Dr. Yanofsky on Monday night, it was not lasting. On Tuesday afternoon twenty representatives from all the White Plains Schools, the leadership of the White Plains Teachers Association met.

They discussed the matter, and issued an unexpectedly neutral and supportive statement to WPCNR: They wish Yanofsky well, and accept the Board of Education decision.

This appears to be a WPTA attempt at healing the ugly rift caused by the community perception of the school board effort to communicate the departure.

Statement by Teachers Issued to WPCNR

Jerry Gorski, President of the White Plains Teachers Association read the somber statement over the telephone to WPCNR Tuesday at 6:40 PM:

“The White Plains Teachers Association has had a good working relationship with Dr. Saul Yanofsky over the past twelve years. We are sad to see this relationship come to an end. We wish him success and happiness.

The White Plains Teachers Association is committed to assuring the current quality of education offered in White Plains is maintained in the future. To that end we will continue to work with children, their parents, the community and the Board of Education.”

Gorski said the WPTA group of twenty made several drafts of the statement and approved it. In answers to WPCNR questions, he said the group understood from Monday evening that “The Board of Education made this decision, and they’re sticking to that decision.”

Board of Education Dilemma?Contract negotiations start in Spring, 2003

WPCNR in the course of interviewing Mr. Gorski learned that the teachers union plans to open negotiations on their next contract with the school district in February, 2003.

This date, WPCNR believes, is significant in the decision not to give Dr. Yanofsky a short-term deal. According to insights into Board of Education thinking told under deep background, the practical Board of Education thinking went like this:

Did Board agonize over their icon’s fate?

If the Board of Education extended Dr. Yanofsky for two years (June 2004 when he would be 63), they would have to have him conduct negotiations. Negotiations conducted under the Yanofsky perception. The teachers union would be negotiating with a “lame duck.” The union could even have extra bargaining pressure on their side, developing clout the closer they got to Yanofsky’s departure. Did the Board fear chaos?

Whatever new directions the Board wanted to address would be handled by Yanofsky. Was this what they were trying to avoid?

If they extended Yanofsky for one year, (ending June 2003), they could not realistically start the search for a new Superintendent until next year at this time.

After all, topflight administrators rarely search for a job two years in the future.

Did the Board Not Want to Get a New Superintendent Off to a Rocky Start?

However, the one-year extension (reportedly requested or most considered by the Board) of Dr. Saul to June 2003, creates another problem: If Yanofsky failed to complete negotiations when his contract expired in June, 2003, you have a brand-new superintendent walking into an acrimonious labor negotiation when they have not even had time to analyze the situation.

More to the point, the Superintendent starts off in an adversary situation with his or her teachers.

Could the Board take a chance that negotiations would bog down into acrimony, thus creating the worst possible way to start a superintendent’s tenure? (Remember when John Lindsay, Mayor of New York, started his term with a New York City Subway strike? It ruined the potential for Lindsay’s entire term.)

Yanofsky: negotiations not a factor in decision not to short-track him.

We asked Yanofsky about this “spin.” He downplayed the role the superintendent plays in negotiations, saying the Board has its representative, and a paid negotiator, as well as the superintendent. “That never came up,” he said.

Gorski: Board did not ask teachers about rescheduling 2003 negotiations.

Just curious as to whether the Board explored rescheduling talks, WPCNR asked Mr. Gorski several innocent questions:

WPCNR: “Did the Board ever contact you about moving negotiations forward into the fall of 2002 or deeper into 2003?” (Enabling Yanofsky more time to negotiate)

Gorski: “No.”

WPCNR: Did the Board ever ask the teachers about a one-year extension of their current contract, an interim contract, (to bridge a new superintendent on board in late 2003)?

Gorski: “No.”

WPCNR: Did the Board seek any accommodations from the teachers at all to reschedule negotiations?

Gorski: “No.”

This suggests to WPCNR, if they were afraid of making it rough for a new superintendent, that the Board never explored with the teachers how they could eliminate negotiation pressure.

On the surface, it appears the Board never seriously considered Yanofsky’s request for a short-term contract and its feasibility. They appear to have determined to end the Yanofsky era long in advance of April, 2002.

Speculation on reasons for dismissal:

We have heard relayed to us, various comments from parents that they wanted more “honors” programs for high achieving students. Others were unhappy with test scores (which just came out today and Middle School scores are not good). The handling of the Highlands violence incident last year was mentioned as another negative.

However, thousands of parents were very happy with District response in the face of the World Trade Center disaster, and communicated this. Dissatisfactions expressed have been overwhelmingly countermanded by the shockwave that has gripped parents and teachers at his dismissal news one week ago.

