On the first item, the board on Thursday night will consider a health and welfare benefit increase.
“The non-represented employee groups (Administrative Leadership Team and Confidential Employees) did not receive increases in either salary or benefit compensation in 2007-2008. Throughout the collective bargaining process in 2007-2008, the District expressed an interest in providing competitive health and welfare benefits to all employee groups.”
It continues:
“The District contribution for administrative and confidential employees is $3,004 annually. In a study of thirteen local districts, the average district contribution for health and welfare benefit is $10,900. The current discrepancy has placed Davis Joint Unified in a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire and retain new administrative and confidential employees. During the last eighteen months, we have experienced multiple hiring challenges; including losing candidates to neighboring districts, due to our reduced level of health and welfare benefit compensation.”
What is the fiscal impact of this? For 2008-09, the impact would be $60,000 beginning January 1, 2009 until June 30, 2009. The annual on-going financial impact would be $120,000 beginning July 1, 2009.
According to the staff report:
“The current Board approved operating budget has the capacity to meet this fiscal obligation in the benefits contribution with no adjustments required.”
Guess what? That’s two teaching positions.
There is no doubt that the level of health benefits provided by the district is embarrassingly low. No doubt. No one can dispute it. The problem is that right now there is one pot of money.
The district is going to have make some tough decisions here. If they indeed go ahead with this increase then the money is likely going to have to come from an administrative position. That likely means an administrative position goes unfilled and everyone else will have to work that much harder. And yet, even then you have to wonder, perhaps if you are looking at $1.8 million in cuts next year and who knows how bad it would be 2010-11, perhaps you do not spend the additional $120,000 on health care. Perhaps you need to bank that money to save two teaching position. And even if you can take out an administrative position, maybe you do that to save two teaching positions. It is the timing of this proposal that is alarming. THey deserve the better benefits, but not now.
The second item is Bruce Colby’s contract. Let me state this upfront so there is no confusion. I like Bruce Colby, I think he does a very good job, this is not to be read as a criticism of him. But here’s his new contract and they are talking about giving him $173,644. And there is actually a built in increase.
“the amount of the salary shall be increased in the second and/or third year of this Agreement by a fixed five percent (5%) step if the annual summary evaluation for the Associate Superintendent in the preceding year was “fully satisfactory.””
The district believes that Bruce Colby is indispensable, he may be. But during tight budgets when you might have to lay off teachers, I cannot see the justification of giving a pay raise.
The suggestion is that this will be paid for by leaving an administrative position unfilled, perhaps it will, but perhaps that position could go to keep another teacher rather than give the Associate Superintendent a pay raise.
During these times, you pretty much need to freeze the salaries of your employees.
One other aspect of the contract that is worth noting, the Tahir Ahad-clause.
“Therefore, unless supported by the Superintendent with written a recommendation and approved in advance by the Board of Trustees, while the Associate Superintendent is an employee of the District, the Associate Superintendent shall not perform any work outside of the District for compensation because any such outside work may involve time demands that would render performance of the Associate Superintendent’s duties to the District less efficient.
Further, if the Associate Superintendent is granted permission for outside work for compensation, he shall not employ other employees of the District in enterprises outside of District employment.”
Apparently this is now a standard clause, it basically means that there is an outside chance an employee can seek outside employment, but there is no chance they can hire other employees of the district.
In conclusion here, I believe that if this were a normal year, these would be no-brainers. However, given the facts on the ground, even if you balance the books by taking from the administrative pot, it is a bad move and bad publicity. I hope the district does the right thing and tables this discussion until they figure out their finances for the next year and yes that requires a lot of work from Mr. Colby who is already well-compensated for his work.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You're right, David. The other trustees choose someone to fill out the remainder of the term of a trustee on the board who has resigned. What would be strange would be if a trustee in 2009 resigns out of principle come the end of the 4 years for which that trustee was duly elected, two of the board members who would be picking the replacement would be doing so while serving a term for which they were not legitimately elected, and the person chosen would be serving for a year to serve to the end of a term which had already ended under the rules for which the resignor was elected.
