Integrity Quest: A Journey in the Horseheads School District

Integrity Quest
A Journey
In The Horseheads School District
Published by Gerald J. Furnkranz

Integrity Quest
Horseheads School Board
Horseheads School District
One Raider Lane
Horseheads, NY 14864
August 27, 2004
Dear Horseheads School Board Members;
Horseheads School Board discussions
on July 12th
highlighted scandal in the Roslyn
Long Island School District. Administrators,
board members and watchdog auditors looted
millions of dollars.
Attending that night was Mr. David
Hulslander, a retired police officer who
investigated such crimes. He was asked by
Superintendent Congdon, his voice filled with
incredulity, “How does something like this
happen?”
Mr. Hulslander answered simply, “It
starts with small indiscretions!”
Though listening, I don’t think
Superintendent Congdon or the school board
understood his answer.
After the meeting community members
discussed the assistant superintendent bringing
her dog to school daily. While seeming
inappropriate, I felt it a minor nuisance
considering serious problems facing the district.
What harm can a small dog cause in a
school? Signs on school property reflect policy
that prohibits dogs. Assistant Superintendent
Biagetti’s actions place her above the rules.
Remember Mr. Hulslander’s warning,
“Corruption begins with little indiscretions!”
Custodians pulled from regular duties
clean up messes her dog makes. If her dog bites
someone the district is liable; a burden taxpayers
will ultimately carry. This is only the beginning
of selfish agendas placed above the rules.
This assistant superintendent negotiated
the Broad Street Schoolroom Rental Contract
with ARC. She sits on the ARC board of
directors. The Business Manager usually
involved in negotiations was pulled off this one.
The going rate for renting those rooms
had been $8,500 each per year. Ms Biagetti gave
these rooms to the ARC for $3000, as reported in
the Star-Gazette, with all services to be provided
by the district. When the board initiated the
contract, it failed to inquire if the agreement was
a loss for the district or about other options.
Disregarding the contrast between the
rental prices, the Assistant Superintendent should
never be negotiating the contract. It is a conflict
of interests!
Outrageously, the Assistant
Superintendent’s contract allows her what
amounts to an extremely expensive healthcare
gift certificate! It bestows lifetime health
insurance on her legal representative, at the
expense of the Horseheads School District, even
after Biagetti’s death.
Such selfish actions have multi-million
dollar ramifications if similar benefits went to all
staff. It sets a precedent for frivolously sharing
insurance benefits the district pays for, creating
the model teachers will begin to negotiate toward
in their contracts. Spiraling financial strain on
already overburdened public schools and
property owners will result.
Nepotism of administration and board
also paid two administrators in the same position
for eight months, costing taxpayers over $52,000
additional from the budget.
Several weeks after the dismissal of
Sharon Reed were visiting auditors informed of
this list of questionable actions? The community
must ask! Was the business manager dumped in
the dark of night to cover these trails?
The Horseheads board and
administration leadership has long cultivated
arrogance and nurtured hypocrisy, allowing
integrity to wither on the vine. Sharon Reed’s
dismissal silenced the district conscience,
exemplifying the festering infection of small
indiscretions! Small self-serving indiscretions
began the journey in Roslyn Long Island toward
the $8 million looting of the district by those
abusing a public trust.
Most sincerely,
Gerald J. Furnkranz
cc Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney General
Alan G. Hevesi, NYS Comptroller
Mary Ellen Clark, NYS Education Dept.
The Leader
Star-Gazette

Integrity Quest
Horseheads School Board
Horseheads Central School District
One Raider Lane
Horseheads, NY 14845
July 26, 2004
School Board Members:
I really thought my letter to Al would
finish things out with regard to
communicating with the board on the Sharon
Reed matter. I thought my three letters (One
each to Joyce Budney, Bill Congdon and Al
Dedrick) pretty much summed up the points I
have been making about board and district
leadership over oh these many years.
Those three letters took Reflections
of a Former School Board Member and
restructured the many examples to make
more clearly those points I have made over
the years. Perhaps those letters did it a little
more abruptly, but the board and
administration’s inherent “Blind eye” and
“Deaf ear” required an alteration in my
approach. So did the urgency of capriciously
destroying a person’s career and life.
The mental summations I went
through during the process of writing those
letters gave me some additional insights,
which I felt I must share with the board and
administration. It is my vision an
organization or institution with integrity will
make the proper decisions to build an
organization that best meets the needs of
those involved in and served by that
organization. I believe this could be
particularly true with the public school
systems and education overall. I believe if
decisions are approached with integrity, the
outcomes most beneficial to all will result.
If I were to pick a person to be the
first pick to begin organizing such a group
around this philosophy, from all those I have
encountered in my experiences with the
Horseheads School District, that person
would be Sharon Reed. Members of the
school board and the superintendent have
characterized her as having high integrity and
great honesty. Sharon Reed would also be
among the top of my list of those exemplary
people I have encountered in my life overall.
Competence is supposedly the issue?
However, I have shown you how Sharon’s
integrity and honesty at the levels described,
competence really cannot be the issue with
her dismissal. More than likely it is a failing
with the board and administration. My
experience with the district and the evidence
of incidents I have shared with you points in
that direction.
I do not know Bill Congdon well
enough to make a definitive judgement, I
only know issues and actions I have seen,
many in this most recent matter, and would
say Sharon is by far the first choice I would
make in building such a school district. I
cannot think of another person in the
administration or on the board that I would
choose if I had that task. There are some
new board members I do not know and
failing to choose them would be from lack of
information.
I could go through the list of those
people I do know and make my case, but this
time I am pulling back to again approaching
it on the general board character. Though
that dismal character is influenced greatly by
people I have singled out recently, all board
members are responsible for that character if
they have not stood up and confronted it.
Sharon Reed should be the example
to which district and board leadership
aspires. The children and the community
would benefit by her example. Consider how
weak a leadership must be if she frightens it
so. Her honesty and integrity frightens
leadership so much, it must tear her down
and destroy her, lest she is left there as a
mirror whose reflection forces board
members and administrators to look at
themselves.
When will you see the truth? Or
perhaps I should ask, when will you
acknowledge the truth?
Sincerely,
Gerald J. Furnkranz

Integrity Quest
A Journey
October 2004

Integrity Quest
2
Address To The School Board At The Meeting of 10-04-04
By Gerald J. Furnkranz
Bill, at the board meeting of September 13, 2004 you said information regarding the reference to the term
“legal representative” in the assistant superintendent’s contract from my letter of August 27, 2004 to you was not
true when Bonnie Wood stood here and questioned you about it. You and the board president adamantly denied
there was any such reference. You portrayed it as a lie, invoking, “your mother had taught you better.”
In front of meeting attendees you vigorously decreed factual information a falsehood. You had two weeks
to research my concerns expressed in my letter of August 27, 2004 and become knowledgeable of the facts.
At the board meeting of September 27, 2004, you portrayed that as a misunderstanding, apologizing for the
way you came across to Bonnie Wood. You said nothing about the misrepresentation you and Joyce made and you
clarified to me later in the parking lot the night of the September 13, 2004 meeting. You admitted to me the
terminology “legal representative” is in the assistant superintendent’s contract and also in your own. You did
nothing to point out you wrongly denied the existence of that terminology “legal representative” in the contract.
You left your misrepresentation of the facts in the minds of people at both meetings.
That night you attempted to trivialized it calling the term, “legal representative” to describe a beneficiary of
healthcare insurance as “boiler plate” contract language. In other words the term, “legal representative” describing
beneficiaries of healthcare insurance has become “standard contract language” in the district. This language with
regard to healthcare beneficiaries is very dangerous.
After you told me I was right about it being in the contract that evening, the next day Mrs. Apgar told
people that witnessed your misrepresentation she was in the office and you looked it up, and it wasn’t in the
contract. I wonder if this was a mistake, misunderstanding or business as usual, confining the admission to what
might seem like a lie to a small area, and then perpetuating the untruth beyond to protect your righteousness,
reputations and credibility.
You also attempted to trivialize the terminology at the meeting of September 27, 2004. Each time I tried to
express my concerns about the broad ramifications of such open ended terminology with regard to healthcare
beneficiaries, you brought it back to individuals and what you or the assistant superintendent deserved. Eventually I
was silenced by Mr. Dedrick and rightly so, because the point I kept making you kept avoiding, making it a waste of
time.
This highlights my concerns about your leadership approach. You focus on what you deserve rather than
looking at the disastrous implications the term “legal representative” can have with regard to healthcare benefits.
Making a precedent of giving healthcare benefits to almost anyone an employee would designate is irresponsible.
Such language opens the door to giving healthcare benefits to practically anyone by such a definition. As I
wrote in my letter of August 27, 2004, it is virtually a healthcare gift certificate that can be bestowed on whomever
the employee wishes. It can lead to millions of dollars of sharp increases in the budget for healthcare benefits, on top
of already skyrocketing healthcare costs. District leadership’s attitude toward this issue seems blasé and negligent.
Then you announced that this terminology has been in contracts for years, and I even voted on contracts
with the terminology in it. Well, I have a draft of the first superintendent contract I voted for and there was a
reference to legal representative. However, again it was in reference to sick days made part of the employee’s estate
that can be bestowed on anyone named. Again you attempted to deflect us from the real issue.
Now you are trying to make healthcare benefits property the employee’s estate owns and can bestow on
anyone they wish. While sick days are a one time payment, healthcare benefits will be an enormous expense to the
taxpayers for possibly another fifty years. That fifty years will be the most expensive of that person’s life as with all
those numerous retiring educators, sharply increasing costs both because of additional premium payments and
greatly increased use driving the healthcare premiums for district employees higher and higher. It truly looks like
you are trying to sneak this terminology into the healthcare benefits, which would be a gold mine benefit for
educators and extremely detrimental to the Horseheads School District finances and property tax situation.
Lastly, you misrepresented my votes even further. Yes, I did vote for that superintendent’s contract in my
first eight months on the board. Perhaps I was foolish, naïve and/or stupid to begin my term trusting the board and
superintendent. I soon learned that was not wise and I voted against the 1999 and 2000 superintendent’s contracts
because of these same kinds of slick behaviors.