Hits: 55

White Plains, NY – – Ben Boykin, the White Plains Common Councilperson, has founded Ben Boykin & Associates, a firm which offers financial consulting and planning services to businesses, individuals, colleges and non-profit organizations.
Ben Boykin & Associates systematically evaluates its client’s short and long-term objectives and develops customized financial packages. Services geared towards businesses include cash flow forecasting, debt renegotiation and restructuring, debt financing, financial planning and forecasting, business plans, loan packages, treasury consulting, securities locator, and annual operating/capital budgeting. Representative services for individuals include personal financial planning, investment portfolio review, college financial planning, retirement planning, securities locator, debt renegotiation and restructuring, debt financing, and cash flow forecasting.

Ben Boykin & Associates also offers a wide-range of services to colleges and non-profit organizations such as financial planning and forecasting, cash flow analysis, staff training, interim fiscal affairs leadership, treasury consulting, and endowment planning/analysis.

Mr. Boykin says, “We look forward to yielding strong and consistent results for our clients and stand ready to meet their most challenging financial objectives. We offer a wealth of services to ensure financial success, taking both personal and market conditions into account.”

Mr. Boykin boasts more than 25 years financial planning/consulting experience holding senior level positions with both Fortune 100 organizations and a “Big Five” Public Accounting firm.

Most recently, Mr. Boykin served as Assistant Treasurer for Nabisco, Inc., where he was responsible for capital market activity, interest rate management, bank relations, cash management and rating agency relationships. During his 24-year stint at Nabisco and RJR Nabisco, he had progressively challenging positions in corporate finance, corporate development and strategic planning. He was formerly senior accountant with Deloitte & Touche, Greensboro, North Carolina. Mr. Boykin’s has also worked with various educational and non-profit organizations for nearly two decades to ensure their financial success.

Mr. Boykin is a White Plains, NY elected city official and serves as a member of the Common Council. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of Bennett College, Greensboro North Carolina. He was previously a member of the White Plains School Board.

Mr. Boykin graduated with honors (Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he earned his BS degree in Accounting. He received his MBA with distinction, from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

For more information about Ben Boykin & Associates, call (914) 328-7808 or visit their website at www.benboykinassociates.com.

Hits: 66

Ridgeway Elementary PTA is proud to present its first Fashion Show Fundraiser on November 8th at 7:30 p.m. 100% of the proceeds go towards the school’s cultural arts program.
).
It is a school and community effort with all of the teachers modeling and over 40 White Plains vendors contributing food, gift certificates and other items to raffle off.

Admission tickets are $15 per person which includes a coffee bar, refreshements and desert buffet.

Anyone interested in attending may contact Pam Freidman at 997-0304 or Brenda Velez 946-5646 (PTA Co-presidents).

Hits: 32

Louis and Andrea Fortunoff personally appeared before the Common Council to present their design for a Fortunoff’s retail complex on the Saks Fifth Avenue Site.
Scott Peck presented the design for the striking complex that will front on the corner of Maple Avenue and Bloomingdale Road. It will feature a 180,00 square foot Fortunoff’s facility plus 85,000 square feet of a street arcade complex and restaurant. The parking for the complex will move to the rear of the building in a four-story parking garage.

A FORTUNOFF RETAIL MECCA is planned for the corner of Maple Avenue and Bloomingdale Road on the former Saks Fifth Avenue site. The complex will have a glass- enclosed street level arcade featuring a restaurant and bring new national retail presences to White Plains. Parking will be behind the structure, with entry from Maple Avenue. Fortunoff’s rises behind the street level retail frontage, creating a second retail street scape just a tad North of Bloomingdale’sWPCNR PHOTO

The presentation came after one of America’s last independent retail families, the elegantly dressed Fortunoffs, were forced to cool their heels, observing the Council ask very mundane questions about Fenway Golf Club maintenance garages for 40-minutes, and the presentation of a bar patio for another 20 minutes.

LAST OF THE RETAIL TYCOONS, observe presentation of architect Scott Peck last Thursday evening. Councilman William King and Edward Dunphy are seated in front of Louis Fortunoff(to the left of King), and Andrea Fortunoff. WPCNR PHOTO

The Mayor was so exasperated at what he felt was Council disrespect to the Fortunoffs by asking question after question about the Fenway Storage sheds, he chided Pauline Oliva as to whether she wanted a traffic study done, which brought a great deal of laughter and promptly ended the discussion.

The Council also approved Bill Brown’s 42-unit senior affordable housing project for South Kensico Avenue, virtually rubber stamping the project. Brown told WPCNR he was looking at other locations for similar projects in White Plains at “undisclosed locations.”

The council also heard Mike Kelly report he had resolved differences with The Esplanade over patio outdoor dining at The Thirsty Turtle. The Fortunoffs experienced the titilation of learning about Mike Kelly’s exit security procedure whereby patrons of the popular watering hole are frisked leaving the establishment to assure that they are not carrying beer out of the Club.

Mr. Kelly also reported that he checked labels of discarded beer bottles around the back of his pub, and reported to the council that some of the discarded beer bottle brands were not stocked by his club.