DPD: John Poulos
…All other local districts are also already in deep financial problems……Insofar as that's true, I would guess it is because:1. Davis hasn't had nearly as large a percentage of home foreclosures as some other towns;2. Our apartment vacancy rates are low, and thus the Davis schools are not losing p/t income from that source;3. Same story with commercial properties. We have some vacancies — I heard last night, by the way, that Samira's is going out of business, which makes vacant 2 of the 4 corner storefronts at 2nd & F — but perhaps not as many vacancies as in other commnunities; and 4. Because we have passed supplementary parcel taxes, our district has that income that others perhaps don't.
Thank you anonymous, that was who came to mind but I talked myself out of it.
It's the cost of doing business , the district knows it was doing these employees wrong.I'm sure the powers that be , have ran all the numbers and scenarios .There is a system of checks and balances that do work.Let the process work …
I agree with much of what anonymous says here, but then they say let the process work. It is an interesting point that I hear a lot on here. One thing, part of the process is public scrutiny and public input and hence the need for the public to become aware of proposals prior to board discussion.
One thing, part of the process is public scrutiny and public input and hence the need for the public to become aware of proposals prior to board discussion.And thank you, David for alerting us to that agenda item.
As long as this town continues to pass parcel taxes, the School Board/District will see it as a mandate to do whatever the h_ll they want. Just wait, and you will see more of the same…
Have NEVER voted for a parcel tax in this town and at times, believe it or not, have regretted not doing so…NOT any longer. Thanks for hosing us and oh ya, public service means, I think, …servicing… the public. Great job folks, way to look out for #1(yourselves). What's another $10/month for our schools? How many more times will we hear that?
I asked my boss if I could have a raise. He aksed me a question: …What more will you do to deserve a raise?…When all the middle managers said …Our pay is not competitive and we will lose peope…, our boss said: …When we can no longer hire qualified replacements, then we will consider increasing pay….When our company was performing poorly, our boss said: …Your budget is being cut and you need to take on more responsiblitiy….These are alien principles for school boards and administrators. It is why we pay more for public education in this country than any other country, and why we generally get so little value. Instead of commitments for improvement, we get a plead for additional funding to …protect… the children.
I meant to write …well-functioning private-sector companies…, as I was referring to both private and public companies.David:I have worked for both very big and very small companies.There is a common theme for the current crop of mismanaged companies: large, heavily regulated industries, unionized (some). To me they are run more like a big government agency than a private-sector business. You need to really count the number of domestic public and private companies, and compare this list with the problems we know about. There is no doubt that friendships in the board room and executive suite can serve to cloud objectivity. However, most organizations self-regulate because nobody benefits unless the company makes a profit. In most companies, business comes before friendship… or at least it serves to offset the impact. I am friends with some of my board members, but they would withhold my bonus or fire me if I did not perform (e.g. return a profit while achieving other goals that are part of our mission). This is how most companies operate. High executive compensation should not be an issue when the company is profitable and achieving its mission. I do have a BIG problem with high executive compensation when the company is losing money or otherwise under-performing. However, that is a media-hyped exception. Nevertheless, I support changes to this practice for large public companies because of the potential damage to stockholders when the incentive connection between executive comp and company performance is broken.
Personally I’d find your argument far more convincing if we didn’t have countless examples of failing companies paying their top brass with huge bonuses and other salary increases. I fail to see how this situation is all that different.The other problem with the analogy is that school districts are in the business of educating children not making money. It is certainly not Bruce Colby’s fault that the state is in recession and that they will not get their COLA. I would argue that the school district would be in far worse shape financially without Colby’s efforts.
