- This topic has 48 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It seems that some of the taxpayer are suing the the members of the East Ramapo Board of Education for excessive legal fees. These same individuals sued the board claiming fraud in that they are depriving the public schools of funding. The Board’s insurance company refuse to defend them because fraud isn’t covered by their policy. The board won the case but it cost them $2 million in legal fees. When they sued the insurance company for their legal fees they only got a little over $100,000. These people are now suing the board to get back the balance of the “excessive legal fees”.
The board will win the case but it will cost them money for legal cost. But they will continue to make frivolous lawsuits as their lawyer is pro bono and it doesn’t cost them anything other than a filing fee which is under $100.00.
My idea is to reallocate $2 million from the public school’s budget and allocate it for legal fees. By cutting the budget they will be eliminating about 20 positions. If this means class sides increases so be it. You do not have to actually spend all this money for legal expenses. The mere fact that the fund are reallocated results in the loss of jobs. This will discourage these people from starting new claims against the board as and may even encourage them to drop the case. As their purpose is to get more funding and now all that is happening is they are getting less services.
Twice?
I don’t know if the board could do that. But, yeah, it is ironic that the public school parents sued the board for something, and now they’re accusing the board of using too much money for legal fees to defend themselves in that lawsuit.
Abba_S – I imagine that the new lawsuit will have the fees covered by insurance, since they are now working with an “above board” law firm.
GAW,
1) The board always used an aboveboard law firm. A firm that had experience in such matters. Unfortunately one of the “so-called activists” so irritated (and that is their method) one of the associates that he responded in an unprofessional method. And he did not do any further work for the school board.
2)More to the point, those were not the legal costs that nor the legal firms that the insurance did not pay for. The firms that were not covered by insurance were well respected large firms including Proskauer Rose.
3) Those firms were hired to represent the board in response to a slew of law suits initiated by these so called activists as a matter of harassment. Almost every single one of which was dismissed as frivolous.
4) The “activists” are doing the same again, initiating a suit that is meant solely to harass the board members and ultimately run up additional legal fees which will then be used as a complaint against them.
5) These activists have threatened the board members and harass them at their homes. They are truly despicable.
If anything, the actions of the school board are despicable. In the past, I’ve tried to post some of the illegal things they’ve done, but the posts weren’t approved. The school board in East Ramapo is a huge Chillul Hashem!
Nisht – you probably know more about this than me. My only point was that the additional lawsuits should not cause any additional deficit for the school board, now that the SB knows what they can pay per hour.
DaMoshe,
Interesting that you know about illegal things, yet none of the government investigations or controller’s audits turned up anything illegal by the school board. And if you ever read the controller’s reports, they always like to tout how they’ve caught illegalities.
GAW,
They will be limited to using substandard lawyers.
I just saw letters that a not for profit got from its lawyers and the rates were between 750-1000 an hour. Should these board members afford themselves substandard protection from harassers?
That would be penny wise and pound foolish.
Just because someone loses a lawsuit doesnt mean its frivilus. One could make a legitimate lawsuit with merit to sue, but not enough merit to win the case
Let’s see if the mods will let this through.
no
Mods, if this can’t be posted, I’d appreciate an explanation why.
Loshon Hora/Motzi Shem Ra
ZD,
But when the case is thrown out because of lack of basis and the judge does not allow it to proceed, it is frivolous.
Which is what happened in 7 out 8 claims.
And these cases are meant purely to harass. Which is obvious from the way the “activists” served the papers, and who they selected to serve the papers.
nishtdayngesheft – It is common at any “board” (including a non-for-profit), that the individual members of the board have their own Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance for a number of reasons, not limited to:
1: The dollar limits of the board’s insurance may run out.
2: There may be a conflict of interest between the board and the member, so that the member will not be insured.
3: The member may be sued individually so that the board’s insurance does not apply.
If the members of the board decided not to buy their own insurance and still enter the public arena and be subject to a D&O liability, they only have to look at themselves. They can choose not to be on the board.
Abba_S: My understanding of the issue (and only from what I’ve read here) is that the insurance was not to defend the members (which is what normal D&O insurance covers), but rather to reimburse legal fees for lawyers that the board chose. Your comment is not relevant.
the boards excsue is they want the state to bail them out, I think they are the only district in the state asking for this for the reasons they specify. You cant expect the general population of the state to bail you out without conditions if at all
the boards excsue is they want the state to bail them out, I think they are the only district in the state asking for this for the reasons they specify. You cant expect the general population of the state to bail you out without conditions if at all
The State “bails out” all districts when it gives all districts funding based on how many students are in public school. The ER district is unique from other districts in that a majority of students go to private not public schools and are therefore not getting counted towards the number of students the State gives educational aid to.
