Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. CuriousResident
   Member

   The Landmark printed something called Turnaround needed at RBHS...I say "something", because it says based on Chris Robling's Oct. 13 remarks to the board. , which makes you think it was not actually a letter sent to the Landmark. ?

   Anywhose, the information about the pending D208 financial problems are for sure needed to be brought to the forefront, as it is clear that we should expect referendums from both the village and D208 and if they don't pass things are going to become quite volatile.

   That being said, since Chris frequents this forum I thought I'd post a curiosity I had about the amount of focus in the "letter" on the past...and in particular the conclusion:

   Accountability would get a jump-start with town hall meetings on why the majority approved a contract that requires higher property taxes to fund 32 percent raises.

   It makes sense to clearly know "where we are", but I guess I don't know what we expect to achieve from reviewing the past and assigning "accountability". It won't change where we are and it would seem to take away from focusing on "where do we go from here".

   What's the thinking?

   Posted Wednesday Oct 21, 2009 11:58 #

2. chrisrobling
   Member

   As you point out, RBHS' 32 percent raises and their impact on school finances and our property taxes have received scant attention. Not surprisingly, the Board has done all it can to avoid awareness of the contract "negotiation" and impact as such.

   To get out of this fiscal mess, overcome the reign of error listed in the piece and shape RBHS into Illinois' premiere public high school of its size, we need to know exactly how all this happened.

   I assert we cannot simply blame a departed superintendent/principal as, I regret, some members of the Board seem bent on doing, and let it go at that. In light of the Board's statutory responsibility to oversee the superintendent, that is convenient and evasive institutional question-begging.

   The search firm reported that RBHS needs its integrity restored and that "accountability" is desired by all of its constituencies. "Accountability" for the disasters we have seen begins when those responsible are held accountable for their results.

   That means public attention and understanding. The public attention you mention, and I hope the Landmark piece engenders, including this exchange before Riversideinfo readers, will, I hope, help clarify how we got here, so we know how not to return here.

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 06:32 #

3. CuriousResident
   Member

   I'm hearing/reading a mixed message...

   One theme is knowledge:
   "help clarify how we got here, so we know how not to return here"
   "We need to know exactly how all this happened"?

   The other theme is "when those responsible are held accountable for their results"

   I agree that scapegoating Jack for the financial situation would be silly, but I struggle with the idea that there needs to be a "come to jesus" about the past before we can move on. The fact is that the contract with the teachers' union is binding and we need to be planning for "what next".

   It should be clear to all that the board and the superintendent together are responsible/accountable for leading the district. The super is gone, as are a portion of the board that was here during that time, and Herbst is no longer president.

   Are you are calling for (some or all of) the prior board members to be be removed prior to their term being completed?

   If not, then the focus on accountability feels like flogging a dead horse and we should focus on how we get the current board to work together and determine where we go from here. No?

   If you are calling for heads, then put it out there that way. But recognize that path is ugly. It would require changing from a current focus of "how to get the new board to work together" to a "house of unrest".

   Riverside Brookfield Township High School District 208 2:60
   Board of Education - Board Member Removal from Office
   If a majority of the Board of Education determines that a Board member has willfully failed to perform his or her official duties, it may request the Regional Superintendent to remove such member from office.
   LEGAL REF.: 105 ILCS 5/3-15.5.
   CROSS REF.: 2:70 (Vacancies on the Board of Education - Filling Vacancies)
   ADOPTED: September 9, 2008

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 09:34 #

4. mr
   Member

   Curious Resident, I agree with you. Still, I would like to know what sort of financial analysis was performed before this contract was finalized. Hopefully, they had a five year plan with a projection of revenue and expenses that had realistic assumptions about inflation, mandates, growth or reduction in student population and staffing. I guess I would like to see that projected budget.

