53°
Unfortunately school committee member Margaret Watson has not done her homework on the WRSD budget. Her recent comments are long on claims but short on verifiable facts.
Ms. Watson claims that Mr. Pandiscio’s has not “received more than $100,000 in pay raises since he began his tenure with the District.” Per records supplied by the WRSD under the MA Public Records Law Mr. Pandiscio’s salary in FY05 (the year before he became superintendent) was $110,598.82. His current salary is $192,818.58 (until July 1st when it goes up again). This is an average salary increase of just under $12,000 per year ($11,745.68 per year). Is anyone else out there in the district getting an average of $11,745.68 in raises per year?
Under his current contract Mr. Pandiscio’s salary will continue to increase to $210,698.07. His ending salary of $210,698.07 minus his starting salary of $110,598.82 equals a total salary increase of $100,099.25. Again, these figures were all provided in writing by Mr. Pandiscio under the MA Public Records Law.
Ms. Watson states Mr. Pandiscio’s “salary is nowhere near the highest in the Commonwealth”. But by his own admission Mr. Pandiscio’s salary is “somewhere around 13th in salary rank in Massachusetts”. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Pandiscio’s claim but even if correct being 13th out of the 328 school districts listed on the MA DOE web site would make Mr. Pandiscio’s salary higher than ninety-six percent (96%) of all school districts in the entire Commonwealth (including Worcester). Higher than 96% of all districts listed and Ms. Watson claims Mr. Pandiscio’s “salary is nowhere near the highest in the Commonwealth”???
In addition to his nearly $200,000 per year salary Mr. Pandiscio gets five weeks and two days of vacation plus three weeks of sick leave plus one week of personal leave plus one week of bereavement leave plus twelve paid holidays (three months off) per year. Mr. Pandiscio also gets an expensive Smartphone plus an iPad and he is reimbursed for all of his expenses.
Ms. Watson makes similar attempts to defend the WRSD’s 60+ custodians (an incredible 126,880 man hours per year) but she fails to mention the additional $150,775 they spend each year for custodial supervision. She also doesn’t mention the thousands of dollars they spend every month to provide dozens of expensive iPhones and Android Smartphones to custodians, food service employees, outside consultants, special ed aides, administrators et al. Or the 22.7 hours a Central Tree school employee spent on her district cell phone in one month. Ms. Watson failed to mention the $542 per day ($67.75 per hour) we spend on a retired (already collecting a pension from us) district employee now acting as a part time ‘curriculum consultant’. This is on top of the more than $500,000 per year we already spend for five full-time ‘curriculum consultants’. She neglected to mention the millions of dollars they want to spend on their iPad experiment or the 240 iPads they have already purchased (apx. $120,000 plus thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in grant money they have already spent for iPad apps). Mr. Pandiscio claims we have the lowest per-pupil spending “in any district in Massachusetts” but FY11 (latest available) DOE records clearly show at least eight other districts with lower per-pupil expenditures plus eleven other districts that did not report their spending.
Ms. Watson mentions that Auburn high is slightly more than one-third the size of Wachusett but she fails to answer the question of why the WRSD needs five times the number of assistant principals at Wachusett high and why they need nearly ten times the number of cell phones as the entire Auburn school district.
Oh and Ms. Watson definitely does not want you to remember the last time she questioned my facts. You may recall her embarrassment when the MA Inspector General’s Office released the twenty-seven (27) page report on their thirteen month investigation of Al Tutela and the WRSD budget. That report alone noted $138,595 in questionable WRSD expenses.
In a recent online comment Margaret Watson went on to make maliciously false claims about my wife and myself. On a number of occasions I have challenged Ms. Watson to a one on one televised public debate of the ‘FACTS’. To date she has failed to respond.
It is time for Ms. Watson to come out in public and debate the facts in a televised forum. We should let the voters to decide who is right and who is wrong.
OK Margaret the ball is in your court but I suspect you will continue to find some convenient excuse to avoid trying to defend your version of the facts in a televised debate.