If the State doesn’t give the district additional aid despite the rising number of children being born and going to school in ER, then what will happen (and is already happening) is the board will be forced to cut back public school education spending to the bare bones basics, eliminating things like art and other courses and extracurricular activities that New York State law does not make mandatory.
So the choice for the State is either 1) give more funding to the district considering ALL the children going to school, not just counting public students or 2) face a bare bones public school that will legally be defunded of all activities that are not legally mandated.
I think they are the only district in the state asking for this for the reasons they specify.
When reading about east Ramapo, there was another district in Long Island (ROOSEVELT) that came up that got a bail-out.
I dont know why Roosevelt got a bailout, Im sure the reasons arent the same as East Ramapo.
JMO trying to take revenge or punish the students already in public school probably isnt the best method to use for publicty. You need to gather sympahy for your cause to get the state to help your cause. Gutting the public school to bare bones will likely gather sympahy for the public school parents
What “revenge”? There is no revenge. If there’s no money there’s no choice but to cut out what the law does not mandate. Like art. I said *if* the State does not provide the appropriate funding counting all children in the district.
GAW,
This is not an issue of D&O (Generally the organization has D&O, not the individual members). The members were indemnified by the board. The board wanted to collect from a state agency that is supposed to cover law suits. Sort of a self insurance policy by the state. So it is a matter of the district recovering money.
Now the agitators (and that is their own term) are harassing the members.
ZD,
As usual, you are coming from left field,. No one is trying to punish the students out of revenge, except the agitators who are bringing frivolous suits to personally harass the board members. This costing the district funds that could be used for education and now have to be directed to legal fees.
You should have heard the threats the agitators leveled at members. Specifically at the two black board members. Its all publicly posted. And it is also in the news how they stand outside the board members houses and shout and threaten them.
NDG, Wow, the activists are threatening the board? That’s terrible! But it’s all publicly posted? Even though you can’t usually post links on the CR, maybe you could tell me what to Google to find out more. Yikes.
I am sure it will show up in YouTube.
Someone sent me an embedded video of it. I think it was the first August meeting. Was some guy who refers to himself as a Reverend.
This is not an issue of D&O (Generally the organization has D&O, not the individual members). The members were indemnified by the board. The board wanted to collect from a state agency that is supposed to cover law suits. Sort of a self insurance policy by the state. So it is a matter of the district recovering money.
I agree, and that was my point to Abba_S as well.
I was commenting on your point of the board members having to rely on substandard lawyers. If the board members are concerned, they should have their own D&O insurance (which they should have anyway). I disagree with your “generalization” that board members should not have their own D&O policies separate from the board, for the reasons stated above.
P.S. As I’ve posted in other threads, I believe the monitor will show that there is a severe funding problem in the district, and will either force a tax increase or a change in funding methodology.
State law doesn’t permit a tax increase without a voter referendum approving it.
If there is an austerity budget, Likely the Buses would be the first to go. Thats what usually happens
State law doesn’t permit a tax increase without a voter referendum approving it.
Like Lakewood, if the options are stark, at least no one can complain when busing is taken away if the increase is not passed.
P.S. I read yesterday that over 8% of all Lakewood NJ properties are exempt from property tax, as compared to 1.5% in neighboring Toms River. Perhaps that is something that can be cracked down on in East Ramapo as well to raise revenue.
If there is an austerity budget, Likely the Buses would be the first to go.
The buses can’t go, since they’re mandated by State law.
no one can complain when busing is taken away if the increase is not passed.
Per New York State law, it is the Board of Ed that gets to choose what non-mandated services must go, not anyone else. So they might cut art or yoga before anything else.
Like Lakewood, if the options are stark, at least no one can complain when busing is taken away
In Lakewood it is the public school parents that will be in for the biggest shock come September. The elimination of non-mandatory busing for those within 2 miles of the school has effectively eliminated busing for 55% of public school students while only eliminating busing for 20% of yeshiva students (since yeshiva students are far more likely to live further away from their school, thus entitled to mandatory busing per State law.)
P.S. I read yesterday that over 8% of all Lakewood NJ properties are exempt from property tax, as compared to 1.5% in neighboring Toms River. Perhaps that is something that can be cracked down on in East Ramapo as well to raise revenue.
There isn’t anything to “crack down” on. Those are simple and legal tax exemptions for non-profits such as religious institutions. If the law is changed, it would affect non-profits statewide.