   Five percent annually for five years is pretty hefty. Private industry workers are getting 1.5 to 2% if they are lucky. They don;t have anywhere near the job protections, hours, vacation, pension, or medical benefits that teachers have. The idea of providing a 32% raise over five years is an insult to the taxpayers. Some of these teachers will be getting raises anyway - due to obtaining advanced degrees. Perhaps they get raises just for longevity.

   Don't you agree it would be worthwhile to see the projections to find out if they indicated that the raises were affordable? If there wasn't a projection, then perhaps we should be finding out if the board members understand some basic principles of financial analysis.

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 10:06 #

5. CuriousResident
   Member

   mr

   I agree 5.x%/yr sounds high, but I have no idea where their base was relative the market place. So in understanding why the contract is what is, comp, trends, etc is all pertinent.

   I think teachers are in a tough spot, their jobs are demanding in a way that most can't understand...and don't give adequate respect. We've all heard the BS saying "those that can't do, teach". And it is commonplace to hear parents blaming them for their childrens' "issues". Bottom line, they are dealing with the development of humans prior to becoming part of society...which is worth as much as any profession, IMO.

   There are trends in their pay, like any other profession. In recent times, schools have been under more intense scrutiny and held to higher standards/expectations than in past generations. In turn, being able to recruit and keep truly excellent teachers is more and more mission critical. So there has been escalation of salary due to increased competition for their services.

   Has the "fairness" pendulum swung past center, such that they are now compensated more than fair...maybe. My feeling is that the tenure and pension aspects of the profession are the bigger issues than the salary base.

   Back to the projection question. I need to think about this some more, as I'm not sure what difference it makes. I'd fully expect it was a required part of the process and the decision was made to move forward in the face of it.

   So, what does that mean?

   Not sure, but it sounds a lot like the situation the village is in...either cut 3 cops, some fire, the Forrester, etc or "creatively" pay for it now and hope to figure it out later~

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 10:35 #

6. mr
   Member

   I would be interested in seeing the projection. If they indicated that the increases were not affordable for our districts, I would like to know why the board agreed to the increases if it was clear we couldn't afford it.

   Salaries for all teachers in all districts are posted on a web -site

   http://www.championnews.net/salaries.php

   I suspect our salaries are lower than Lyons Township and Downers Grove - two districts that I have looked at, but those teachers are paid way too much. Why do we pay $150,000 or more for a PE teacher? RB is paying 93,000 for a part time athletic director. I've heard of PE teachers making in excess of $200,000 at LT. I have heard that high schools have courses in things like jewelry making these days. I don't know if we have that at RB, but I know they do in Downers Grove. Drivers Ed teachers, art teachers are being paid far more than they could ever make in private industry.

   The teachers are supposed to be trading salaries for job protections and pensions. HIgh school and college and university teachers are paid more than elementary school.

   I've heard of situtations at Triton - where teachers sign up to teach a course and then don't teach it because of all their accumulated days off - another concept that does not exist in private industry. Someone told me about two teachers who were told months in advance that their contract was not going to be renewed, so they quit showing up - because of all the accumulated time off.

   I've read stories about teachers and administrators compensation for years and I have satisifed myself that something is seriously wrong with their compensation and benefits. Even the governor admits that there needs to be a correction on the pensions. The Sun Times reported, as an example, if a teacherleft teaching to take a job in one of the public employee unions, the state would pay pension that counted the time the teacher worked in the union as well as the time they were teachers. The govenor said he was not aware of that until the Sun Times wrote the articles.

   If anyone does any research and also have any knowledge of compensation, pensions, and benfits in private industry, they won't like what they find.

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 12:37 #

7. CuriousResident
   Member

   mr,

   You've touched on a subject that is a different one and (I think) gets complicated real fast.

   To my knowledge, the contract that we sign with the teachers' union does not differentiate salaries to individual performance or responsibility. I think it is has a basis for 'part time' or 'full time' and then goes purely on #yrs in district & level education.