We need to educate children and that costs money. We also need to be sure that the WRSD is spending nearly $100 Million per year of our taxes wisely. We tried giving ex-superintendent Al Tutela a blank check and we all remember how that ended.
Ed Meyer
Comments (18)
What say I Viola. I say it is time for you and your friend De minimis Maximus to come out of the closet and stop hiding behind your childish aliases.
It is time to stop your wildly exaggerated accusations. It is time for you two to grow up, stop being cowards and at least have the guts to sign your own names.
Unfortunately we know that is not going to happen. Cowards like you will always childishly hide behind a veil of secrecy. How sad.
PS. It is also time for you to convince Margaret Watson to agree to a face to face debate of the FACTS. Let’s allow the voters decide who is right and who is wrong.
Hello nielsbohr: Try this then. Enter wrsd.net for the District website. This will take
you to a page with the budget link. Again, clink on the yellow sign that says
FY 13 budget updated. On my computer, I have to click on the tab that says
"no links" and that takes me to the budget spreadsheet. I hope this works
for you.
See you tonight.
Thanks, Margaret Watson
Ah more pot shots from the anonymous peanut gallery. Viola you don’t even have the guts to sign your name. Like De minimis Maximus you childishly hide behind an alias.
And like your leader Margaret Watson you too are spreading false information. There was never any organized write campaign for me to run for any town office. A handful of individuals may have written in my name many years ago but there never was any organized write in campaign.
Perhaps you have forgotten that I did try to work with the school committee when I was appointed by our Select Board to serve on the WRSD Audit Advisory Committee. You should ask Margaret Watson and Duncan Leith how they managed to terminate that committee to prevent me from serving. You should also ask how they quietly reconvened the committee at some later date (without ever saying a word to me). After I brought the Inspector General’s Office in for a highly embarrassing thirteen month investigation of their WRSD budget it is clear the school committee does not want me looking over their finances.
As to running for office I would like to do that but, contrary to the false claims of Margaret Watson, I am still very much gainfully employed. In addition to running my own business (which involves a number of evening meetings) I volunteer several hours per month of pro bono counseling time, I work on the business education committee for a local Chamber of Commerce, I chair the executive committee for the Boston chapter of a large non-profit organization, I write a monthly column for our newsletter, I attend a number of weekday and weekend dinner meetings plus our regional, mini regional and annual gatherings and I spend many weekends making practice skydives with new jumpers.
Unfortunately my business and personal schedules are very busy and highly erratic which precludes my being able to commit to the set meeting schedules of a BOS or school committee.
OK Viola, it is time for you and De minimis Maximus to come out of the closet and stop hiding behind your childish aliases. It is also time for you to convince Margaret Watson to agree to a face to face debate of the FACTS. Let’s allow the voters decide who is right and who is wrong.
Full, rich reading, that. Between that exhausting resume and your countless acts of selfless sacrifice, I don't know where you find the time to perform the truly civic-minded activities you're so famous for in Holden, like aiding folks with their curbside appeal by driving, slowly, by their houses on a regular basis or helping families document the growth of their children by snapping photographs of their kids from afar or coaching speakers at town meetings by standing so close to them they can smell your Hai Karate. You're just the kind of guy Holden needs right now, Mr. Ed. What say you?
Hello, The District budget proposal for FY 13 is on the website www.aim21.
Just clink on the yellow link indicating "FY 13 Budget proposal UPDATED."
Thank you for your interest. Margaret Watson
Thanks for your reply. I still can't find it though. The following Google search yields no results:
site:aim21.org "FY 13 Budget proposal UPDATED" Is the link embedded in an image and not available for text search? In any case, if you wouldn't mind posting a link, I would appreciate it.
Does anyone know where I can find the district's proposed budget spreadsheet? It was posted on the 'aim21' website, but I can't find it now.
Mr. Ed, when are you going to run for office? Don't be discouraged by that write-in campaign for school committee that ended up in your getting only about six votes six or seven years ago. Buck up! There must be a seat at the table for you on either the school committee or the select board (or both!) given your fervent desire to serve your community. Just think of it! You'd be on camera, too, so that all the anti-social shut-ins who admire you can see you "speak truth to power" almost clearly and nearly in living color through the dense bank of cigarette smoke that doubtless hangs in their panelled living rooms.