Integrity Quest
3
Your attempt to discredit me was another false and misleading statement. Whether intentional or just
normal slovenly and sloppy work of district leadership it was misleading. For a man who says he has nothing to
hide, you sure behave like one that does.
This slick behavior affects even your financial analysis of the Broad Street Room Rental and Cost Savings
of having two persons in the same high administrative position are suspect when considering the slovenly, sloppy
and/or dishonest spin that seems to be employed, supported by incidents I have cited. Those same behaviors applied
to financial reporting, spin to support ones own point of view, the numbers could certainly be manipulated. Words
manipulated to this degree for self-serving purposes, suggests the numbers likely will be too.
For instance Bill, you reported that the state reimbursed BOCES for about two-thirds of the $8500.00 they
paid to rent each room at Broad Street School or about $5,500. Actually, BOCES receives no state reimbursement
from rooms rented to the district. The district receives two-thirds reimbursement for our calculated portion of
responsibility for the BOCES room rental budget. This certainly paints a far different picture than you, the
superintendent painted for the Star-Gazette. Whether an issue of honesty or competence is for others to decide.
As I wrote to you and the board president in my letter of September 14, 2004, Joyce chastised me for
presenting my information while only having half of it. I acknowledged I probably have far less than half the
information, but needed to present what I had because “the lynch” mob was acting now. That was the context of
“lynch mob”, meaning you can’t wait to confront the board for doing wrong till after they’ve hung the victim.
Yes, some of my information is spotty. I do not have it all, and will not have it all until the deed is done, if
ever. If I wait the opportunity to stop possible injustice will be gone.
You have access to all the information. Yet, you did not have correct knowledge of the “legal
representative issue” when it was presented. You behaved as though the information given to you by Bonnie Wood
was false. You continue to misrepresent it, avoiding acknowledging the difference when it is applied to healthcare
benefits. Who is more culpable here, that person that has access to the information and acts without it or distorts it
intentionally, or me, who cannot gain access to all the information and acts on the portions and behaviors he has
witnessed? I think you are far more suspect in your actions!
That information is at your fingertips. You can have others get it for you. Yet, you are unaware of it. Such
actions are disingenuous, lazy, slovenly and/or sloppy. It is absurd you did not have the correct information on that
issue. Perhaps some board members are being manipulated, but then they allow it to happen. This points to
ineptitude or lack of competence. Board expectations for others are far greater than for themselves.
Joyce, you want a disclaimer from me stating a percentage of information I have yet I might possibly never
know how much of it I actually do. Shouldn’t you give a disclaimer saying you have access to all the information
but seldom bother to check to see if it is correct?
Again, the repetition of similar actions has made me question the board’s and administration’s credibility.
It is your own actions I am acting against as I have for years. While you may see this approach as unfair, I see this
tracking of trends of poor and dishonest behavior as a right and proper way to confront the board. It is a necessary
strategy if the school district is to attempt to reach its exemplary “blue ribbon” status.
Bill, your self-proclamations of honesty are beginning to cash checks you may not have the balance in your
account to pay. Actions speak louder than words. Playing fast and loose with the truth, which you have certainly
done as I have documented here, will and should damage your credibility.
That is exactly why I implicitly mistrust this board. It has manipulated the truth far too often and continues
to do so. Documentation of incident after incident has forced me not to trust them. I am now beginning to have
serious doubts about even this new administration. While I am sure your mother taught you better, we must
seriously question if you learned what she taught you!
Joyce, you accused me of, “Wanting you to think the way I do.” That is not true. I’d just like to see you
think. Think for yourself as I would like all the board members to do! I’d like you to be strong and honest enough
not to be a puppet for the administration, particularly when they are being disingenuous. When you support them
being dishonest, you are being deceptive also.
School board members need to be advocates of good education, not advocates of administrators. Still, that
is only second to being advocates of integrity, honesty and competence, because without those three, at best
education can only be less than mediocre.
I hope district leadership will look at their nasty tendencies and make integrity a major player in the district.

Integrity QuestIf you would like a free CD copy (suitable for computer) of
“Reflections of a Former School Board Member”
Send a self addressed stamped 6” x 9” envelop to:
Gerald J. Furnkranz
4191 Main Street
Millport, NY 14864
Gulliver’s noble horse made into a “Yahoo”!!!!
THE END

Integrity Quest
A Journey
April 2005
(Continued Page 4)

Integrity Quest April 2005
2
THE HORSEHEADS SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTHCARE OUTRAGE
When the healthcare crisis arose in the mid 1980s, the first, immediate and minimal
action in the private sector was to provide training to all employees regarding proper use of their
healthcare benefits. This was the swiftest and simplest step to make a positive impact.
Employees were taught how to use their insurance policies wisely.
· Twenty years have passed since the healthcare insurance crisis surfaced. The
Horseheads School District has not yet taken the first, yet simplest step.
In the mid ‘90s, Kenneth Galbraith, the assistant superintendent responsible for the
insurance matters agreed it was a good idea and that it had not yet been done. A few years later,
as a member of the school board between 1997 and 2000, I again suggested it when it was
revealed it had not yet been done. One board member argued, “such a presentation was
patronizing to the teachers.”
When I brought this issue up at the budget meeting of Saturday March 5, 2005 the
assistant superintendent and human resource manager immediately mounted the defense, that
recently or a year and a half ago or in 2001, unit heads were given the information to take back
to their units. We were also told written information was handed out.
As educators, they know how ineffective such actions are! They know the information
got to a minimal number of the population that needed to be reached! That important
information transmitted by unit leaders who likely perceive they have little investment in the
accurate dissemination, arrived with a distorted view educators in the district possess about their
own healthcare privileges.
Yet this action, as a defense, still did not approach minimal initial efforts made by the
private sector twenty years before. After decades of inaction it fell terribly short. It appeared to
be only a CYA action, a token effort practically a repeat of past inaction.
In the 1990’s district leadership conducted several surveys which identified escalating
healthcare costs as a primary community concern. Failure to bring healthcare costs under control
prove the community has been ignored time and again.
· Educators in the district have “NO Co-pays, NO Deductibles and NO Caps” and
are covered by the Horseheads School District till the day they die.
While district employees are now paying something toward their healthcare policy
($1000 for families and $500.00 for single coverage for costs over $8000 a year per family
policy, a concession for which they were given additional money in their raises to cover) it is a
minimal effort.
Their policies require no co-pays, no deductibles and no caps. They can go to any
provider they wish, regardless of cost and still have the bills paid in full. To look at the summary
list of coverage and the many services provided, all covered in full is sickening.
In the early 1990s superintendent Bob Reidy and the board gave teachers concessions that bestowed upon
them healthcare paid by the district for life. Other than their small contribution, the Horseheads School District
carries the burden of all healthcare expenses of those educators till the day they die.