…Personally I’d find your argument far more convincing if we didn’t have countless examples of failing companies paying their top brass with huge bonuses and other salary increases. I fail to see how this situation is all that different….I think the situation with some agencies of government is exactly like that with many public corporations. The boards of directors very often don’t act in the best interest of the owners (i.e., the shareholders), they act in the best interest of the corporate management (i.e., their friends). And in many cases, people who sit on the boards of directors of one company and act irresponsibly with executive pay packages end up getting rewarded (not just by the excessive amounts they are paid to sit on these boards and do next to nothing) are hired in executive management positions at other public companies down the road.The public corporations which fit this profile tend to be older companies which have a large and stable market share in their industry and make profits off of the good decisions made decades prior. They also tend to be very political companies, buying favors of government to make sure that their profitability continues.By contrast, truly private companies and young entrepreneurial companies competing in newer industries or in a new way in older industries don’t exhibit these patterns of bad oversight and rewarding executives simply because those execs hold high positions. They tend to base their executive pay on growing company value; not on collecting profits from prior actions.
…Personally I’d find your argument far more convincing if we didn’t have countless examples of failing companies paying their top brass with huge bonuses and other salary increases. I fail to see how this situation is all that different….I don’t think we have …countless examples… as you say. I think we can easily count them because they are the unfortunate exception (and let’s not forget that poor public policy and public governance is the primary contributor to a mess that amplified the problems with corporate governance). I think we have countless examples of well-functioning private companies where the corporate governance structure works despite the poor government policy and oversight. The reason it works is that profitability is the final and common benchmark that drives decisions that are generally good for the primary customer and stakeholder.What primary goal drives decisions for governance of public schools? Certainly there are plenty of teachers, administrators and school board members that desire the highest quality education for students, but are they motivated to seek the best value for the customer-student and stakeholder-parent. I think not – and therein lies the source of the problem: multiple disconnects between funding and customer/stakeholder value. Students are captive customers and schools have no real incentive to seek value – a more difficult end game that requires governance that utilizes business contraction when necessary. Competition – either natural with vouchers and charter schools or, with the forced Denver-style pay-for-performance programs – would inject that incentive into the working governance of schools and would eventually start returning parents and students greater value.
Chester:I disagree, there are some that have made the news recently that we have become aware of, but this is hardly a new phenomenon….I think not – and therein lies the source of the problem: multiple disconnects between funding and customer/stakeholder value. …I think I agree with you on this point. That is one reason I have been pushing for transparency and accountability. One reason why even though I in general am supportive of this district and education as a whole, I want to scrutinize the finances of the district. If we do that, then the public will be informed and can hold districts accountable as they need to be held.
It is why we pay more for public education in this country than any other country, and why we generally get so little value. Instead of commitments for improvement, we get a plead for additional funding to …protect… the children.Seriously, have you lived in another country and checked out their public education system? I have lived in Latin America and in Spain and I observed far more economic class stratification connected with grade school education than I do in the U.S. I concede that some of that (class stratification) exists here in the U.S., but I have seen foreign public school systems that are worse. Families more often prefer private schools, and private schools seem to be more common.Based on personal anecdotal evidence and some quantitative evidence, I think that Davis schools have definitely improved since the mid-1980’s.If you take the long view, the U.S. has been pioneering in providing public education, and that has been a source of economic strength and upward mobility.It is easy to find something to criticize in the schools, but many other alternatives are worse.
It is easy to find something to criticize in the schools, but many other alternatives are worse.WDF:I don’t disagree. I’ve lived in Mexico and seen the same thing.However, it remains the case that in the U.S., especially among most inner-city schools, the performance is horrible, despite vast increases in funding for them. I used to work as a volunteer tutor (in the early 1990s) in the Oakland schools. It amazed me to see that roughly 75% of the males never graduated high school (at least at McClymonds, where I helped girls prepare for college English). The graduation rate in Oakland perhaps has improved — I don’t know — but I know that for blacks and Hispanics the graduation rate is still quite bad in California.What is so different for most middle-income and higher families is their ability to shop for a better public school. If they lived near McClymonds in West Oakland, they would move to make sure their kids attended a safe, decent school where test scores and so on were at least adequate. (Davis is the kind of place families which have the resources to pick out move to for its schools.) But poor families, who mostly fail at home to prepare their kids to excel in the classroom, cannot move. Their kids, in our public school system, are not well served.I think the necessary changes include, 1) paying public school teachers based on how much improvement they make with their kids and fire those who don’t make sufficient progress, 2) never advance a child to a higher grade unless he has mastered the subjects at his grade level, 3) increase the days of the school year for underperforming children so they have the time they need to master their subjects, 4) increase the minimums we expect of all children (save those with brain dysfunction) to move on to their next grade, and 5) beginning in the 9th grade and working with industry divert students who are not academically inclined into trade school programs wherein they would be trained to productively enter the workforce upon high school graduation.Perhaps Arne Duncan, the basketball buddy of Obama who will be our next Sec of Education, can make a difference.