Wait, what's that your mumbling? Can't run for office? Listen, don't be such a sad sack. No one cares about the skeletons in your closet or your longstanding propensity for stalking. Indeed, your anti-social psychopathy isn't a disadvantage in this town because we clearly value diversity. After all, your buddy just got elected to the select board with those same exact qualifications. Things are looking up!
Ah the delusional De minimis Maximus (again hiding behind an alias like a scared child) is back. This time claiming to be “Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions” etc.
Ms. De minimis, ask yourself why does Margaret Watson fear a televised face to face debate? Why is she petrified of having her version of the facts questioned in an open debate for the voters hear? Why is she so afraid of having the voters hear both sides of the story and allowing them to decide for themselves who is telling the truth? Why? Because Ms. Watson knows she cannot win such an open debate.
I believe Ms. Watson will continue to avoid any type of open debate and implicitly admit defeat. Again, I believe Ms. Watson will continue to avoid any type of open debate and implicitly admit defeat.
As to your repeated silly “See you at the polls means see you at the polls” comment, we did see you at the polls and, as noted earlier, we are quite pleased with the results. We are not sure why you are so proud of your candidate considering he is sitting on the sidelines after losing in every precinct in every town in each of his last two contested elections.
You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch, rather, Mr. Ed. Kick a guy when he's down. Admirable. Do you really believe that losing at the polls when you have been smeared and lied about six ways to Sunday is the measure of a man? The citizenry will figure it out in the long run: who cares about the community as a whole, who has sacrificed personal gain for the good of the town, who has been honorable.
There is no chance of open debate with you. There is no debate period. You have no stature, no standing, no reputation for fairness. Why don't you go to court and sue Ms. Watson? That's what you do, though you never win.
The only debate worth having will be at town meeting tomorrow evening. Go for it, Mr. Ed. Convince Holden not to approve the education
budget because we have too many custodians.
Mr. Ed: Sadly, Ms. Watson can never clear up the facts to your satisfaction because you cannot be satisfied. You have never and will never accept the facts she or the district presents. You will deny or twist whatever facts are presented.
She can't back out of a debate that was never agreed to. It is a delusion in your head. Toddle off now and start salivating over next year's budget. Maybe it will be those disgustingly overpaid teacher's aides in the crosshairs. Maybe we purchase too many pencils.
See you at the polls means see you at the polls. Your delusions do lead to curious conclusions. I could not be prouder of the candidate I supported. As for yours, Holden gets the government it votes for.
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant of the true Emperor Marcus Aurelius, father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and I will have my vengeance in this life or the next.
Actually, you all are missing the salient point:
What is far more critical than what a public employee like Mr. Pandiscio "makes" (I.s. salary) is what his employment COSTS the taxpayer.
I will not address this gemtleman's salary but will instead take a hypothetical $150,000 salaried employee. Factoring benefits, pension and overhead and administrative costs allocated to that employee, uneasily that $150k employee is costing the tax payers $220,000. Year, of not more.
I say this solely because we, as taxpayers, ought to be informed about where our hard earned money is going.
Whether Mr. Pandiscio is "overpaid" or not, as for me I truly do not know. He seems like a dedicated, sincere man.
But what I do know is that the costs of public employment generally are spiraling out of control. Indeed, the simple undeniable fact is those costs are burdening local and state budgets and if left unchecked my well bankrupt increasing numbers of governmental entities..
So we can either pretend this fact does not exist, ignore the fiscal dimensions of it or address it by things like pension reform, reducing the numbers of public employees, utilizing contractors when feasible, etc.
The choice is ours.
If we allow ourselves to be swayed by arguments that place considerations of "fairness" as to any one individual over the collective good of the people's fiscal well-being, then as surely as the sun roses over Holden each day, Greece is coming here......
Ms. Watson has stated “I stand by the facts as I presented them in my letter concerning rumors”. Apparently she doesn’t stand too closely.
