This is a very enlightening article:
http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=4772&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1
Laura Hruska said:
"Nobody should get a 6-percent raise," Hruska said. "Nobody's getting a 6-percent raise in this economy. I don't care how hard anybody works. We all work hard."
And it's a 6% raise for each of the next three years.
I was shocked when I read the article. Providing a lump sum and this raise is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. I do not want to hear from the RB Board that they are in a dire financial situation. Don't ask for a referendum, don't ask for more money. This action was a slap in the face to all of us who pay taxes in the district. And Laura Hruska should not be elected. While she made the statement, she did not vote against the raise, she voted present.
Wow, shocking. An 18% pay raise to be 'fair' to a non-union employee. I have heard this same argument with respect to village employees, but no one seems concerned about being fair to the taxpayer. Hruska should have voted no.
Why, he asks, would an administrator work 12 months a year for 129K if that's what a teacher who "works 10 months" would get? Anyone? Up for this job? Mind if the teachers get paid more than you do?
I am told the principal at Central got a $40,000 raise last year. Can this be true?
Who of the candidates for the school boards are against this craziness?
I think even Catherine and I can agree on this. Appalling.
It's kind of funny (not ha-ha funny, sad funny--like when a clown dies) that all of us are spending all this time discussing the village election, when the lion's share of our tax dollars goes to the high school district, and the School Board does things like this.
Yes, there is a lot of emotional blackmail that goes on when the children are involved. But the time has come for these folks to come to heel on their budgets. One of the school districts has a budget that is equal to the budget for the entire village. Does that seem right?
And Laura Hruska should not be elected. While she made the statement, she did not vote against the raise, she voted present.
WOW. Just wow.
I wonder how much shenanigans goes on with people voting present or against something (village board or school board) when they know their will still be a majority to carry the vote anyway. I think this is what Spatny was getting at with the order of the voting for the Village board.
I read an article this week or last about how people let their guard down when it comes to funding for schools, how no one could possibly be "against the children." Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
I wish I could recall where I read that. Sun-Times, Crain's or Newsweek? [racking my brain]
Not taking sides yet - just adding info: This kind of thing is usually negotiated into the teacher contracts by their unions, and is known as the "Golden Handshake." Typically the pension fund sets the amount based on either the three or four highest salary years or the last three or four - presumably the same in most cases. The thinking is that the teachers get less than private sector counterparts over the long haul and this is a way to make it up without having to pay it out earlier. (Maybe this or something like it was in the article?)
I happen to think that when we read this the aspect of "sticker shock" comes into play. Adults left school or older folk had their kids in school sometime back, when the numbers tossed about were far lower. These numbers seem astronomical by comparison. Kinds like when I looked in a Lincoln showroom last week and they have these little Lincolns about the size of a Malibu that cost $53,000 sitting next to a loaded Grand Marquis at $33,000. Of course both are more than I should pay, but it illustrates the idea that in some fields the numbers have changed radically.
chris , what a revelation! I had not seen this article. It also reminds us that while there is a lot of rhetoric (here, at least) on the Village board election, isn't it the case that the lion's share of our taxes go to the schools, 1st in amt to RB and next to 96? What is the ratio or the amounts? We all need to be educated on those fronts, too.
208
96
village
TS , good digging on Hrusksa. I had to re-read the post. With that quote why did nt she vote nay? Now I know why our founding fathers had periodic elections from the people - to keep these politicos straight.
I am predilected to support the schools, but this kind of thing is crazy. All groups using our money need to recognize that 'best value', 'most efficient' s/ always be the standard used when delivering the end product. When something - a way of doing things, for example - is always all around you as a given, it is hard to see truely different ways.
To be clear, this is not a union employee, this is not a teacher. This is an administrator. This isn't about sticker shock. This isn't about being supportive of education. This is about being fiscally responsible with taxpayer money. Times are tough, taxpayers are cutting back at home because they are losing their jobs, they are not getting raises, their taxes are going up. It is not the time to ask taxpayers to foot the bill so we can give public employees a nice retirement. In three years the salary will be well in excess of $160,000. Think about it.
You must log in to post.