Integrity Quest April 2005
3
The district has experienced 40 to 50% yearly increases in healthcare several times over
the last twenty years. This has been due to serious misunderstanding in the way the healthcare
benefits are perceived. When part of the BOCES program, Horseheads expenses were so much
greater on average than other districts our district participation caused major increased costs in
the BOCES plan. Horseheads blamed the BOCES system for mismanagement when the truth
was Horseheads wanted the platinum healthcare policy and nothing else. They did not want to
make the kind of concessions that would allow the district healthcare program to be managed
effectively and efficiently by BOCES.
Many educators in the district see it as their right to exploit this ridiculously generous
healthcare plan. There is little appreciation, only expectation. They seem to have only visions of
more.
· Administrators benefit from these contractual giveaways. Their participation in
negotiations are a conflict of interests.
Administrators are reluctant to negotiate common sense changes, because they are
beneficiaries of these platinum standard healthcare plans. They do not want to give up what they
have. It is a conflict of interests for them to negotiate contracts in the districts.
We have seen 2002-3 state data that the administration has verified as accurate, showing
the Horseheads teacher healthcare is a far greater percentage (16%) of the total budget, than all
but a few districts in the state (State Average 9%). This amounts to almost $2.5 million
additional expenses in our present budget with regard to healthcare. This year alone healthcare
will increase 21.95%, almost $2 million, ballooning to 18% of the total budget. The district
educators playing their selfishly political games have caused this disaster. It must be addressed
on this contract in 2005.
· With almost a $2 million increase in healthcare costs ballooning to over 18% of the
budget, only part of a $4.4 million 7.6% budget increase, we cannot negotiate a Win,
Win Contract. Educators must give back to the community that has provided for them!
With healthcare costs over 18% of the yearly budget, this is the contract we cannot
negotiate a win – win, because the community always loses! Former Superintendent Reester and
the board sabotaged the slightest of co-pays that were present in previous contracts.
The community must insist those using the healthcare policies in the Horseheads School
System pay co-pays and are subject to deductibles and caps in line with percentages prevalent in
the surrounding community. Educators must concede these platinum healthcare privileges. It is
time!
School districts have constructed elite societies within their walls whose grandiose and
synthetic life style is subsidized by the communities and it must change. How can we expect
educators to teach our children how to live in the real world when the majority of them have no
idea what the real world is like? We finance a protective bubble for them to live in.

THE ROAD TO ROSLYN LONG ISLAND
Gerald J. Furnkranz
Over 20 years of mismanagement of the Horseheads School District healthcare
insurance is a major area of contention. This problem includes educators having No Co-
pays, No Deductibles and No Caps. A $4.4 million (7.6%) budget increase almost $2
million (21%) healthcare increase bears notice. At the rate of increase we have seen the
last couple of years a $100 million budget will be reached in seven years, 2012.
Indicators of mismanagement in one area bring WARNINGS of negligence in others.
Signs are shady, but plentiful.
· At the accelerating and compounding rate of budget increases of the last three
years, we will reach a $100 Million, or $.1 Billion school district
budget by 2012, only seven years away. How will we handle that?
Horseheads School Board discussions on July 12th
2004 highlighted scandal in the
Roslyn Long Island School District. Administrators, board members and watchdog
auditors looted a reported $8.2 million, now discovered to be more than $11 million.
Attending that night was Mr. David Hulslander, a retired police officer who
investigated such crimes. He was asked by Superintendent Congdon, his voice filled with
incredulity, “How does something like this happen?”
Mr. Hulslander answered simply, “It starts with small indiscretions!”
Though listening, I don’t think Superintendent Congdon or the school board
understood his answer.
Listed in my September 2004 “Integrity Quest”, a number of issues had the
appearance of heading us toward Roslyn. (To obtain a copy send a self addressed legal
sized stamped envelope to Gerald J. Furnkranz, 4191 Main St., Millport, NY 14864.)
· High remuneration, prestigious positions see similar biannual raises, flimsy job
searches to fill them accompanied by drastically diminished responsibilities are filled
with big children dressed up to play at working!
Integrity Quest
A Journey
May 2005

Integrity Quest (May 2005)
2
The Road To Roslyn

Integrity Quest (May 2005)
3
· High remuneration, prestigious positions see similar biannual raises, flimsy job
searches to fill them accompanied by drastically diminished responsibilities are filled
with big children dressed up to play at working!
In July of 2004, the assistant superintendent received a 5.25% increase from $95,000 to
$100,000. Six months later in January of 2005 she received another 5% increase to $105,000.
That is 10.52% salary increase in one year. Each increase individually was well above the 2% to
3% yearly increases those outside the education industry are receiving in this area. Rumor is, she
is scheduled for another $5000 increase July 1, 2005. This stuffing administrator’s personal
coffers to enhance them and their retirement hurts the district both in the immediate cost of
overly inflated salaries and the districts long range obligations through administrators
retirements. These administrator raises sabotage upcoming contract negotiations.
The human resource manager seems to be on this same six month salary increase
schedule. A prestigious and lucrative position attained with minimal candidates being
interviewed seems nepotistic, as though a choice had already been made. A generous increase in
salary accompanied the awarding of this position on the basis legal fees would be lessened by
employing this individual. While tough to prove in the district’s murky budget environment, this
does not appear to be the case. This was a very flimsy search process for such a high position,
particularly in such a job market that has much talent looking for work.
Cronyism seems to have filled the business position in much the same manner. Minimal
candidates were interviewed. Immediately upon hiring, half the responsibilities, payroll and
purchasing, were sent to BOCES at additional cost to the district.
· The filling of both of these positions appears as cronyism and nepotism, importing
friendly faces that will support these behaviors. This promotes careless, lazy and
deceitful attitudes toward taxpayers money.
When defending the $95,000 salary plus $5,000 tax sheltered annuity being presented to
the public as only a $95,000 salary, when previous superintendent Keith Reester was hired, one
present board member referred to that deliberate $5000 oversight as merely pocket change.
Experience has shown waste or sloppiness with a dollar leads to five dollars. The
frivolous disposition of $5,000.00, guides to the squandering of $10,000.00. Persistent misuse
leads to habitual abuse and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars being negligently doled
out. The board and administration remind me of those couples on Dr. Phil that know nothing
about money management except spend, spend, spend. Oblivious to compounding of debt, their
ignorant arrogance casually approves destructive spending.
· A $4.4 Million budget increase with almost $2 Million increase in healthcare costs is a
budget out of control, no matter what the property tax increase is.
While the district always points to the tax increase, the budget increase is much more
important. Its like the old shell game, the district leadership has us watching the shells as they
are slipping the pea right past us. Seldom does the tax increase match the decoy tax levy
announced! The equalization myth has seldom explained the difference as the blame is pushed
off on this devised black box.

The entire budget and budget increase must be watched. Decreasing tax bases
during hard times, have taxpayers paying today’s overall budget increases in coming
years. Therefore an individual’s taxes are going up more than is predicted by the district.
When times are good, and the tax base is increasing, administrators and boards
spend and expand budgets like the waistline on a woman pregnant with sextuplets. They
could actually give tax decreases during such times, but fear giving anything back,
always taking much more than they need to insure they never have to manage effectively.
· Leadership in the district appears more like the highly greased squeaky political
wheel than the well oiled education machine as marketed. Our leadership acts
like unethical behaviors are just another part of their entitlement package. After
all, “it’s for the kids,” they say! So dishonesty is acceptable, right?
District leaders will point out greater property tax increases in other districts.
What they are saying is, “we are less incompetent than they are.” That is debatable!
Integrity Quest
May 2005

Integrity Quest
A Long Journey
Summer 2005

Integrity Quest Summer 2005
2
Horseheads District Leadership Presented An Extremely Dishonest Budget
And The People Passed It
• Opportunities for millions of dollars in savings were passed up on this years and previous
budgets out of laziness, incompetence, mismanagement and dishonesty. While we pay salaries
for heavyweight leadership, we get lightweights. No! Flyweights!
The superintendent told us that healthcare savings could only be addressed in contract
negotiations. This was a gross misrepresentation of the truth that cost the school district millions. Early
in 2004, a pharmaceutical benefits manager brought in to the district was shocked to discover 52% of the
Horseheads School District healthcare costs are pharmaceuticals. This doubled the high of the national
average range of 18 to 26%.
This money was not dependent on contractual considerations as insisted upon by Superintendent
Congdon. This money was and still is on the table to be saved by merely a respectful and judicious use of
the community’s money by the school district employees.
Failure to present the case for judicious use of healthcare to educators has occurred over the last
twenty years. It has lead to mismanagement and misuse of the Horseheads School District healthcare
privileges and funds. The emails, handouts and presentations from unit heads, done recently, a year and a
half ago or in 2001, whenever it supposedly happened, were token efforts to cover their behinds. This was
an opportunity for millions of dollars in savings that should have seen real and concerted efforts
employed. Leaving a few million dollars on the table to be wasted was certainly a lame effort.
• If generic drugs were used in the district at the national rate we could have at least reduced the
52% expenditure for drugs to the upper average number of 26% which could have saved the
district $2.7 million,
Reducing drug costs to 42% could have saved $1 million, enough to sharply reduce a tax
increase. Reducing drug costs to 32% could have saved $2 million, an opportunity for a tax cut. If
generic drugs were used in the district at the high end of the national rate we could have at least gotten
down to the upper average number of 26% which could have saved the district $2.7 million, sharply
curtailing the $4.4 million 7.6% budget increase. Better than 26% is possible, particularly when
employees see the savings with no change in the services they receive, potentially $3 to $3.5 million in
just the one area. This saving was possible by employing common sense, frugal and respectful behavior
toward the community’s money.
Information available over a year ago was ignored. If addressed assertively then, we might have
saved a $1 million or more from the 2004-5 budget. We certainly would not have had to raise it the
healthcare budget $1.8 million this year and potentially could have financed a reduction of $1 million or
more.
Still, this should have been on the radar screen for years and perhaps has been ignored like last
year. If it had been managed properly since 2001, four years ago, $7 million dollars or more could have
potentially been saved. If it had been noticed and addressed years before, many more millions of dollars
of savings would have been made available, taking nothing away from the quality of education and
services in the district. It could have reduced the growth of the budget and increases in taxes with no
change in the services provided to the district. Many millions of dollars of the communities money was
practically flushed down the toilet.
This years unnecessary $1.8 million increase in the healthcare budget only tells the district
employees the money is there, so why should they reign in behaviors. Still, while savings are available
through non-contractual means, co-pays, deductibles and caps still should be pursued and aligned with
those in the community. There is potential for even greater budget and tax reductions. This should not be

