http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/the-brewing-pension-crisis/2329
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Landmark letter - Turnaround needed at RBHS
(81 posts)-
Posted Thursday Feb 18, 2010 11:25 #
-
spot on article, anon. One thing I take exception with in that article is the author's statement that the pension crisis was caused by unions (implied, unions alone). While I do not say I am an expert in all of this, I just had a conversation with a rather young looking retiree from the illinois public university system inc who said that he had a no-brainer of a decision to quit since he would get 90 pct of his current salary plus all of his benefits, plus a 3 pct raise each year. mmm-yuh, that was not a misprint, and that was the problem in a nutshell. He was not a professor or a teacher or even a fancy schmancy executive. And he was not a member of any union. He worked as a lower level average billing person at Ill. public U inc.
When I recently lost my middle class job of 26 years at a fortune 100 company, my pension was, I believe, 19 percent of my then salary, and I was only eligible to take this piddling amount in 12 to 15 years when I reached a certain age. The same year I lost my job, the CEO of my company made $200 million dollars - not a misprint, was reported in the suntimes. I wonder what union my CEO was in?
So is it bad deals with Unions? Bad deals with public pensions? A completely out of whack compensation system where an elite few get a disproportionate amount of the wealth? A 17 pct (effective) unemployment rate where most of the better middle class jobs are going overseas since the corporations are going there to pay (former) penal inmates so that they could enjoy that disproportionate balance of the company's assets? American consumers all too willing to buy simply the cheapest even if it means hastening the demise of our country? All of the above and more, I suspect.
One thing seems clear tho, without the requisite revenue to pay our bills, As the governator said at the end of the article,
But we are about to get run over by a locomotive. We can see the light coming at us.
Also, so as not to change the main subject of this thread, dont forget to stay tuned to the RB board meeting tonight at 7:05. We gotta try to solve the problem one bit at time, starting with local public boards.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/landmark-letter-turnaround-needed-at-rbhs/page/3#post-12118
Posted Thursday Feb 18, 2010 11:51 # -
There is some healthy debate underway over at the Landmark site about RB and it's need to overcome a significant deficit. Maybe it will spark conversation here, as well. Here is the Landmark article and link:
3/11/2010 10:15:00 AM
RB chief outlines spending cuts, fees hikes
No recommendation to cut full-time teachersBy BOB SKOLNIK
Contributing Reporterhttp://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5935
Posted Friday Mar 12, 2010 15:51 # -
To me, it sounds like there is a *us against them* mentality. We, the taxpayers vs. they, the friends of the teachers. The fact of the matter is that RB is broke and the state is broke, with the huge factor of the large pensions and the public unions. How many of you in the private sector have a guaranteed pension for life of 80% of your current salary, with guaranteed yearly increases? Take personalities out of the equation. Riverside-Brookfield, we have a problem.
Posted Saturday Mar 13, 2010 09:01 # -
Bonnette said that he will recommend against hiring back retired teachers who wish to work part-time. I don't understand one aspect of it. If they retire and receive a pension, is their pension frozen at that point, or do they continue to add to their pension? Does another one start? I understand when a public employee retires and receives a pension from the government agency where he worked, and then goes to a different government agency, he will receive another government pension. Sounds pretty good to me. But do teachers, when they retire and come back to the same government agency (school), continue to fund their pension? Or does a new one start?
Posted Saturday Mar 13, 2010 09:54 # -
mrt
I wouldn't compare the salaries of a handful of executives at 100 or 500 Fortune Companies with the public sector. They are few of them compared to public employees and their salaries aren't paid by the tax payer. They can go broke if they are mismanaged. Public sector employees have no exposure whatsoever to what happened to you. Even if many are not in unions they are civil service employees with job protections and benefits that have no parallel in private industry. Some of these benefits were negotiated by unions and then granted to non union goverment workers-espcially the elected officials themselves. They certainly are not in a union
The problem is public officials who bought the votes with taxpayer money by granting these impossible pensions and other compensation, and helped themselves to some as well. You have to wonder how Mike Madigan stays in office - maybe it is because his district is loaded with goverment workers who know he will protect them at the expense of the rest of us.
