I recently sent this message to our Board of School Directors (excerpts only)
From Today’s NYT – worth reading as you ponder real estate taxing plans, merit increases and other compensation issues. The good news for your employees is that they all have a pension guaranteed by the state, so “saving for the future” is not a critical issue and you don’t need to look for creative ways to help them do it. …..{somone on the board may be able to } help predict the impact of Wyeth on this area – the article suggests ~20,000 people will lose jobs as a result of the acquisition/merger {with Pfizer. }
When GE and GE/ Space did a major layoff in the 60s, even local country clubs lost upwards of 30% of their membership – so it wasn’t just the “vulnerable” that were affected.
In the new teacher’s contract, people who DID NOT WORK FOR US when you negotiated it (i.e.they started on Step 1 this year) will get these raises over the term of the contract if they do not change educational levels.
|
Bachelors 17.7% |
Masters 18.0% |
M+15 25.4% |
M+30 29.5% |
M+45 30.0% |
M+60 34.0% |
PhD 36.8% |
…… Do you know ANYONE in industry that will get that kind of raise over 4 years? It’s not always JUST the big picture. These are the details that concern me. The cost of health care is not under anyone’s control …{and that fact} exposes local taxpayers to inordinate risks. Market driven issues cannot continue to be so important in compensation – as the market is likely to LURE people into education that would not really want to be there…. pre-tenure hires can be a waste of staff development resources….
Here is the link to today’s NYT article:
BUSINESS / ECONOMY | January 27, 2009
Layoffs Spread to More Sectors of the Economy
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Companies across the board are resorting to mass job cuts, suggesting that employers expect a long downturn.
END OF EMAIL
I encourage readers to click on the link and read the article — though similar information was trumpted on the front page of USA Today and I’m sure countless other media outlets.
The sky may or may not be falling — but taxing authorities will never run out of money (and we just might). The Federal government is considering spending trillions to stimulate the economy — a fairly loud signal that the economy is weak. Locally, we need to be sure we don’t budget for what we WANT, but for what we truly NEED. I believe our Board understands that — but we need to remind them when pressures from other factions influence their decision making.
I am not in a good mood right now, but with the loss of the Eagles today, I now have time to focus on this blog — something I have considered for several months. I am a former 3-term member of the TE Board of School Directors, and I’m doing this blog to share my observations and conclusions about the current operation of the District. I believe the current board is working hard, but does not seem to be asking enough questions (public deliberation) about the recommendations from Administration that are becoming policy.
Moving to a new site Feb 7 2009
February 7, 2009 · Comments Off
After several suggestions from folks around the state, I am relocating my commentary and efforts to http://SchoolSpending.wordpress.com –
WHY? Because TESD2009 is too local a name for the broad issue of school spending. While I live here, and was a member of the TESD board for 3 terms, this blog is not meant to be narrowly focused on TE.
TE does a great job. Don’t get my scrutiny confused with criticism. Having said that, however, I was somewhat appalled (confused, really) at a Public Information meeting this past week when the board’s president said that TE wants to be first in education, but not transparency. Board member Debbie Bookstaber, along with Karen Cruikshank and Pat Wood did not seem to agree with this assessment. Caution in what to disclose is prudent, but openly suggesting that we aren’t about disclosure is something else.
Consistent with that hesitation, however, was that at this same meeting, attended by all of 3 members of the public. the Board’s president had summoned a presentation (a paid presentation) by the District’s solicitor. Not that I don’t enjoy hearing a legal presentation on Open Records, but there was no decision to be made at this meeting, and paying several hundred dollars for his appearance”just in case” a question came up seems a bit wasteful. Mr. Roos had prepared a memorandum on the topic and distributed it to the audience. That seemed to have been sufficient for the process, and his presence may have been a bit unnecessary. (Note that the District’s Open Records Officer and the Superintendent were not present at the meeting — perfectly customary in this case as the administration was well represented, but if the board felt that the Solicitor needed to be present, perhaps they might have ensured additional administrative support).
So — move on over to my new site. Hope to see you there! This will be my last post here.
Comments OffCategories: Commentary