wdf,I would not compare the US with non-industrialized or even emerging industrialized nations. I guess I should have qualified my point….I have lived in Latin America and in Spain and I observed far more economic class stratification connected with grade school education than I do in the U.S….I have not lived in either of those countries so I cannot comment on your point; however, I don’t really understand what this has to do with education quality. Are you saying that the US schools are good because the US has less economic class stratification? That seems a very big stretch to me considering all the other contributing factors.Certainly there are some well-run school districts in existence (while my family lives in Davis). However, in the US, about 40 percent of high school students will drop out and not graduate. In the larger cities (where education-system-friendly Democrats tend to congregate and vote for school funding measures) the dropout rate is 50%. In DC, where the cost per pupil is 25% higher than the national average, the dropout rate is over 60%. For those that graduate in this country, many cannot read or write adequately. Compared to almost all other industrialized countries, our ranking for math and science scores is abysmal. It amazes me that our primary national discourse today is about the
Rich Rifkin,I agree.We can and should support the six-figure teacher salary, but only if we also support a pay-for-performance model (which, for instance, puts 50% of this comp at risk based on actual performance) for all school employees, and we eliminate the practice of tenure and union-tricks to guaranty job security for under-performing teachers. We should support vouchers and charter schools because this injects an environment of competition that in-turn provide the incentives for public schools to fight for higher value instead of higher funding. There are many best-practice performance management models that work and could be adopted to work for public education. A comprehensive assessment vehicle that measures both quantitative and qualitative goals and expectations would work nicely. For example:- National standard test scores- Parent satisfaction assessment- Student satisfaction assessment- Peer assessment- Manager assessment- Individual goals- Improvements over last year- Special challengesThese assessment criteria would be weighted based on importance for a given year based on a strategy for improvement. School employees should have a relatively low base salary, with the rest of the payroll budget allocated as bonus pay based on a ranking system that factors the assessment results. The allocation should significantly favor those with the highest assessment scores.These ideas scare my teacher friends because they have no experience with it and they have a natural labor-versus-management mentality that causes them to not trust assessments in general. Teachers need to take ownership of the program. They would need to participate in the design of the final assessment and also in the development and weighting of their goals and expectations.With this in place, vouchers and charter schools would have a very difficult time competing for re-allocation of the public funds.
We passed P by a large margin. We passed W by a larger margin. They take this as a mandate to spend anyway they please. I warned people about this. They can count on public support for tax increases. They are not held accountable, so they don’t spend wisely. They spend it as they please. But we’ll vote for measure X, Y, Z, … and Davis will blindly support it by a 3 to 1 margin. They know it.Until their is real accountability built into the taxes, this will go on and on and on….
I told you so. I insisted this would happen and it did. It will keep happening until they are held to account for how they spend $.
…I hope the district does the right thing and tables this discussion until they figure out their finances for the next year and yes that requires a lot of work from Mr. Colby who is already well-compensated for his work….You probably have a better handle on district finances than the district does. they are irrisponsible and couldn’t balance a budget to save their lives. They now increase benefits in the middle of a state budget shortfall. The district will keep doing this until they are held accountable. I predicted this garbage was going to happen as people voted yes for PQ… W. They are never held responsible for what they do. Although I have argued against PQ…W for the longest time, people insist they are …saving our schools… when in reality, we are just furthering irresponsible spending practices. Now they are arrogant as ever because the public voted 3 to 1 in favor of W. don’t expect them to think they need to be more careful. They are more and more arrogant. But keep pushing em DPD, and keep exposing corruption. But just be warned, you might not like what you are going to find.