In new York state if a non-profit owns real-estate, it can be exempt from property taxes. So a shul or a church for example is exempt from proprty taxes. But also if a shul or a church own a house or apartment building and rents it out, that building too can be exempt from property taxes
There isn’t anything to “crack down” on. Those are simple and legal tax exemptions for non-profits such as religious institutions. If the law is changed, it would affect non-profits statewide.
With a disparity like that, it behooves the state officials to look into it. There are some large Monasteries that may be causing the disparity, though. 🙂
End story is, I don’t disagree with you, Joe. But cutting non-essential services is just kicking the can down the road until there are no more services that can be cut.
Also if the bUdgets were voted down and there is a shortfall, The law allows a tax increase anyway. That is what likely will happen before state aid is given
In new York state if a non-profit owns real-estate, it can be exempt from property taxes. So a shul or a church for example is exempt from proprty taxes. But also if a shul or a church own a house or apartment building and rents it out, that building too can be exempt from property taxes
Uh, no. That’s not true.
P.S. I read yesterday that over 8% of all Lakewood NJ properties are exempt from property tax, as compared to 1.5% in neighboring Toms River. Perhaps that is something that can be cracked down on in East Ramapo as well to raise revenue.
Lakewood does have two large colleges there BMG and Georgian Court. There is also the hospital. All exempt. Of course there are also all the schools, public and religious.
What does Toms River have.
But I’d have to believe those percentGes are actually low. I think it’s well below what is typical. More than those percentages are typically owned by government agencies which are all exempted.
It is true
NYU for example owns Millions of dollars of Prime Real Estate in Manhattan and doesnt pay real estate taxes on it
And they rent it commercially?
You’re wrong. It may be student and employee housing, which is programmatic. And therefor exempted.
But I have seen hundreds of not for profits which do pay real estate taxes.
I think the largest real estate holder in NYC is the Catholic Church.
NYU is a commerical enterprise as is the Museum of Natural History and the Hospitals. Non-Profit does not mean it doesnt make money
ZD,
Making money does not it make a commercial enterprise.
There is a distinction between a commercial enterprise and a non profit even though a non profit still has to make money.
Further, the real estate tax exemption extends to when the non profits uses the property for its exempt purpose. So renting out student and faculty housing is not a commercial enterprise that would be taxed, it is part of the exempt function.
If they rented out to stores or regular commercial office space, that would subject the property, or the allocable portion of the property to tax.
In downtown Manhattan, Trinity Church is one of, if not the biggest commercial real estate owners. The properties are not exempted just because they are owned by an exempt entity.
What is clear from your comment is that you really don’t know the nuances related to not for profits if you would not know the difference between commercial enterprise and program related revenues.
The NFL , The Green Bay Packers and until recently the New York Stock Exchange (It still might be) are all Not for Profit businesses
Abba
We are talking about Property Taxes, not other taxes. Non-profits are liable for many taxes like Water Taxes, Payroll taxes etc
ZD,
But they are not 501(c)(3) organizations. As such they are not exempt from real estate taxes or sales tax.
And even tax exempt organizations can be subject to income tax. A Private foundation is subject to tax on investments income and all tax exempt organizations can be subject to UBIT.
People think non-profit means charity, which it doesnt. The Green Bay Packers are as much a Non-profit as BMG or Tomnche Shabbos according to US Law
March of Dimes, Red Cross are well known charities that do have businesses (The Red Cross for example makes money from blood donations)
ZD,
You’re wrong, again.
Those are not, not for profits, they are exempt organizations. And they are not the same as an entity that is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the IRC.
It’s just an incorrect comment you are making.
There are different qualifications and different rules.
Which is all beside the point, because your comment has nothing to do withNything. Are you trying to suggest that the exempt organizations in Lakewood or Monsey are businesses?
They’re not. And the ones that do have a part that is not related to their exempt function pay real estate taxes. And I know that a number that are assessed PILOT so they pay anyway.
Edited
Museums and Hospital can also be “for Profit”. Generally I think in NY most hospitals are non-profit, but that is not the case for the US in general.
There are plenty of museums that are “for Profit” Ripleys Belive it or Not or Madame Toussut in Times square are “for profit”.
The difference between for profit and non-profit is what is done with the profit. A non-profit has to put the profit back in the business, the for profit is allowed to take the profit out of the business
NY State law does not permit for profit hospital chains , like Humana, to operate in NY.
Ultimatly in the end you will have to convience the NY State Assembly, Senate and the governor that the people of East Ramapo refuse to pay tax increases and want the state to pay it instead. Its not about me or anyone else here, You can disagree with me, but that is the reality.
It has nothing to do with refusing to pay. By law, there’s a limit to how much it can be raised annually.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.