You have it correct. The site's rules are based (loosely) on copyright law and general Internet norms. Post a little piece of it here if you like, then link to the source. Don't copy someone else's work and paste it here. You did it correctly, thank you.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Landmark letter - Turnaround needed at RBHS
(388 posts)-
Posted Thursday Feb 11, 2010 13:13 #
-
RBHS board may ask teachers to retool contract
Both sides expected to meet in Marchhttp://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5843&TM=43939.59
Here is the Landmark report on RB Board steps to extricate us from the fiscal mess into which Larry Herbst as school board president led us.
As has been noted earlier both here and in letters to the Landmark editor, RBHS must approach the teachers responsibly and respectfully. The top priority is the students' learning experience. That depends on good teachers. We have been fortunate in attracting many fine teachers over the years. I don't think anyone in the community wants to lose any of them. Perhaps by working together we can maintain fiscal balance long enough to address the education fund issues in a better economy with cuts that do not harm the learning.
I hope all of us appreciate the Board following up on this idea, and the teachers for sitting down to meet. But we are not out of the woods by any stretch.
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 11:19 # -
I can understand why people would focus on the teachers' contract, as it is public record. But (purely hypothetically speaking) if I were representing the teachers, I would not be willing to talk about retooling the contract (prior to the time to negotiate the next contract) until a 'fat review' had been completed and brought to the table showing that the current fiscal structure is "in balance" with the exception of the teachers' salary schedule.
I don't know, maybe that's already occurred, but I tend to doubt it~
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 12:02 # -
The teachers contract is part of the FAT. Have YOU received a 5% salary increase this year? What about last year? What's the projection for next year?
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 16:09 # -
Too broad of stoke IMO. The repeated 5% number is not given across all years of experience and education lanes. And the current contract was viewed as appropriate/needed in the competitive landscape for good teachers.
IMO, going after the contract (first) is taking the easy way out of dealing with the bottom line, but not fair to those that are worth it...and will eventually cause us to lose the better teachers (be it ones we have or ones that we would try to recruit).
There have been plenty of examples thrown around regarding redundant positions and fluff stipends that could be addressed first. Addressing these prior to a contact showdown would show the teachers that there is intelligence and integrity in the leadership....versus a mob mentality with pitch forks and torches.
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 17:20 # -
First, we are at a base of approx. $20 million / year.
2) Pay and benefits are 80 percent of that, or $16 million.
3) The vast majority of the p/b is controlled through the contract.
4) So, the more than five percent per anum is clicking along at close to, and perhaps even more than, $800,000 growth per year.
5) That is unsustainable.
6) There is no doubt that economies should be wrung out of the other $4 million per year as well as the non contract b/p. But let's understand, one doubts $800,000 will not be cut from the $4 million, for a twenty percent slice, leaving aside the out-years.
7) The contract is the problem, not the paper-clip budget. Not to be flippant, the contract is 80 percent of the issue.
8) My point at the Board Meeting was then-president Larry Herbst, and those he led to approve the contract, and the $4.9 million in non-referendum bonding, and who are still on the Board, all got us into this mess. Now they should give us their detailed plan to get us out of it. But, it appears -- no surprise -- they prefer to hide behind "The Board" making these choices, as if none of us know who voted for what or who is accountable for what.
Finally -- I would like to divulge that neither I nor anyone in my household depends on RBHS for any income, except my son who gives swim lessons. I have no stake in this, except as a taxpayer. I am not at all sure that has been -- or is -- the case of others who comment here anonymously. I have written elsewhere about the hallowed place anonymous comments have in American political history. But please, for everyone's ability to evaluate our stands, lets divulge whether we or our spouses are RBHS earners. Comments from such are equally appreciated, of course, but it helps everyone understand who is saying what. Thanks very much.