Ms. Watson we can easily clear up all these competing claims. For the fifth or sixth time I again offer to debate the ‘FACTS’ with you one on one on camera in an open discussion for all to see and hear. As you have failed to respond to any of my prior invitations for a debate I trust you will again find some convenient excuse to avoid any open debate of the ‘FACTS’ and will thereby implicitly admit defeat. The choice is yours Ms. Watson. Will you chose an open, one on one, debate of the ‘FACTS’ or will you quietly back down and admit defeat?
Now, back to clarifying your version of the ‘FACTS’. Ms. Watson you are again trying to confuse the issue. The records provided to us by Mr. Pandiscio clearly state his FY05 salary (the year before he took over from Al Tutela) at $110,598.82. His final salary per his current contract will be $210,698.07. His final $210,698.07 salary minus his starting salary of $110,598.82 = $100,099.25 in raises. Those are the numbers. Ms. Watson can slice them and dice them any way she wants but those are the exact numbers as provided in writing by Mr. Pandiscio.
Have you all noticed how Ms. Watson continually fails to address any of the other issues we raised? Thousands of dollars per month just in usage fees for dozens of expensive smartphones. Millions of dollars for her iPad experiment. Millions of dollars per year for 126,880 man hours of custodial services plus an additional $150,775 in custodial supervision salaries per year (or Mr. Pandiscoi’s statement that he will lay off teachers before custodians). Spending $542 per day ($67.75 per hour) to rehire a retired WRSD employee as a part time per diem consultant (and even giving him one of those expensive smartphones phones). Questionable per-pupil expenditure numbers. Mr. Pandiscoi’s salary higher than 96% of all superintendents in the entire Commonwealth (including Worcester). Mr. Pandiscoi’s $11,745.68 per year in average raises to date etc.
Ms. Watson’s recollection of the ‘FACTS’ is absolutely wrong with regard to the Inspector General’s investigation of unauthorized vacation buy backs. Ms. Watson states that “ONE summer Dr. Tutela was required to work because of extended and difficult negotiations with the unions.” ONE summer?!!?!? The IG’s investigation found that this unauthorized practice went on for a number of years (actually every year they investigated), it paid out $44,000 in unauthorized buybacks and, contrary to Ms. Watson’s claim, it involved not only Mr. Tutela but also “the director of operations, the director of student services, and the director of administrative services.” The IG’s report specifically states “there appears to be no legal justification for the buyback program.” These are direct quotes from the IG’s report. We fail to see how Ms. Watson can even try to claim otherwise. Note: Per his contract Mr. Tutela had the option of taking his vacation at later time or rolling a portion over to the following year.
Again Ms. Watson, we can easily clear up all of these competing claims. Will you chose an open, one on one, televised debate of the ‘FACTS’ or will you quietly back down and admit defeat?
As for the mysterious Maximus, she continues to take pot shots at anyone who questions the ‘Party Line’. Ms. Maximus does not even have the guts to stand up and use her real name. She hides behind an alias. How childish of you Maximus.
Oh and Maximus, about your poll results comment, we are not sore at all actually we are quite pleased and please remember YOU were the one who made the initial “see you at the polls” remark not us. You just gloated a little too soon. How embarrassed you must feel now that your candidate has lost in every precinct to Mr. Ferguson and also lost in every precinct to Mr. Renzoni. You may recall that he also lost in every precinct in every town (nearly 6,000 votes in total) in his failed run for State Rep.
Mr Meyer -
No one in their right mind would submit themselves to a debate with you. Why? Because you can't comprehend the facts.
Pandiscio's salary was $110,000 when he was principal. It was pointed out when he became superintendent his salary became $140,000. If I was with the same company as a manager/supervisor and then was made a vice president; even within the same company I would expect a salary increase commensurate with the new position. Therefore your claims of exorbitant raises are not substantiated within the given position. Furthermore it has been discussed in various articles/commentaries that the salary includes a stipend for union negotiations and car allowance. I highly doubt the Worcester superintendent includes those. If WRSD were to have to hire a negotiator for the over half dozen unions, I would conservatively estimate this to be at least $20,000. Now that this has been stated twist away to make your pointless case.