Summer 2005 Integrity Quest
3
seen as an opportunity for program expansion, but realignment to a rational growth rate our school district
can afford.
I believe an assumption should be made in addressing the remaining 82% of the budget. If we
have found potential reductions of one third in addressing only 18% of the budget, where it was denied
anything could be done; we can expect similar mismanagement and incompetence throughout the rest of
the budget and the district.
• Education leadership lives on making excuses based on mandated programs. Mandate does
not mean wasteful. Such programs can be run effectively and efficiently.
While leadership leans hard on excuses, one being that of mandated programs, it doesn’t mean
they cannot be run effectively and efficiently. Strong evidence indicates they are not. While the praising
of our district education by some members of the community and educators is strong and loud, I would
contend our poor leadership is running the education portion as ineffectively and inefficiently as the
financial portion. The principles of effectiveness and efficiency applied to the academic programs could
certainly improve education quality. Great cost saving would result while improvements in academics
could still be achieved.
There is room in the budget for education as it is now, but there is also room for education and
programs to be tremendously improved, while greatly reducing the costs. This has been shown to be
obtainable in just one area. If this selfishness in the district was addressed, and the community and
educators worked together for the good of the children, this is achievable.
• Desire to be fair to the public is not evident in the district. Arrogance and dishonesty infest,
while integrity is extinct. The hypocrisy of the superintendent, his staff and board inflicted
threats upon the community, holding it hostage for their own nefarious purposes, when money
for saving was easily within reach.
Debating a school district resident regarding educator’s misuse of their free pharmaceutical
privileges, supporting them he said confidently, “I don’t expect teachers to behave like they are living in
the real world. They never have and I don’t expect that to change.”
Superintendent Congdon insisted over the radio that the choice to use pharmaceutical privileges more
judiciously to save the community’s money was a contractual issue, because you couldn’t expect
educators to act more prudently on their own to save the community’s money. They just wouldn’t behave
with common sense to do what was right and reduce expenses on the budget. They needed the co-pays
and deductibles to teach them to stop misusing their healthcare.
When a community member stood up at a school board meeting to say it was his opinion that if the
educators had a benefit, it was their right to use it (or misuse it) anyway they wished. He did not expect
them to use it frugally giving consideration to the community’s expenses. The group of teachers in the
audience clapped loudly and cheered, clearly showing their active support of selfish, sloppy and wasteful
abuse of their benefits.
Wasteful, careless, clueless, spoiled, elitist; call it what you will, educators could save money for over
burdened benefactors without loss to themselves. Rising taxes raiding the finances of those living on the
budgetary edge cannot spur educators to use the public’s money judiciously. This should not be done
merely in hard times, but always because it is the right thing to do.
I saw Superintendent Congdon after the vote, thank those for voting their conscience. Devoid of any
such baggage he and the board lazily and selfishly bullied and held hostage a community for a nefarious
budget passing, when savings were and still are available.
This is not a school district I am proud of, though I once was. In fact I am ashamed of the behavior I
see and the community has chosen to accept based on the misconception the system is good.

Horseheads School District
52% of Total District Healthcare Costs are Pharmaceuticals 2003-4
The National Average is 18% to 26%
(Healthcare Costs in 2001-2 of $6.9 million grew to $10.4 million in four years or
$3.5million over a 50% increase)
Percentage of Total
Healthcare Cost
Dollars Savings
52% $5.4 mil
42% $4.4 mil $1.0 million savings
Integrity QuestSummer 2005
ATTENTION!!!!! - Please enter your return address at the top of the attached form
letter, sign it and send it to Alan G. Hevesi, NYS Comptroller, Comptroller’s Office, 110
State Street, Albany, NY 12236. Request Horseheads School District head the list for the
state conducted audits of the school districts. Something is very wrong here!

Resident & Residence
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
***
(607) ______________
Comptroller’s Office
110 State Street
Albany, NY 12236
_____________________, 2005
Dear Mr. Hevesi;
If the actions are as they appear in the Horseheads School District, some of them are at the very least unethical. With
the example of the Roslyn Long Island School District, I fear we are heading in that direction though I concede and hope we are
not there.
I would ask you make the Horseheads School District first on your list for the state audits. I think our leadership has
behaved in ways that warrant questioning. It is difficult for community members to get straight answers.
• Negligence in the failure to address potential reductions in Healthcare Pharmaceutical costs while the budget was increased
$4.4 million 7.6%. The superintendent had information about potential reductions at least a year prior and denied any
healthcare could be affected except contractually.
• Multiple voting machine foul-ups and miscues at voting sites during 2005 budget vote.
• Ray Cass designated for the #1 position on the voting ballot was moved to the right one complete position as were all
candidates, on a machine in Big Flats for 9 hours of voting. This gave votes for Ray Cass by name and not position to Rose
Apgar, who had been voted from the board the previous two times she ran. According to the Star-Gazette she received the
most votes.
• Machines were down at both the Big Flats and Ridge Road voting locations at the afternoon rush times, backing lines.
• Concerts were held at both the Big Flats and Ridge Road voting locations at 7:00 PM, encouraging parents who had reasons
to vote for the budget to be on hand. Crowded parking lots, particularly following machine shut downs, made it more
difficult for the elderly, who have more reasons to vote against the budget, to park close and get to the voting locations.
• Threats of discontinuation of kindergarten, music and sports made in the district classrooms and concerts.
• Superintendent getting his 2006 raise approved in January 2005, rewarding him for this inept year before it happened.
• Cronyism & nepotism, hiring of friends and acquaintances with suspect job searches to high positions at overly generous
salaries and raises for reduced and fabricated responsibilities.
• Biannual raises for Assistant Super and HR Manager amounting to over 10%
• HR Manager negotiating contracts when her own benefits depend upon her negotiations.
• New business manager hired at a greatly increased salary (friend of the superintendent). The majority of his job
responsibilities were shipped to BOCES at a greater expense. Falsely claimed it as part of Alan Hevesi’s suggested financial
oversight actions. Sabotaged a proposal for a community oversight committee that actually complied with Hevesi’s plan.
• Assistant Superintendent bringing her dog to school daily. If her dog bites someone the district is liable; a burden taxpayers
will ultimately carry.
• The assistant superintendent negotiated the Broad Street Schoolroom Rental Contract with ARC. She sits on the ARC board
of directors. The Business Manager usually involved in negotiations was pulled off this one. The going rate for renting
those rooms had been $8,500 each per year were rented to the ARC for $3000, as reported in the Star-Gazette.
• Outrageously, the Assistant Superintendent’s previous contract allowed her what amounts to an extremely expensive
healthcare gift certificate bestowing lifetime health insurance on her legal representative, at the expense of the Horseheads
School District, even after her death. They denied all this, then withdrew the language.
• Nepotism of administration and board also paid two administrators in the same position for eight months, costing taxpayers
over $52,000 additional from the budget.
• The dismissal of Sharon Reed, an honest business manager. Several weeks after her dismissal were visiting auditors
informed of a list of questionable actions? The community must ask if the business manager was dumped in the dark of
night to cover these trails?
Thank you for your consideration in this request. Perhaps your actions will put the Horseheads School District on the right road
to avoid any such Roslyn type scandal. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Print Name _______________________
Signature; ________________________

