 |
| Eva Moskowitz credit: NY Post |
UPDATE: Just heard that today, the SUNY committee tabled the proposed hike in fees.
April 24, 2012
April 24, 2012
Dear Chairman McCall, SUNY board of trustees and members of the SUNY charter committee:
I hope you have seen Juan Gonzalez’ article in today’s Daily News; “Public kept in dark about sweet deals for Success Charter Network schools.”
If not, it is reprinted in full below. I urge you to disallow the proposed egregious hikes in the management fees of Success charters, and the abuse of public process involved in this rushed and secretive deal.
A 15% management fee is twice the average for a NYC CMO (7%) and close to the average of a for-profit Educational Management Organization (17%). New charters run by EMOS are now banned, as I’m sure you are aware. Some CMOs, including the Harlem Children Zone, charge no management fees at all. The independent study that shows this is posted here: http://goo.gl/4lXrC
Since Ms. Moskowitz receives free space and services from DOE, as well as raises millions from private sources, there is no reason for her to reap more fees from taxpayers in order to expand her already extensive bureaucracy, resources that should be spent instead on the schoolchildren of New York City.
As the Success chain of charters grows, despite intense community opposition, her management fees should be lowered rather than increased, due to efficiencies of scale. If more revenue is needed, let Ms. Moskowitz cut her own exorbitant salary of more than $400,000 per year, eliminate her personal film crew, moderate her spending on political activities, or restrict the many millions of dollars she devotes to advertising and promotion.
Whatever the possible justification for the hike in management fees, there is no excuse for approving it in such a rushed and secretive matter. If this proposal has been before the Charter Institute since February, as the document entitled “Success Academy Charter Schools 1-5 Merger Summary”, dated 4.17.12 attests, why hold the hearing on a Friday night in April, after parents had only been informed about it three days before? Why deny parents the right to see the actual proposal? And why vote on this proposal now?
The very manner in which the notification and scheduling of this hearing and vote are taking place appears to violate the public process required by law.
As Juan Gonzalez writes, “So you have this mockery of the democratic process where parents are asked to comment on a document they have never seen, and even before they’ve done so, the bureaucracy schedules a vote.”
Well said and thank you for saying it!
ReplyDeleteWhat the relationship between Eva Moscowitz and Marc Sternberg? I'm just curious since he's portfolio and she's charter.
ReplyDeletewhat is the most effective way for parents (not necessarily part of class size matters) to register their disapproval of proposals like this with the SUNY charter institute?
ReplyDeletewith the recent invasion of brooklyn by SACS, it has become entirely clear that the DOE and SUNY are going to hide behind each other's decisionmaking. The DOE points to SUNY and claims SUNY controls the approvals; SUNY hides behind the DOE when it comes to location decisions. what can be done to increase transparency of SUNY's decisionmaking? Do they have public hearings before they approve charter replications? How do they manage public input? The replication application of SACS to open three "integrated" schools in D13 and D17 was not just disgusting, it was also inaccurate in some significant respects.