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 18:10 # -
And by the way, no one is talking about pitchforks and torches. As one who has scrupulously cited our learning experience as top prioty, for which we need the many top teachers we employ, and that teachers have rights and legitimate expectations, and in fact do not have to bail out the Herbst wing of the Board, I personally appreciate individuals who note that this has not been raised in the tone the above post suggests. It has in fact been -- going back to October and "Turnaround needed at RBHS," -- respectful and appreciative of the vital role teachers play, as well as the complex of decisions and actions that have led us here, the inverse of which will be necessary to get us out.
Had there been intelligence at the wheel last time around, one doubts this contract would ever have resulted. The intelligence now is in the voters. The voters elected Board members who read the reports and report what they say at the meetings, the voters support a superintendent who posts documents on the website for all to see, even if they are not all pretty, the voters inspire volunteers who are willing to raise issues that the Board majority will do anything to ignore. If as the curious resident says the teachers need to see intelligence, my recommendation is that they look to the voters.
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 18:22 # -
Although I agree with points 1 & 3, page 27 of the August 12, 2008 Finance Committee Presentation regarding current financial situation posted on http://www.rbhs208.org/aboutrbhs.htm it states 62%. Do you have more current numbers?
Regarding point 4 (and then the scale of 5 &6), why does 5% keep coming up when the article linked above states it is an average of 2.78%? No doubt a 5 would not be sustainable, but something between 2 & 3 is common in the public sector.
7) IMO it is an over simplification to say the contract is *the* issue. Obviously the contract is part of it, but as I said before, look at head count and what you get in return for their compensations before addressing the scale.
In the private sector(where I work) headcount and compensation is the majority of our budgets. The approach of a contract with the union for a single scale is flawed and outdated. I would think the best way to minimize the negative aspects of "guaranteed pay" is to have 90+% A players that are all producing value worth their costs.
What I think I hear is advocating for a situation that allows for some dysfunctional positions as long as the pay is not as high. Do we expect to recruit/keep "A players" with a pay scale that is at a lower level than "par"?
I'm not saying the contract doesn't need adjustment, but I am saying it is appropriate to first review for positions that are not needed, redundant, or simply not providing value relative to their cost...and then review if the contract/scale needs to be adjusted.
Lastly, the "pitchforks and torches" comment was directed towards the tone of anonymous's post, not the overall Turnaround subject.
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 19:19 # -
Sorry if you think I bear pitchforks and torches. I should have said the teachers UNION contract is PART of the fat. In an era where there are school districts which have laid off teachers and have cut programs, I think it is justified to suggest that the large contract that was signed is a big part of our budget woes. I think chrisrobling did a nice job in defining the problem. Yes, absolutely, the stipends are too high. Cut them. Cut the redundant positions, too. But with the budget severely underfunded, everybody has to work together to sacrifice together, and that includes the teachers. Ask Mayor Daley with his furlough days. Or would the older, higher paid teachers prefer to keep what they have, resulting in teachers being let go. Don't forget, the salaries paid now are our gift that keeps on giving, in the form of pensions. Did you read Terry Savage's column from the SUNTIMES which was posted here?
Since you work in the private sector, you must know people who lost their employment recently. There are millions who have, isn't the figure that is being thrown about in Chicago 17%? Is that fair? No, but the employers did what they had to do to stay afloat---and unfortunately that could mean terminating employment. Or maybe their companies field for bankruptcy. We're at that point, too. Check the Landmark for more stories. It ain't good. (improper English used for emphasis)
Don't get me wrong. I think the teachers at RB are good. Some of them are even exceptional.
Posted Wednesday Feb 17, 2010 20:16 # -
In re source of 80 percent figure, I direct everyone's attention this evening to the TV broadcast of the Board meeting. It will occur in committee reports, when the finance committee report is delivered. I understand the program airs at 7:05. Here is the link to RBTV.tv:
http://www.rbtv.tv/primetime/primeguide.htm
Comcast ch 16
AT&T Uverse ch 99
and at the web site.Posted Thursday Feb 18, 2010 10:33 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.