Integrity Quest Fall 2005 Integrity Quest
Fall 2005 A Journey In The Horseheads School District Fall 2005
Written, Illustrated and Published By Gerald J. Furnkranz
1
ATTENTION!!!!! - Please enter your return address at the top of the attached form
letter, sign it and send it to Alan G. Hevesi, NYS Comptroller, Comptroller’s Office, 110
State Street, Albany, NY 12236. Request Horseheads School District head the list for the
state conducted audits of the school districts. Something is very wrong here!
Business Officer Responsibilities Moved
Under False Pretenses
Mr. Congdon frantically moved
the purchasing and payroll functions of
Horseheads School District to BOCES
soon after the hiring of his highly paid
($87,000) crony as the new Business
Officer. This was done at increased costs.
He said it was one of the State
Comptroller Alan Hevisi’s suggestions for
financial oversight of school districts,
brought on by the Roslyn Long Island
School District looting.
However, it was not one of the
comptroller’s suggestions as Mr. Congdon
presented. Alan Hevesi’s five point plan
can be seen on line. My proposal
submitted to the Horseheads School Board
in March 2005 for a District Financial
Audit and Consulting Committee at no
cost, was very compatible with Mr.
Hevesi’s plan and suggestions.
Community Financial Consulting &
Audit Committee Sabotaged
At the March 5, 2005 school Board
meeting board members, an educator in
the audience and the superintendent
complained community members not
coming forward to help. Aware of
members of the community who wanted
to, I took the challenge and said I would
get the volunteers for the Community
Financial Consulting & Audit Committee
and present a proposal. A group of people
well versed in finances from a number of
professional paths volunteered. The
superintendent has done nothing with this
cost saving proposal except stall,
sabotaging the plan, seeming afraid to
have those of competence getting a peek
at his books.
Crony Hired, Honesty Fired
An old buddy of the
superintendent was hired for the Business
Managers position. Sharon Reed,
dismissed from the position in May of
2004, was the person I found to be the
most competent and honest when I was on
the school board. The entire community
had experience with her competence
witnessing the smooth running of the
budget vote for many years. The Reed
business office was dismantled with half
the responsibilities sent to BOCES.
This years vote was a fiasco with
machines down and names aligned
incorrectly on a machine. Concerts at
voting sites attracting parents to vote yes
and making it more difficult for the
elderly to cast their ballots because of
crowded parking lots.
Overly Generous Healthcare Benefits
Hurt Horseheads School District!
While prescription co-pays
appeared in administrator’s contracts
regarding district healthcare, community
members should not be duped. No co-
pays on generic drugs, no deductibles
and no caps still reveal a token effort.
A 4.2% annual raise over three
years signals the teachers they will be
more than compensated for anything they
give up. After all, most people in the area
are lucky to see between 2% and 3%
percent raises; many less. An extra percent
on an administrator’s salary can be at least
$800.00, more than paying for their $10 to
$15 co-pays. Educator’s healthcare
contributions are meaningless when
reimbursed with more than they give up.
Faked before, co-pays vanished
from administrator contracts. Yes, they
pay $500.00 for an individual policy and
$1000.00 for a family policy, but still lack
any substance with token co-pays, no
deductibles or caps. Note - Some in non
education positions pay more!
Pharmaceutical costs are said to be
between 38% to 52% of the district
healthcare costs. Information presented
to the district revealed a national average
is a range of 18% to 26%. The district is
46% to 100% greater than the high end.
Reducing costs using lower cost
providers or generic drugs could bring us
in the national range, saving $1.3 to $3.5
million in one year. This says nothing
about the many millions we could have
saved over the years.
In 2002-3 district healthcare was
16.2% of the budget, two districts in NYS
were higher. The state average is 9%.
Costs are now over 18%, going up in
Horseheads while around the state the
School Board Association has revealed
districts are addressing healthcare cost
reduction with higher co-pays and
deductibles. Horseheads’ costs are rising
while other NYS districts are making
major efforts to bring costs down.
Concerts to Confuse Budget Vote
Concerts put on school calendars
for the day of the budget vote eight
months in advance are intentionally
encouraging parents who are motivated to
vote “Yes” when music is threatened. It
makes voting more difficult for the elderly
increasing distance and traffic. If the
district leadership put as much effort into
developing honest budgets as they put into
passing dishonest ones, there would be
fewer problems eating at this district.
Manipulative, underhanded, you decide!

Integrity Quest Fall 2005 Fall 2005 Integrity Quest
2 3
School Board? Cheerleaders! “NOT” Real Leaders!!
A Great School District?
You won’t criticize the school
district without finding its ardent
defenders. You’ll be told how wonderful
the district is, one of the best in the state.
(104 out of 441). It was pretty good once
and comparatively now better than some.
Sloppy comparisons are what defenders
lean upon and sabotage results.
Good companies resting on their
laurels, go the same path as good schools
or other good institutions. Enron, Tyco,
Adelphia, World Com, getting lazy, set in
their ways, can continue for years on the
positive momentum established when they
were good. Eventually they merely go
through the motions of behaviors that
established their excellence, without
effort, those standards are actually lost
because they were done out of reflex
rather than purpose. Eventually
productive purpose is lost, and selfish
purpose is endorsed, almost out of laziness
and protectionism of individual positions.
It takes awhile for momentum to
dwindle, but once it does, it drops off fast.
The organization heads downward and no
one remembers how they did it in the past.
People begin faking their way, selling
images that do not really exist.
Leadership born from the diving
organization turns to corrupt methods to
protect the incompetence they have
worked hard to nurture.
Questionable Hiring Practices
While the assistant superintendent
says hiring processes are extensive, they
seem to use cronyism as a guide. The HR
manager and Business Official both
benefited from rather limited and pre-
directed job searches.
Asked a question about the job
search process at the June 6th
meeting, I
was surprised when the assistant
superintendent said they became
suspicious and paid extra attention to
candidates that said on their
correspondence, “call if you have
additional questions.” She identified this
as a red flag they were hiding something.
Huh!
My experience is job search
consultants tell you to put this on resumes
and cover letters because it would be
foolish to put all information in them. She
mentioned keeping notes specifically to
counter any complaints about hiring
practices.
There seems to be an inherent
paranoia about this process. It sounds to
me this extensive system is set up to hire
those that fit into a certain way of
thinking, not a quality level of candidates.
Teacher’s Union Sits on Both
Sides of Contract Negotiations
Still in negotiations five of the
nine, a majority of school board
members benefit directly from district
healthcare staying as it is, to say nothing
about the district administrators.
Three retired teachers with strong
union ties now sit on the school board.
They have little interest in being fair to the
community when it comes to spending its
money. Especially when it comes to their
healthcare benefits.
Mark Brinthaupt’s wife is a retired
teacher, so he drinks from the trough.
John Abbott’s wife is a current teacher.
We have not seen a willingness to
be fair to the community from these
people and I see no reason to expect it in
the future.
Selfishness motivates the board
and administration. We cannot expect
them to do what is right. They haven’t up
till now!