So what happened at the meeting tonight? I didn’t get to see that part.
…..and why did some of us doubt the credibility of the Board, staff etc re: W.
They are strongly considering extending their terms the budget is so bad…..and they are serious about these raises. There should be a freeze, period. Many of the rest of us are ……
…..and why did some of us doubt the credibility of the Board, staff etc re: W.
They are strongly considering extending their terms the budget is so bad…..and they are serious about these raises. There should be a freeze, period. Many of the rest of us are ……
…..and why did some of us doubt the credibility of the Board, staff etc re: W.
They are strongly considering extending their terms the budget is so bad…..and they are serious about these raises. There should be a freeze, period. Many of the rest of us are ……
…..and why did some of us doubt the credibility of the Board, staff etc re: W.
They are strongly considering extending their terms the budget is so bad…..and they are serious about these raises. There should be a freeze, period. Many of the rest of us are ……
I agree with you that they need to freeze the benefit increases even though I agree with them that they are pathetic benefits.
However, understand that they really have no choice but to extend their terms, they are not doing it to extend their terms, but if they do not it will cost the district an extra 200K to 400K to run the election.
And yes Rich Rifkin the money doesn’t make sense, but I spent all of Friday going through the numbers with Bruce Colby and looking at the sheet that the County Clerk sent, the county appears to be so strapped that they are charging local jurisdictions for on-going costs. It’s ridiculous, but the school district has literally no choice here, please give them slack on this issue and this issue alone.
I agree with you that they need to freeze the benefit increases even though I agree with them that they are pathetic benefits.
However, understand that they really have no choice but to extend their terms, they are not doing it to extend their terms, but if they do not it will cost the district an extra 200K to 400K to run the election.
And yes Rich Rifkin the money doesn’t make sense, but I spent all of Friday going through the numbers with Bruce Colby and looking at the sheet that the County Clerk sent, the county appears to be so strapped that they are charging local jurisdictions for on-going costs. It’s ridiculous, but the school district has literally no choice here, please give them slack on this issue and this issue alone.
I agree with you that they need to freeze the benefit increases even though I agree with them that they are pathetic benefits.
However, understand that they really have no choice but to extend their terms, they are not doing it to extend their terms, but if they do not it will cost the district an extra 200K to 400K to run the election.
And yes Rich Rifkin the money doesn’t make sense, but I spent all of Friday going through the numbers with Bruce Colby and looking at the sheet that the County Clerk sent, the county appears to be so strapped that they are charging local jurisdictions for on-going costs. It’s ridiculous, but the school district has literally no choice here, please give them slack on this issue and this issue alone.
I agree with you that they need to freeze the benefit increases even though I agree with them that they are pathetic benefits.
However, understand that they really have no choice but to extend their terms, they are not doing it to extend their terms, but if they do not it will cost the district an extra 200K to 400K to run the election.
And yes Rich Rifkin the money doesn’t make sense, but I spent all of Friday going through the numbers with Bruce Colby and looking at the sheet that the County Clerk sent, the county appears to be so strapped that they are charging local jurisdictions for on-going costs. It’s ridiculous, but the school district has literally no choice here, please give them slack on this issue and this issue alone.
This is 7:51….yes DPD my point exactly; if they are considering such a drastic and controversial move as extending terms, it seems political suicide to raise salaries….hence my comment about credibility and W doubters.
Again, why cannot we use this as a reason to try mail ballots?
This is 7:51….yes DPD my point exactly; if they are considering such a drastic and controversial move as extending terms, it seems political suicide to raise salaries….hence my comment about credibility and W doubters.