Posted Saturday Mar 13, 2010 09:59 # -
Clearly the financial plan needs to be improved before we have serious problems, but "R-B is broke" feels like an overstatement.
Interactive Illinois Report Card - Riverside Brookfield TWP HS
ISBE financial report cardIt will be interesting to see the latest financials Monday night.
And although I agree the pensions are a complete mess, the pension piece of this appears to be largely a state issue (not an R-B budget issue).
Teacher Retirement System (TRS)
School district employees, who are required to hold Illinois certification for their positions, including administrators, are members of TRS (Teachers’ Retirement System, 2008). Since this is a state-funded pension system, the State of Illinois contributes substantially to TRS annually. In addition, both employers and employees contribute a percentage linked to employee salaries. The FY2009 contribution rate for employees was 9.4% of gross salary, while employers contributed 0.58%. In addition, TRS members also contribute an additional 0.84% and employers 0.63% for FY09 to help fund the Teachers’ Health Insurance Security (THIS) Fund.
Regarding the "how many of you have guaranteed yearly increases", the private sector doesn't have guaranteed raises, but it is *expected* that you will receive a 2-3% COLA...and if not, most become unhappy and begin looking for other opportunities. Last year was an anomaly. Increases for lanes (for continued education) is also not guaranteed in the private sector, but again they are (more often than not) expected. If someone gets an MBA they look to be rewarded by their employer or go shopping for getting an increase in pay for their increased/improved skill-set.
Regarding the size of the index and the steps, that is where the rest of the story lies. This link opened my eyes to how the salary schedule is structured (and more) Taking the mystery out of school finance
I'm curious about the Madigan comment. On his first day he stated "to bring accountability to our educational systems...then move to eliminate tenure" I haven't paid as much attention to that arena...are you aware of behavior counter to his position?
Here are a few other links I found of interest, maybe you will too:
I found the last one particularly interesting, because it highlights a serious problem (that can become self perpetuating). If there is a RIF, it by law must follow a reverse seniority approach...which leaves a school increasingly top heavy with salaries, as the younger(less expensive) teachers would go first (and more of them to impact the budget the same way: 2x$40k = 1x$80k). Even if legal, I am *not* a proponent of cutting based on salary size. In the private sector it comes down to "who are your A players" and contribution "bang for the buck". There is no doubt that experience is valuable, but when tenure locks in some "less than A player"s there is a serious system problem. This is not a factor we will change in the short term for R-B.
So what factors can we change, without taking our school (and our property values) backwards? I do not know, but in general, I get the feeling that Dave Bonnette has a strong understanding of the complexity and the trade offs. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say Monday night and hope that people are open minded when listening to him.
Posted Saturday Mar 13, 2010 13:46 # -
Regarding cost of living increases---sure. In the private sector, one hopes that one will be rewarded with at least that. Last year wasn't an anomaly in my industry. It's been years since on a whole we received that. What we were rewarded with was layoffs, bankruptcies, and salary decreases.
RB isn't broke? They have a deficit of over two million dollars. Within the past two years, they saddled us with a tax increase that we did not vote for--to the tune of a half a million dollars---just to pay salaries. If that ain't broke, what is? If I can't pay my bills, then I'm broke. How is it any different for public entities?
Posted Sunday Mar 14, 2010 16:12 # -
With whom should we be upset?
Discussion here (and at the RB Landmark site) over RB's fiscal crisis has become something of a pro- or anti-union dialogue.
Some posters, including those with family ties to RB employees, find a way to say everything is fine, we should just pay more. Others joust with the union's role and talk about its insensitivity to us, its funders.
I suggest that this misses the key point.
The union does not represent us (unless -- like some who comment here -- we personally benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, a point on which I have requested from all, but not yet received, transparent disclosure; please draw your own conclusions).
The Board represents us.
And this Board majority has let us down.
The union represents its members, it is accountable to them.
Given the terms of the existing contract, a completely objective observer might well conclude that the union is doing better at representing its members than the Board is doing at representing us and our ability to pay.