Resident & Residence
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
***
(607) ______________
Comptroller’s Office
110 State Street
Albany, NY 12236
_____________________, 2005
Dear Mr. Hevesi;
Many actions occurring in the Horseheads School District appearing unethical seem to be escalating at a greater rate. With
the example of the Roslyn Long Island School District, I fear we are heading in that direction faster, though I hope we are not
there yet. We are certainly moving in that direction.
I would ask you make the Horseheads School District first on your list for the state audits. I think our leadership has
behaved in ways that warrant questioning. It is difficult for community members to get answers let alone honest answers.
• Negligence in the failure to address potential reductions in Healthcare Pharmaceutical costs while the budget was increased
$4.4 million 7.6%, the healthcare budget increased $1.8 million. The superintendent denied any healthcare could be affected
except contractually.
• Bill Carney principle at the middle school was on internal sabbatical from his job to collect data and assess programs,
including intensive scheduling. Bill Congdon’s admission programs had not been evaluated sufficiently prior to the budget
vote to make any cuts and Mr. Brinthaupt putting evaluation of intensive scheduling on this year’s list of board goals, cast
doubt on principal Carney’s work.
• Policy 5152, admission of out of district students, suspended two years ago. Secondary school students were grandfathered
and allowed to remain. That number was given as 24 and later as 49 students. That new out of district students were not
allowed to enter was false.
• Multiple voting machine foul-ups and miscues at voting sites during 2005 budget vote.
• Ray Cass designated for the #1 position on the voting ballot was moved to the right one complete position as were all
candidates, on a machine in Big Flats for 9 hours of voting.
• Machines were down at both the Big Flats and Ridge Road voting locations at the afternoon rush times, backing lines.
• Concerts were held at both the Big Flats and Ridge Road voting locations at 7:00 PM, encouraging parents who had reasons
to vote for the budget to be on hand. Crowded parking lots, particularly following machine shut downs, made it more
difficult for the elderly, who have more reasons to vote against the budget, to park close and get to the voting locations.
• Threats of discontinuation of kindergarten, music and sports made in the district classrooms and concerts.
• Superintendent getting his 2006 raise approved in January 2005, rewarding him for this inept year before it happened.
• Cronyism & nepotism, numerous hiring of family, friends and acquaintances with suspect job searches to high positions at
overly generous salaries and raises for reduced and fabricated responsibilities and numerous additional benefits.
• Biannual raises for Assistant Superintendent and HR Manager amounting to over 10%
• HR Manager negotiating contracts when her own benefits depend upon her negotiations.
• New business manager hired at a greatly increased salary (friend of the superintendent). The majority of his job
responsibilities were shipped to BOCES at a greater expense. Falsely claimed it as part of Alan Hevesi’s suggested financial
oversight actions. Sabotaged a proposal for a community oversight committee that actually complied with Hevesi’s plan.
• Assistant Superintendent bringing her dog to school daily. If her dog bites someone the district is liable.
• The assistant superintendent negotiated the Broad Street Schoolroom Rental Contract with ARC. She sits on the ARC board
of directors.
• Outrageously, the Assistant Superintendent’s previous contract allowed her what amounts to an extremely expensive
healthcare gift certificate bestowing lifetime health insurance on her legal representative, at the expense of the Horseheads
School District, even after her death. They denied all this, then withdrew the language.
• Nepotism of administration and board also paid two administrators in the same position for eight months, costing taxpayers
over $52,000.
• The dismissal of Sharon Reed, an honest business manager. Several weeks after her dismissal were visiting auditors
informed of a list of questionable actions? The community must ask if the business manager was dumped in the dark of
night to cover these trails?
Thank you for your consideration in this request. Perhaps your actions will put the Horseheads School District on the right
road to avoid any such Roslyn type corruption. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Print Name _____________________________________
Signature; ______________________________________

1 of 4
Twenty Years Of Horseheads School District Healthcare Mismanagement - May 2005
Over 20 years of mismanagement of the Horseheads School District healthcare insurance is a major area of
contention on the budget. This problem includes educators having No Co-pays, No Deductibles and No Caps.
A $4.4 million (7.6%) budget increase almost $2 million of which is an increase in healthcare expenses bears
notice. At this rate of increase a $100 million budget will be reached in seven years, 2012. Indicators of
mismanagement in one area bring warnings of negligence in others. Signs are shady, but plentiful.
Leadership in the district appears more like the highly greased squeaky political wheel than the well oiled
education machine oft depicted by the district. High pay, prestigious positions see similar biannual raises amounting to
$10,000 yearly. Flimsy job searches to fill them accompanied by drastically diminished responsibilities, see these
positions filled with big children dressing up and playing at working! This appears as cronyism or nepotism,
importing friendly faces that will support these kinds of behaviors.
The district is their grab bag to run into retirement with pockets filled. The school board has given
administrators permission to do this.
A yes vote on the budget is to head us on the road to Roslyn Long Island whose school district experienced an
$11 million looting by its leadership.
Horseheads School District Presented A Dishonest - June, 2005
Horseheads district leadership presented a dishonest budget, when the superintendent said healthcare savings
could be addressed only in contract negotiations, followed with threats of discontinuation of kindergarten, music
programs and sports.
Early in 2004, a pharmaceutical benefits manager was shocked to discover 52% of the Horseheads School
District healthcare costs are pharmaceuticals, doubling the high of the national average range of 18 to 26%. They
ignored savings available by judicious use of the community’s money. Generic drug use at the high end of the
national rate could have saved $2.7 million sharply curtailing the $4.4 million 7.6% budget increase and created a tax
decrease.
Multiple voting machine foul-ups at voting sites during 2005 budget vote make the budget vote suspect. The
voting ballot moved right one complete position gave votes for Ray Cass by name to Rose Apgar, voted off the board
the previous two times she ran. According to the Star-Gazette she received the most votes.
Machines down at both the Big Flats and Ridge Road voting locations at the afternoon rush times, backed up
lines. Concerts held at both locations at 7:00 PM, encouraged parents to be on hand to vote for the budget. Crowded
parking lots, particularly following machine shut downs, created barriers for the elderly, who had more reasons to vote
against the budget.
This voting fiasco, an indicator of incompetence if not dishonesty by district leadership must be investigated.
Integrity Quest
A Laborious Journey In The Horseheads School District
Written, Illustrated and Published by Gerald J. Furnkranz
Spring 2006 - Year In Recap and Visiting The Future

Spring 2006 Integrity Quest Spring 2006
2 of 4
Community Committee That Could Reduce Spending Rejected - July 2005
At a March 5th
2005 budget meeting the superintendent proposed sending payroll and purchasing
responsibilities for the Horseheads School District to BOCES. The reason given was to provide financial oversight as
suggested by Alan Hevesi in response to the embezzlement of over $11 million in the Roslyn Long Island School
District.
Having become aware of willing community members with experience in financial areas, I presented the idea
to the board of a District Financial Audit and Consulting Committee that could provide oversight services for free.
They could also help development of budget and finance areas.
Receiving doubtful views from the board and superintendent about community participation, I told them I
would develop a proposal and provide a list of names for the committee, the final draft sent to the board on March 31,
2005.
The next meeting, the payroll and purchasing were shipped to BOCES. The new business manager making
$5,000.00 more than the last one now had a large part of his responsibilities lifted and shipped out at a cost increase of
$16,000.00 according to the superintendent.
Checking on line it turned out BOCES oversight was not on Alan Hevesi’s list of solutions. A committee
similar to the one I had proposed was.
The knowledge and skills of community members could be helpful to provide major services and
improvements to the district at no additional expense. They could help bring the millions of dollars of over spending
for healthcare pharmaceuticals under control. There are many possibilities for using a community finance committee
in the district to help carry the burden.
Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Wasted Each Month - August 2005
In early 2004 a pharmaceuticals benefits manager visiting the Horseheads School District was surprised to
discover 52% of the districts yearly healthcare costs went to the purchasing of drugs, a number verified by the
superintendent. At the August 1, 2005 school board meeting the figure used was 38%.
One of these figures or somewhere in between lies the truth! In all cases there are millions of dollars to be
saved by shopping for generic or other lower cost drugs. This saving is not dependent upon contract negotiations, but
merely the judicious use of pharmaceuticals by participants in the district healthcare plan.
The national average is a range from 18% to 26%. This range used by the benefits manager indicates a
spectrum of available savings from $1.3 to $2.7 million per year if our use was lowered only to the upper average of
26%.
The community was told at budget time there were no savings in healthcare expenses to be had without
contract negotiations only to find millions of dollars were available with common courtesy to the publics funding of
the districts healthcare privilege.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are needlessly wasted each month this loose use of healthcare continues.
This needs to be pursued aggressively today, along with co-pays, deductibles and caps in the current contract
negotiations.
A previously mention Community Financial Audit and Consulting Committee could be instrumental in
discovering the real numbers and developing a plan for major drug cost reduction.
Horseheads Community Shafted Again In District Contract Negotiations - October 2005
The Horseheads school board in August 2005 announced results of contract negotiations with administrators,
warning the community is again about to take the shaft. Co-pays have finally been introduced in the district healthcare
plan, yet sadly at miniscule levels. There are no co-pays on the use of generic drugs, as most community members
must pay.
Again, there are no deductibles and no caps. These need to be introduced immediately into all district
contracts being negotiated. Twenty years of failure to address these important concerns must be addressed today.
Raises of 4.2 percent per year announced for administrators, again signal teachers will be more than
compensated for the little they give up in healthcare concessions. They call this “win-win”. The teachers win, the
administrators win and the community loses again!
Most employed in the area have seen between two to three percent wage increases and less for several years
now. The district educators always get a couple of percent over what the community realizes in yearly increases, along
with additional ongoing raises according to a matrix in their contract.
Educators in the district must learn to live in our real world, as part of the community team, working for the
best of the district, not an opponent trying to con the community at every negotiation. It certainly would be appropriate
for them to give more than they take sometimes. We need them to be a team member, not a parasite, thriving at the
expense of the community’s health.
District Finance And Budget Philosophy: Stall Budget Reduction Process - November 2005
Last spring community members received an invitation to a Horseheads school district budget meeting
anticipating the birth of the Community Financial Audit & Consulting Committee. It began with 45 minutes defining a
glossary of almost 50 terms, only three used during the ensuing 2.5 hour discussion. It was a montage of words;
excuses for why nothing in the budget could change: a clear message nothing would.
We are seeing the feigning of an early addressing of the Horseheads’ District budget this year. Handouts have
been distributed at board meetings. Increases are projected in every area. The same medley of excuses was sung to
those enthusiastic community members over six months ago. Long practiced songs of contractual woe: no, we can’t
cut anything, accompany the same old dog and pony show! Still they continue implementing new and costly contract
give-a-ways!