Again, why cannot we use this as a reason to try mail ballots?
This is 7:51….yes DPD my point exactly; if they are considering such a drastic and controversial move as extending terms, it seems political suicide to raise salaries….hence my comment about credibility and W doubters.
Again, why cannot we use this as a reason to try mail ballots?
This is 7:51….yes DPD my point exactly; if they are considering such a drastic and controversial move as extending terms, it seems political suicide to raise salaries….hence my comment about credibility and W doubters.
Again, why cannot we use this as a reason to try mail ballots?
I am always amused how the district, like the city, always talks about how they need to pay competitive salaries to get the best employees. That is complete hogwash… people want to live in Davis and would take a pay cut to work here. There is no need for any salary increases and a decrease across the board is not out of the question.
I am always amused how the district, like the city, always talks about how they need to pay competitive salaries to get the best employees. That is complete hogwash… people want to live in Davis and would take a pay cut to work here. There is no need for any salary increases and a decrease across the board is not out of the question.
I am always amused how the district, like the city, always talks about how they need to pay competitive salaries to get the best employees. That is complete hogwash… people want to live in Davis and would take a pay cut to work here. There is no need for any salary increases and a decrease across the board is not out of the question.
I am always amused how the district, like the city, always talks about how they need to pay competitive salaries to get the best employees. That is complete hogwash… people want to live in Davis and would take a pay cut to work here. There is no need for any salary increases and a decrease across the board is not out of the question.
“In a study of thirteen local districts …”
WARNING FLAG!
“… the average district contribution for health and welfare benefit is $10,900. The current discrepancy has placed Davis Joint Unified in a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire and retain new administrative and confidential employees.”
This is how virutally every unit of local to state government has got itself in trouble: trying to “keep up with the Joneses.”
Even when times were better and revenues were rising, allowing agencies to increase pay packages, there always was an implied underlying lie built in to this cat chasing his tale: That there are very few qualified and competent people to take these jobs, and therefore, if we want anyone decent to apply, we had better offer a king’s ransom.
The truth is: There are highly qualified educational administrators up and down California who are unemployed or underemployed. There will be more in the coming years, as districts try to preserve classroom budgets and spend less on overhead.
It is just plain stupid to look at what other districts are doing and blow money trying to keep up with them. Look at your own stable, long-term revenue stream. (If you can, try to expand your revenue stream.) And then make your budget based on what you can afford, given your priorities: be they teachers, books, classroom supplies, sports and music programs, janitorial services, administrators, whatever; and then budget based on that.
If you try to keep up with some other districts which have different priorities, you end up spending too much in the wrong areas and cutting the aspects of your program you prefer.
“In a study of thirteen local districts …”
WARNING FLAG!
“… the average district contribution for health and welfare benefit is $10,900. The current discrepancy has placed Davis Joint Unified in a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire and retain new administrative and confidential employees.”
This is how virutally every unit of local to state government has got itself in trouble: trying to “keep up with the Joneses.”
Even when times were better and revenues were rising, allowing agencies to increase pay packages, there always was an implied underlying lie built in to this cat chasing his tale: That there are very few qualified and competent people to take these jobs, and therefore, if we want anyone decent to apply, we had better offer a king’s ransom.
The truth is: There are highly qualified educational administrators up and down California who are unemployed or underemployed. There will be more in the coming years, as districts try to preserve classroom budgets and spend less on overhead.
It is just plain stupid to look at what other districts are doing and blow money trying to keep up with them. Look at your own stable, long-term revenue stream. (If you can, try to expand your revenue stream.) And then make your budget based on what you can afford, given your priorities: be they teachers, books, classroom supplies, sports and music programs, janitorial services, administrators, whatever; and then budget based on that.
If you try to keep up with some other districts which have different priorities, you end up spending too much in the wrong areas and cutting the aspects of your program you prefer.
“In a study of thirteen local districts …”
WARNING FLAG!
“… the average district contribution for health and welfare benefit is $10,900. The current discrepancy has placed Davis Joint Unified in a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire and retain new administrative and confidential employees.”