(At some level it is good to know we have smart teachers, even if it appears they are smarter than our elected representatives.)
It must never go without saying, and I repeat here, we as a community are very fortunate to have some first-class, grade-A, top-line teaching talent at RB. Jack Baldermann had a certain inspiring dimension, and he used it to bring some terrific teachers to RB. Others of our teaching elite pre-date Jack's tenure. David Bonnette, as upright and dedicated an educator one may ever hope to find, has -- in recruitment cycle terms -- only just arrived.
My personal feeling is that ignoring such teaching talent, such that it departs, is counter-productive of the results and aims most of us share. (My two cents on shared aims are in a suggested mission statement back up this thread.)
So going anti-union or, worse, anti-teacher, in this distressed moment is an error.
It is the Board that deserves our scrutiny.
The majority on this Board agreed to the contract. Some of them had just won re-election, brandishing their teachers' union endorsement (again, smart teachers). Not one of those Board members has denied that they knew at the time they voted -- binding us in their legal act -- that they did not have the money to pay for the contract.
Within one year they borrowed $4.9 million from future revenues, at a premium, to fund the contract. Now we have to pay for the contract and the debt service and the principal on the $4.9 million, which further diminishes our disposable income.
In a telling insult, the same majority refused to submit its $4.9 million borrow-and-spend program to us in a referendum. 1800 voters asked them to do so. In essence, they gave themselves new revenue by ignoring us. (It is the depletion of the $4.9 million that has brought the fiscal crisis into view, but we have in fact been in crisis since before the borrowing.)
Finally, the Board majority acknowledges none of this, let alone apologizes for any specifics.
The canonical Board contextualization of the crisis goes like this: "We care about RB. That means we have to pick up the slack because the state has not funded us as it should, and the county is getting less reliable at sending our proceeds to us, and more unpredictable about property tax appeals. This is the substance of keeping up with Hinsdale, Lyons and OPRF. The only question is when you will pay more."
Not one of them has said, "This was the right deal at the time. We knew the economy was shaky and we knew our funds were considerably less than what we were obligating ourselves to do, but we knew you would ride to the rescue...," etc. They wrote the check and hoped we would pay the overdraft.
From all of this each of us may draw his or her own conclusions about the majority on this Board.
My conclusion is they either do not know what they are doing, or they do -- and they do not care about its impact on us.
I do not like either conclusion, but there they are.
There is also something of a general call for being Good Bulldogs and pulling the sled another 1000 miles, just like the Iditarod race dogs I once had the privilege of covering as a reporter.
This appeal draws on perfectly normal and appropriate community and institutional pride -- and seeks to transform it into uncritical acceptance and political support for the totality of RB-dom, regardless of -- in its view -- minor flaws down the line.
To this one may recite from this partial litany:
--The prior superintendent certification fiasco
--The $700,000 wasted on the Paw and Cyberdog without so much a curricular plan or follow-up report fiasco
--The assistant principal and five teachers lacking certification fiasco
--The awarding of expensive health benefits to part-timers with no discernable work records fiasco
--The prior superintendent final exit fiasco
--The prior superintendent affair - denial - investigation - admission - hand-slapping fiasco
--The welcoming of a bonded-out indictee for drug possession with intent to deliver as a volunteer wrestling coach fiasco
--The belligerence of the AD toward all who asked him to secure the soccer goalposts so they would not clonk a child on the head and severely injure or perhaps kill him fiasco (this Dr. Bonnette settled in about three days after four years of ceaseless hostility to parents and disregard for student safety)
--The institutional hostility to and disregard for Illinois Freedom of Information Act, so pointed it earned special rebuke by a statewide watchdog group in January 2009 fiasco
Etc. etc. etc.
Let me assure you, the Iditarod sled dogs are fed better than we Bulldog taxpayers, if this list -- and its many other items -- be our gruel from RB.
Such a litany of management failure proves this Board majority is in considerably over its head. Rewarding it with any increase in public funds is fraught with peril. Bad public management should never be rewarded with additional taxpayer revenue. A string like the above – regardless of the great things that happen because of our core of competent teachers -- is impossible to explain away. That’s why the Good Bulldog argument rests on ignoring the failures.