   There is no doubt that this salary approach has bad aspects to it:
   -Paying study hall teachers the same as a teacher that plans, preps, test, and grades would not be common in a non-union environment.
   -Athletic programs...I even won't bother to go there.
   -Loose regulation on continuing education allows pay increases for taking classes that are not actually part of specific professional evolution/value and/or do not benefit the school.
   -Etc.

   There are numerous things structured in the contract that are illogical, but (for me at least) is not specifically the prior boards "fault". If any thing it is any board's challenge/responsiblity to make the most sense they can out of an illogical mess that they volunteered to be part of.

   The staffing/overhead decisions on the other hand are things the board can influence. How many Asst ADs do we need? What level of experience do we need to staff study halls? Which teachers are "duds" and need to be trained or moved out? The mix of old, in their prime and new is likely a serious challenge to do well...and if this is approached purely from a financial viewpoint it will result in a very young school with plenty of different challenges.

   Then there is the whole tenure thing. I imagine it is quite hard to "fire a dud"...so it is likely "last resort" and rarely approached. In the public sector it is getting more complicated, but where I work, if someone is a dud there out. It doesn't change the cost structure, because if the position is needed, then you still have to fill it. Now if you have a dud in a position that you don't really need, well simply put, it should be eliminated.

   And you brought up the pension subject...clearly an out dated system and out spiraling of control. But I do have a bit of compassion for those that have paid their dues all along. It is kind of like social security, it comes out of everyone of my paychecks and would/will be a serious forfeiture if I do not get any of that money back. The fix has to be made (largely) moving forward, not as a penalty to those that acted in good faith to a program that they had no say in defining. Again, IMO, not something the prior board has any ability to influence.

   So, as it relates back to Chris Robling's published letter, I agree understanding the moving parts of the current contract and why it was viewed as acceptable at the time makes sense (that is appropriate preparation for the next negotiation). But unless there is some "gross misconduct" being brought forward, the "hold them accountable for their results" happens during the election, and we just went through that in the spring.

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 14:50 #

8. mr
   Member

   Curious Resident:

   I think we are on the same page. I don't want to spend to much time looking back. I don't even know how much any board can influence the structure of compensation - for example the number of accumulated sick days, compensation for attending faculty meetings. Perhaps all they influence is the rate of increase.

   Still, I think it is important that citizens understand the compensation structure, understand what can be influenced at the local level and what has to be dealt with at the state level. I think it is important to make sure the school board knows that we understand the compenation structure. I would like to know if they recognized that we could not afford this above average rate of increase and what was their plan to pay for it.

   I don't want to belabor the pension conversation, but I do not have any compassion for anyone on a teachers pension. It is not like social security at all. Social Security recipients will not get a COLA this year or the next. Yet public employee pensionneers will get a guaranteed 3% increase. Private industry has changed their pensions for existing employees and it was upheld in court.

   Teachers have not paid their dues anymore than anyone else who is subject to change in their pensions. In fact, private employee pensions are highly regulated. Underfunding limits the options the employer can offer - by law. I would like to see some of the same rules apply.

   Since pensions are not taxed at all in Illinois, some have proposed a targetted tax for government pensioneers making over $100,000. I support this and frankly think the threshold should be lower.

   Posted Thursday Oct 22, 2009 15:57 #

9. anonymous
   Member

   Good point mr. the pensions for government employees, including public school employees, should be taxed at the highest level there is. I believe the only government pensions that should not be taxed are the military pensions. without them, we have no liberty.

   Posted Friday Oct 23, 2009 21:04 #

10. ChrisHajer
    Member

    http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/brookfield/news/x896785591/RB-searching-for-new-principal

    Riverside Brookfield High School Township District 208 is stalling its search for a new superintendent in hopes of finding a new, permanent principal, School Board President James Marciniak confirmed Monday, Nov. 2.

    Posted Monday Nov 2, 2009 14:36 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.