The assistant principals has been addressed also (in various articles/commentaties). One assistant principal is head of guidance. Therefore that leaves four assistant principals. It was pointed out the state recommended number is one per 400 students. WRDS is approximately one per 500. Facts presented - facts ignored (again).
Why no one answers you on the other questions is that time and time again the facts have been pointed out on the superintendent's salary or the assistant principals and you choose to ignore (or not understand what has been clearly laid out). Why would this be any different with the other questions you ask? Sorry, but you can't handle the truth and trying to refute that in a public forum one minds well beat their heads against a brick wall.
Mr. Ed, you are too modest. I'm sure the false rumor about Dr. Pandiscio's salary had something to do with your bleating about it for the past three months. A reminder to readers: our district is the largest regional district in Massachusetts. Refer to Margaret Watson's letter and comment for an accurate history of the superintendent's salary.
Classy remark about the polls, Mr. Ed. The only thing more unseemly than a sore loser is a sore winner.
Hello to all: Once again I shall attempt to put to rest some of Mr. Meyer's concerns about the
District budget and its history.
Dr. Thomas Pandiscio was once principal of the WRHS. His salary as of July 1, 2005,
was $113,917.78. On Oct. 1 of that year he accepted the position of superintendent of the District
for a salary of 140,000. Because he worked nine months 2005-2006, he received 75% of that
figure, which was $105,000. The School Committee would have offered a salary in the area
of 140,000 per year to any successful candidate with no experience in that office. The acceptance
of a totally new position, of course, merited a new contract. This cannot be construed as a pay
raise. The claim that Dr. Pandiscio has received over 100,000 in pay raises as superintendent is
(as I said before) pure nonsense.
Now Mr. Meyer would like us to go back in history and review the Inspector General's
report issued when Dr. Albert Tutela was superintendent of the District. While this is ancient
history, I am not necessarily opposed to a little archeological digging. The Mass. state law
requires that employees who work during their vacation time must be compensated for those
vacation days. This law applies to employees in the private and public sectors alike. One
summer Dr. Tutela was required to work because of extended and difficult negotiations with
the unions. Two District directors were likewise affected. The problem had not been anticipated,
but the District had no choice, under the Mass. law, except to compensate Dr. Tutela for
these vacation days. Upon inquiry, Counsel advised us that we did not have any choice.
There was therefore no abuse. Dr. Tutela could not be required to pay back any money.
Such emergency situations do occur, however rare, and simple inquiry on the part of Mr.
Meyer might have spared him the effort of appealing to the IG's office.
I stand by the facts as I presented them in my letter concerning rumors
about the Wachusett School District and hope that myths and rumors will not continue
to be created unnecessarily. These myths are counterproductive and cause only confusion.
Margaret Watson
Ah Maximus you are once again confused. My statement to the media reads as follows: "Like his predecessor, Al Tutela, Mr. Pandiscio appears to be one of the highest paid superintendents in all of New England." The second highest comment you are falsely trying to attribute to me was actually made by one of the candidates running for the Holden BOS.
Even by Mr. Pandiscio’s own claim (with which I respectfully disagree) his salary would by higher than 96% of all superintendents (even Worcester) in the entire Commonwealth. You may recall the Inspector General’s report specifically stated that the last superintendent’s compensation package “makes him one of the highest paid superintendents in the Commonwealth.”
Sadly your comment about debating Margaret Watson is most likely true. Ms. Watson clearly knows she cannot win that debate. I believe she will decline my repeated offers and implicitly admit defeat.
PS. In one of your prior posts you stated: “See you at the polls”. Our candidate was far and away the top vote getter at the polls in Monday’s election. How did your candidate fare? Oh wait, he was a no show - never mind.
But Mr. Ed, your facts keep changing. I thought the superintendent was the second highest paid superintendent in the galaxy .... oh, right, the USA ... I mean, the entire Northeast ... that is, er, thirteenth highest in Massachusetts.
Your rants are getting old, Mr. Ed. Your "verifiable facts" are handfuls of sand. As for debating Margaret Watson, dream on.