This is how virutally every unit of local to state government has got itself in trouble: trying to “keep up with the Joneses.”
Even when times were better and revenues were rising, allowing agencies to increase pay packages, there always was an implied underlying lie built in to this cat chasing his tale: That there are very few qualified and competent people to take these jobs, and therefore, if we want anyone decent to apply, we had better offer a king’s ransom.
The truth is: There are highly qualified educational administrators up and down California who are unemployed or underemployed. There will be more in the coming years, as districts try to preserve classroom budgets and spend less on overhead.
It is just plain stupid to look at what other districts are doing and blow money trying to keep up with them. Look at your own stable, long-term revenue stream. (If you can, try to expand your revenue stream.) And then make your budget based on what you can afford, given your priorities: be they teachers, books, classroom supplies, sports and music programs, janitorial services, administrators, whatever; and then budget based on that.
If you try to keep up with some other districts which have different priorities, you end up spending too much in the wrong areas and cutting the aspects of your program you prefer.
“In a study of thirteen local districts …”
WARNING FLAG!
“… the average district contribution for health and welfare benefit is $10,900. The current discrepancy has placed Davis Joint Unified in a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire and retain new administrative and confidential employees.”
This is how virutally every unit of local to state government has got itself in trouble: trying to “keep up with the Joneses.”
Even when times were better and revenues were rising, allowing agencies to increase pay packages, there always was an implied underlying lie built in to this cat chasing his tale: That there are very few qualified and competent people to take these jobs, and therefore, if we want anyone decent to apply, we had better offer a king’s ransom.
The truth is: There are highly qualified educational administrators up and down California who are unemployed or underemployed. There will be more in the coming years, as districts try to preserve classroom budgets and spend less on overhead.
It is just plain stupid to look at what other districts are doing and blow money trying to keep up with them. Look at your own stable, long-term revenue stream. (If you can, try to expand your revenue stream.) And then make your budget based on what you can afford, given your priorities: be they teachers, books, classroom supplies, sports and music programs, janitorial services, administrators, whatever; and then budget based on that.
If you try to keep up with some other districts which have different priorities, you end up spending too much in the wrong areas and cutting the aspects of your program you prefer.
7:51:
We’re on the same page then.
In terms of mail-only apparently that would require legislative action to approve and it is not clear how much money that would save. Part of the problem is that it appears the Clerk is passing along fixed costs to those who hold election.
7:51:
We’re on the same page then.
In terms of mail-only apparently that would require legislative action to approve and it is not clear how much money that would save. Part of the problem is that it appears the Clerk is passing along fixed costs to those who hold election.
7:51:
We’re on the same page then.
In terms of mail-only apparently that would require legislative action to approve and it is not clear how much money that would save. Part of the problem is that it appears the Clerk is passing along fixed costs to those who hold election.
7:51:
We’re on the same page then.
In terms of mail-only apparently that would require legislative action to approve and it is not clear how much money that would save. Part of the problem is that it appears the Clerk is passing along fixed costs to those who hold election.
Regarding the extension of terms, which I believe errodes democratic legitimacy: I think I have said in past posts, I would support that only if the money saved was much larger than I had assumed. Based on what David has reported, apparently it is much larger and therefore it can be justified, due to the economic crisis (and factors vis-a-vis county policies).
However, I think the trustees owe it to the people who live within the DJUSD boundaries to publish a letter (say in The Enterprise and perhaps on Vanguard and The Aggie) which lays out in simple language these facts:
* The last time we held a board election, in 2007, it cost the district X amount of dollars.
* To hold an election in 2009 for the expiring board seats, it will cost the district Y amount of dollars (which presumably is far greater than X).
* If we instead hold the next board election in 2010, it will cost the district Z amount of dollars (which presumably is far less than X).
* Because of the terrible budget problems of state government, it would be irresponsible of us to spend X minus Z dollars on the 2009 election.