No one cares more about RB -- or any local public institution -- than the volunteers who help it improve. It is no fun to point out failure (especially when one’s child is a student), but nothing stops RB and its Board majority from admitting its own failures and adopting continuous learning and improvement on its own.
Even then, it is in the nature of democratic accountability that praise, as I have voiced for this same majority, and the minority, uniting to hire Dr. Bonnette, be tempered with clear appreciation of the bumps along the way.
Such as a contract that -- with step increases -- raises salaries more than 30 percent over five years, in the midst of the worst recession in seven decades, that we do not have the money to fund. All credit to the teachers, they caught us sleeping -- or worse -- on that one.
My conclusion? Don't attack teachers or their union -- find better Board members next spring.
#####
Posted Wednesday Mar 17, 2010 12:43 # -
Completing the Turnaround
May i politely and without prejudice emphasize at this point that some of the RB-related points appearing here at RiversideInfo.org are -- in my opinion -- earnest and well-intended but wrongly posed?
Here is what i mean. We have a management issue. Specifically, as this thread has said since its inception last fall, a turnaround is needed to right the RB enterprise so it may progress to higher distinction as Illinois' pre-eminent public high school of its size.
Many of my reasons for saying this are recited above, there are of course many others that could lengthen the list considerably.
There are two types of posters in these recent conversations. Parent / resident / taxpaying concerned citizens and parent / resident / taxpaying citizens whose household incomes benefit significantly from RB. That's great! I have called for disclosure, so that readers may evaluate for themselves each post in light of its writers' connection to the RB income stream. So far, we have seen either none or sly diversion. Not good.
Regardless, all of the questions to which i refer, such as "does Illinois improperly fund education," "what is sound pension policy for public employees," or "to what indicia of success should teacher compensation be linked?" are in themselves hugely significant, but at this moment they tend to divert attention from our most basic -- and immediate -- challenge, which is giving voice to a constituency that supports a new majority on the board in requiring competence in all aspects of RB's administration.
A leap in the right direction was taken when Dr. David Bonnette signed on. But one person is not enough. Pam Bylsma is on her way, which is another good step. But anyone familiar with the school knows that a reform-minded female principal was undercut and eventually tossed overboard (at a cost to us well into six figures) by the very crew that legally oversaw RB's descent into institutional chaos. Too many of those actors remain in place, even now, with several in fact on the Board of Education itself. (Again, please check above posts.)
Each of us in this comunity should be fully invested in Dr. Bonnette and Pam Bylsma having a free hand to rebuild RB on July 1. That means ending one chapter in the school's history and starting another. The very last thing either Dr. Bonnette or Ms. Bylsma should confront are tired remanants of the reign of error subverting their mandate through sub-goal pursuits such as, just to pick an example from the air, controlling RB Athletic Department stipends and coaching assignments.
Instead, a new majority on the Board must summon the courage to finish the staff housecleaning clearly, irrevocably and completly. Voters will deal with the rest of the Board one year hence.
The Landmark opines this week that we should embrace the challenges of restoring confidence and credibility to RB.
Halelujah.
Propelling this community past the "turmoil," Landmark's word, to the "firm, responsible and forward-looking leadership it's going to take to win back voters" means definitvely ending the era that implicated RB's credibility. Half-measures and re-treads will not get us there.
It will take another set of transformational choices by the Board, in the same vein as recruiting Dr. Bonnette and Ms. Bylsma. Challenges aside, it means having enough confidence in the school Bonnette and Bylsma can create to tell certain key remaining enablers of, participants in and indeed public cheerleaders for the last period, "thank you and good bye."
Or, as National Monument Riley B. "B.B." King sings it in "The Thrill Is Gone," all we "can do is wish you well..."
...and then the more global issues of Illinois' school funding mechanisms, pension policy, property tax disaster, etc. etc. will be much better posed than they are now.
Thanks and best, c.
Posted Friday Apr 2, 2010 10:59 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.