Whose interests are being served by SW school board?

After attending the Sussex/Wantage School Board meeting on June 24,I am still reeling from sticker shock. I thought that since this was a rural school district, pay scales for employees were on the low side. Quit the opposite. The new Board of Education at this meeting voted on pages of raises for some district employees. Do you know that we pay administrative assistants just shy of $60,000? Do you know that they, like teachers, are entitled to longevity bonuses of $2,500? The head of maintenance, like the others, was given a retroactive raise back to July 1, 2008, then another raise of over $2,000 for the period 2009 to 2010. But then, on top of those, because he did a good job, another $10,000. This was an increase of around $15,000 or more (his salary prior to these raises was not disclosed). Let me ask you this: Are you and yours experiencing these kinds of financial windfalls? I know my family is not. But we’re paying for this. The president of the board of education’s wife was made a teacher from a teacher’s aide position. She also was brought in at the top of the pay scale for that position. His son was once again brought in as a summer custodian. It is my understanding that he has countless relatives, both immediate, and distant, who are employed by this district. When I look at the list of names of employees being hired or getting raises, I notice that many are related to others who are already employed by the district. Yet, I know people whose family members have tried to get a job for the district and have been unsuccessful. I find the kind of reckless spending during such difficult financial times to be totally out of line and a slap in the face to us taxpayers. A settlement was approved by the board of education with the former vice principal of the Sussex Middle School. It was not stated how much that was for. My question is: How much was it for, and where is the settlement for the principal? Why could the superintendent not wait until the end of the school year and just not renew contracts rather that subject the students to the chaos that occurred after these administrators left? Not to mention the cost to the district. It is clear that a financial free for all is now taking place with taxpayer dollars. I have attended two meetings where parents of disabled student from the Lawrence School requested that their children remain at the Lawrence School rather than be moved to the Sussex Middle School. These parents have gotten petitions signed and given the board of education many reasons why not to move these special children. Both times, their requests were met with the shrugged shoulders of the president of the School Board, along with the statement that it is the law and our hands are tied. However, these parents, who did their homework, let the board know that they know it is not the law, it is a recommendation. I have never seen such a disconnect between the needs of the students and the agenda that a board of education wants to further for their own benefit. This is clearly not in the best interests of these students, and by the way, would cost a great deal of money to accomplish. Isn’t this the board and administrator who told this community that they have a very tight budget? One would never know from their actions. Here is the most bizarre occurrence. Apparently, there was a program whereby students receiving reduced price lunches were given supplies to be used for school by the district. This has been stopped. When Dr. Izbicki was questioned about it he said that it was because the children took the crayons home. The crayons are the property of the school board, stated Izbicki. I thought I was hearing wrong. Dr. Izbicki, at a prior school board meeting, you were given an $11,000 raise by this new board of education. How can you possibly begrudge our students some crayons. Shame on you! Eileen Darvey Sussex