3 of 4
District leadership’s derailing tactics of useless definitions did not dampen spirits, blossoming into hours of
intelligent observations. Those community members came up with a stream of achievable suggestions for cost
reduction. Still, strong signals were sent, the committee was dead.
Those district citizens were told they needed to get involved earlier, yet have not received communication
about further involvement since. Many still await answers to questions first asked over a year ago and many times
since.
District leadership seems to lack the will to address these issues. Wasteful spending supports personal
agendas. Their mantra, more money to the district (education) means more money to them. This is the leadership
driver in the Horseheads School District.
More Contract Give-A-Ways Burden District Taxpayers - January 2006
Out-of-district employee’s children coming to the Horseheads school district free have greater ramifications
than considered. The superintendent wrongly defended, “it costs the district nothing.” The state pays a certain
amount. District taxpayers make up the difference!
He said, they would not accept students if it meant adding teachers. We know the budget is overly padded.
How will we know when money is slipped into the budget to meet the contractual demand of this give-a-way?
A principal living out-of-district contractually requires his child to attend our district! Won’t the district be
compelled to add teachers if necessary? Then, don’t the service employee’s children contractually privileged get to
attend even if it means expanding the district at greater cost to taxpayers?
In the Leader Superintendent Congdon was quoted, “I don’t feel comfortable being judge and jury on who gets
in and who doesn’t.” If that decision has contractually bestowed the right, the district must expand to meet that
commitment putting a strain on buildings and budgets.
Congdon stated, “Our residents’ students need to come first.” If there are students coming to the district for
sports, do resident’s children get first preference? If we are as good a district has marketed, wouldn’t more parents
want to send their children? When this gets out of control because of leadership’s slipshod decision making, as with
healthcare we’ll be told, “they can’t do anything about it because it’s in the contract!” It is the Horseheads community
that has continually been the recipient of bad faith negotiating.
A Quarter Million Dollars For A Data Administrator - February 2006
Another of the many areas of waste in the Horseheads School District is the Data Administrator’s position.
Originally a six month appointment, it stretched two years costing the district about $250,000.
Presentations at board meetings show the same sloppy use of data practiced for decades. Empirical data is
camouflage as in the recent intermediate school and block scheduling presentations. Anecdotal (hear-say) data,
unproven anonymous and personal testimonials are used to sell the district point of view instead of real data to
represent actual program status. Crunching the numbers actually means doctoring them to support district leadership’s
agenda.
There are several ways data development could have been done far cheaper and much more effectively.
Bringing in a consultant costing $20,000 at the very most was one option.
Another was among the suggested responsibilities of the proposed District Financial Audit and Consulting
Committee, working with teachers in the areas of math, computers and business to develop district financial data. This
system could have been applied to cultivate useful empirical educational data and provide valuable real world
experience to students in data management at practically no additional cost.
This development of appropriate spreadsheets and data presentation could be utilized well into the future,
increasing the effective use of data. Computer entry could have been added to an existing secretarial position if not
already done.
Frivolously dropping a quarter million dollars for a data administrator, with little to no results, exemplifies the
district’s cavalier approach to wasting money provided by the community.
Poor Leadership Will Infect All Areas - March 1, 2006
Looking at the Horseheads School District 2005 budget $1.3 to $3.5 millions in possible savings were found
where district leadership told us there was none. Found in the healthcare pharmaceuticals only 8% of the entire
budget, depending on which numbers you believe.
In a mere fraction of the entire budget and 38% to 52% of the healthcare we find millions of dollars wasted. A
$1.8 million increase in the healthcare budget in 2005 and a projected increase of almost $2 million in 2006 (Oct.18,
2005 Star-Gazette) gives the illusion of a decrease in pharmaceutical abuse, when in reality it reveals major overall
healthcare abuse. Educators misusing the pharmaceuticals privilege will bring familiar habits of waste and abuse, to
the physicians care aspect, infecting the remaining 82% of the budget.
A slovenly and haphazard leadership policy to finances exemplifies and nurtures the same grossly wasteful
approach in education. All the money in the world will not improve education when nothing but the squandering of
resources is seen as do-able.
Tightening the purse strings and making better financial decisions will force educators to be more disciplined
in their approach to spending as well as educating. Major budget reductions along with substantial tax cuts are feasible
when a disgustingly bloated budget is managed properly.
Effectiveness and efficiency could be reintroduced in a way that can educate all involved. This would create
the right model for educators and children being taught to survive and thrive in the real world.
Many Areas Of Waste Obvious; What Else Is Out There? - April 2006
A data administrator was appointed, costing the Horseheads school district about $250,000 over two years.
The presentation of data has not changed during this time. Anecdotal data is still preferred over empirical data that is

4 of 4
only present so it can be said it is. This could have been achieved at far less expense and much more effectively
through real world projects for math, business and computer classes.
A $68,000 announcers tower on the soccer field doesn’t seem like much. At least not compared to a quarter
million dollars for a data administrator. Neither do the two raises of 5% six months apart for some administrators. It
only amounted to a couple of additional $5,000 increases.
Starting with ten thousand dollars here, and sixty eight thousand dollars there and two hundred and fifty
thousand somewhere else it totals about $328,000. Free admission give-a-ways for out-of-district employee’s children
could expand enormously, further taxing community member’s finances. This isn’t chicken feed!
Add to it the failures to address the millions of dollars of waste, minimal co-pays, no deductibles or caps in the
healthcare portion of the budget and the wasted dollars are adding up very fast. A District Financial Audit and
Consulting Committee would certainly find more areas for saving. The superintendent and board have reigned over a
major abuse of the Horseheads school district budget.
Failures Of District Are Fixable! - May 2006
The failures in the Horseheads school district are extensive, reaching into every aspect of its leadership. At
budget time the financial area should be permanently fixed.
The board and administration’s failure to address numerous areas of waste might indicate they just are not
capable. Knowing they lack the ability keeps them hiding the facts instead of facing and addressing them. They are
afraid because they are over their heads.
There are community members who are willing to help! They have the skills and solutions to address the
problems. Yet, it seems district leadership would sacrifice positive results to clutch the power they have.
They would cultivate greater power with success. The ability to plan and achieve results is powerful.
Lowering costs and increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of our district certainly would hand them great
credibility. Their sabotaging the district to save face is eroding their standing in the community.
Today’s educators behave as if they must possess all the knowledge and answers. The smartest people I have
known in my life, whether highly schooled or not, are those that know what they don’t know.
This administration and board have no intention of doing the right thing unless they are forced to. This means
holding them accountable by voting down the budget until they realize there is no other way out except for them to do
a much better job.
Nepotism and Cronyism; Keys to the Horseheads District Hiring Process
• Nepotism - favoritism shown by people in high offices to relatives or close friends especially in granting jobs.
• Cronyism - favoritism shown to friends regardless of qualifications, as in filling political positions.
When I first wrote about nepotism in the district practices, I was referring to the hiring of the human resource
manager. A friend of assistant superintendent Biagetti’s, she was hired six months before the position was opened for
her convenience, with a sharply limited job search, and a personalized job description that fit few others than herself.
Since, Like Biagetti she has received preferential biannual raises, these actions certainly could be characterized as
favoritism and preferential treatment, coming under both categories of nepotism and cronyism.
The very competent Sharon Reed was dismissed from the position of Business Manager for the Horseheads
School District, literally in the dark of night, raising a red flag. Less than a year later the new business coordinator
hired was a close friend of the superintendent. Then the superintendent moved payroll and purchasing to BOCES,
greatly reducing his responsibilities, under the false premise it was a financial oversight suggestion of NYS
Comptroller Alan Hevesi. We paid more for this guy; then we paid even more to send a major part of his
responsibilities to BOCES.
A quarter million dollars for the Data Administrator which seems like an emeritus position. The making
contractual of the out-of-district student privilege to employees, seems like a tool built for cronyism. Questionable
hiring of a number of well positioned employees in the district that seemed to gain favor before the hire. These blatant
behaviors bring cronyism into question on almost every hire.

Integrity Quest
May 2006 – Page 1
Truth Required In The Horseheads
School District;
To Build An Honest Budget
By Deloris M. Cass
(From her May 7th
2006 letter to the Star-Gazette)
An April 15 letter to the editor by Alan Dedrick gave false
information to cover up wasteful spending in the Horseheads School
District.
The cost of the concession announcer stand was not less than
$14,000, it was more than $68,000 to the taxpayers. This information
was received after sending in a Freedom of Information Law request.
The answer to this request was signed by Superintendent William
Congdon and confirmed recently by the district's business manager.
Regarding the data coordinator (administrator), adding this
position in January 2005 anticipating state requirements is like
playing Russian roulette. Spending unnecessarily for what might be
mandated by the state seems very foolish.
Gerald Furnkranz was not using inflammatory or derogatory
statements in his April 9 letter to the editor. He just wants to get the
plain truth out to the public, which is not coming from the Horseheads
School District through the school board meetings, the minutes and
many FOIL requests.
It's difficult to uncover the truth in the Horseheads School
District. This makes it impossible to build budgets that are fair and
honest to the community.
1 of 2

Integrity Quest
May 2006 – Page 2
Dear Community,
The hypocrisy of Al Dedrick, Horseheads School Board Member,
accusing anyone of spreading false information is laughable if not so
reprehensible.
Dedrick mischaracterizes as bullying my writing over three dozen
letters to the school board and superintendent asking questions that have
received no answers. Community members question at meetings with no
answers forthcoming. Information distributed is often contradicted by
leadership’s own words. Dedrick’s distorted definition of detailed
information seems to be dogmatic (yes stamp) excuses from education
industry talking points.
Dedrick totally falsifies the facts arguing, “the announcer/concession
stand cost taxpayers only $14,000.00.” Not true! Over $68,000.00 came
from the general fund, all taxpayer money. At the April 11th
board meeting
Dedrick justified the removal of employee contributions from the
healthcare portion of the budget disguising the 2006 increase of about $1.4
million over 13 percent as only $384,222.00 or 3.68%. Manipulate the
figures to rationalize as you wish, the Data Administrator’s compensation
is about $250,000.00 over two years for another tailored crony appointment
producing little. Such leadership actions dominate the Horseheads School
District.
Dedrick spouts with authority, a dominant board (attack dog) voice,
demeaning and intimidating community members. Heading the board
finance committee and district audit committee he plays fast and loose with
the truth. Dedrick whines like the bully confronted! If one voice threatens
to destroy the district, is the district as good as marketed?
It is said, “Figures don’t lie; liars figure!” Given the facts, the
community will decide the truth and who is endangering the district!
Sincerely,
Gerald J. Furnkranz
2 of 2

1 of 6
Presidential Contamination
A Fraudulent Leadership Presides Over The District
Integrity Quest
An Excruciating Journey In The Horseheads School District
Written, Illustrated and Published by Gerald J. Furnkranz
Summer 2006 – Presidential Edition
The Monster Unleashed!!!

Summer 2006 INTEGRITY QUEST Summer 2006
2 of 6
IN HER MAY 12TH
, 2006 CAMPAIGN NEWSLETTER, PTO PRESIDENT SABRYNA REED MOCKED THE
IMPLICATION THERE IS A LACK OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN THE DISTRICT. HER ENSUING ACTIONS
PROVED IT TRUE AND LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION, NEW BOARD PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MANY
BOARD MEMBERS, SHOWED SHE HAS LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORDS HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.
In 2005 Incidents of Campaigning In Classrooms and At Concerts Were Apparently Ignored
Superintendent Congdon falsely claimed in the media and at meetings, “if the 2005 budget were voted down,
kindergarten, sports and music would be cut”. Campaigning incidents in classrooms were brought to the attention of
the superintendent and the board, reflected in the Horseheads School Board Meeting Minutes of May 9th
2005.
Community member, Brian Henry of Lemae Drive stood up to inform the board and superintendent that “His daughter
came home from the High School concerned that programs would be cut next year. He didn’t appreciate teachers using
children for this purpose!”
Superintendent Congdon addressed the concern, according to those same minutes answering, “The district
and the board agree that involving children in this way is inappropriate, and this has been addressed with all staff.”
Congdon’s token actions signaled he wanted his bogus message conveniently carried further, utilizing
campaigning in district facilities, including classrooms and concerts.
Falsely Disparaging School Board Candidates (2006)
Board member Alan Dedrick’s knowingly false accusation in his letter to the Star-Gazette of April 14th
& 15th
2006 said the cost of the announcers tower/concession stand only cost district taxpayers $14,000.00, when it was really
$68,000.00.
Michael Stuart, the district Business Coordinator informed,” the entire cost of the announcer Tower/
Concession Stand came from the general fund, taxpayer money.” A September 27, 2005, FOIL Request answered and
signed by Superintendent William C. Congdon on September 28, 2005 confirmed the recently built structure cost the
district $68,136. Mr. Dedrick, as part of both the board Finance and Financial Audit committees works closely with
Mr. Stuart and had easy access to the information. Deloris Cass outlined Mr. Dedrick’s deceit in her May 7, 2006 letter
to the Star-Gazette.
Superintendent Congdon tried to justify his crony’s lies as Mr. Dedrick thinking there was state
reimbursement when there was not. Still, it was falsifying the truth because they are taxpayer funds. His accusations
were intended to and did falsely discredit factual information and the candidate revealing the information to the public.
The incident exposes district leadership, including the superintendent, and specific board members as
untrustworthy; unable to act with integrity or basic ethics. Now Mr. Dedrick brings his adept deception skills to the
position of school board president.
School Board Member Says Illegal Campaigning Portrayed As Miscommunication Is A Lie!
Former Horseheads School District teacher and present school board member Patty Turner was quoted in the
Board of Education Meeting minutes of June 19, 2006, “Mrs. Turner said the board election is a concern of hers and
members of the community. She said she is concerned about ethics, possible criminal acts, and principals acting
illegally. She said she would like to know exactly what happened. She said she wants the superintendent, board
president, and attorney to give her in writing what happened. She said it happened twice, and she heard it was a
miscommunication. She said that is a lie. She asked when she will have the information. Mrs. Turner said the public
has a right to know, and that the board is a sham and a rubber stamp.”
An Extensive Clockwork Campaign Hardly Seems A Miscommunication!
Letters received from the NYS Education department communicated: A board of education has the right to
present informational material to voters concerning a proposed annual budget or proposition. A school district may
disseminate only objective, factual information. “To educate, to inform, to advocate or to promote voting on any issue
may be undertaken, provided it is not to persuade nor to convey favoritism, partisanship, partiality, approval or
disapproval…of any issue, worthy as it may be (Stern v. Kramarsky, 84 Misc.2d 447).
While a board of education may disseminate information “reasonably necessary” to educate and inform
voters, its use of district resources to distribute materials designed “to exhort the electorate to caste their ballots in
support of a particular position advocated by the board” violates the constitutional prohibition against using public
funds to promote a partisan position (Phillips v. Maurer, supra: Appeal of Allen, 32 Ed Dept Rep 69, Decision No.
12,761). In short a board member or other district official may inform, but may not exhort.
Horsheads administrator’s, school board member’s and PTO’s actions certainly run contrary to the decisions
from the State Education Department. Those decisions were not only violated this year with the following information,
but were more than violated in 2005 when the superintendent went on TV and in the newspapers falsely stated we
would lose all day kindergarten, music and sports if the budget were voted down. Campaigning with the same slogan
took place in district classrooms and concerts.
The illegal campaigning reached much farther into the district in 2006, exhibiting these actions were
becoming an inherent part of the accepted behavior of our educators in the classrooms and at school functions. The
PTO’s are a marketing arm of the board and administration. They could easily trade support and marketing services
touting pro district agendas for favors in return.
• A Ridge Road PTO newsletter was distributed announcing David Searles would be attending a May 3, 2006
PTO meeting in the Ridge Road library to reveal his school board platform to the PTO and parent attendees.
• Mark Brinthaupt, 20 year board member and self proclaimed sage, illegally presented his platform at the
May 3, 2006 PTO meeting at the Ridge Road School library. He disingenuously denied knowledge of support
from the PTOs.
• New candidate David Searles was given extended coverage in the Horseheads School District newsletter,
afforded much more space than other candidates.
• Announcement of the BEST Ticket, Brinthaupt, Eusden, Searles Ticket, by David Searles, came on the
evening of May 10, 2006 school board candidate forum.
• On May 11th
, the BEST Ticket appeared in the morning Star-Gazette, along with David Searles biography,
affording him considerable additional space.
• A newsletter was distributed in Center Street School classrooms dated May 11, 2006, WETM TV later
reported.
• Letters were distributed at Ridge Road school classrooms on May 12th
as first reported by WETM.

Integrity Quest: A Journey in the Horseheads School District

Integrity Quest: A Journey in the Horseheads School District

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Integrity Quest: A Journey in the Horseheads School District

Similaire à Integrity Quest: A Journey in the Horseheads School District (13)

Plus de Gerald Furnkranz

Plus de Gerald Furnkranz (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Integrity Quest: A Journey in the Horseheads School District