* Instead, we will take those savings and spend that on retaining classroom teachers. If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
* The reason that odd-year elections have become so much more expensive than in the past is because….
* Therefore, we will move the 2009 board election to 2010 and the 2011 election to 2012; and thereafter, all board elections will be in even years and trustees will be elected to serve four-year terms.
Regarding the extension of terms, which I believe errodes democratic legitimacy: I think I have said in past posts, I would support that only if the money saved was much larger than I had assumed. Based on what David has reported, apparently it is much larger and therefore it can be justified, due to the economic crisis (and factors vis-a-vis county policies).
However, I think the trustees owe it to the people who live within the DJUSD boundaries to publish a letter (say in The Enterprise and perhaps on Vanguard and The Aggie) which lays out in simple language these facts:
* The last time we held a board election, in 2007, it cost the district X amount of dollars.
* To hold an election in 2009 for the expiring board seats, it will cost the district Y amount of dollars (which presumably is far greater than X).
* If we instead hold the next board election in 2010, it will cost the district Z amount of dollars (which presumably is far less than X).
* Because of the terrible budget problems of state government, it would be irresponsible of us to spend X minus Z dollars on the 2009 election.
* Instead, we will take those savings and spend that on retaining classroom teachers. If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
* The reason that odd-year elections have become so much more expensive than in the past is because….
* Therefore, we will move the 2009 board election to 2010 and the 2011 election to 2012; and thereafter, all board elections will be in even years and trustees will be elected to serve four-year terms.
Regarding the extension of terms, which I believe errodes democratic legitimacy: I think I have said in past posts, I would support that only if the money saved was much larger than I had assumed. Based on what David has reported, apparently it is much larger and therefore it can be justified, due to the economic crisis (and factors vis-a-vis county policies).
However, I think the trustees owe it to the people who live within the DJUSD boundaries to publish a letter (say in The Enterprise and perhaps on Vanguard and The Aggie) which lays out in simple language these facts:
* The last time we held a board election, in 2007, it cost the district X amount of dollars.
* To hold an election in 2009 for the expiring board seats, it will cost the district Y amount of dollars (which presumably is far greater than X).
* If we instead hold the next board election in 2010, it will cost the district Z amount of dollars (which presumably is far less than X).
* Because of the terrible budget problems of state government, it would be irresponsible of us to spend X minus Z dollars on the 2009 election.
* Instead, we will take those savings and spend that on retaining classroom teachers. If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
* The reason that odd-year elections have become so much more expensive than in the past is because….
* Therefore, we will move the 2009 board election to 2010 and the 2011 election to 2012; and thereafter, all board elections will be in even years and trustees will be elected to serve four-year terms.
Regarding the extension of terms, which I believe errodes democratic legitimacy: I think I have said in past posts, I would support that only if the money saved was much larger than I had assumed. Based on what David has reported, apparently it is much larger and therefore it can be justified, due to the economic crisis (and factors vis-a-vis county policies).
However, I think the trustees owe it to the people who live within the DJUSD boundaries to publish a letter (say in The Enterprise and perhaps on Vanguard and The Aggie) which lays out in simple language these facts:
* The last time we held a board election, in 2007, it cost the district X amount of dollars.
* To hold an election in 2009 for the expiring board seats, it will cost the district Y amount of dollars (which presumably is far greater than X).
* If we instead hold the next board election in 2010, it will cost the district Z amount of dollars (which presumably is far less than X).
* Because of the terrible budget problems of state government, it would be irresponsible of us to spend X minus Z dollars on the 2009 election.
* Instead, we will take those savings and spend that on retaining classroom teachers. If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
* The reason that odd-year elections have become so much more expensive than in the past is because….
* Therefore, we will move the 2009 board election to 2010 and the 2011 election to 2012; and thereafter, all board elections will be in even years and trustees will be elected to serve four-year terms.
If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
That should read:
“If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to lay off K number of classroom teachers.”
If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
That should read:
“If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to lay off K number of classroom teachers.”
If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
That should read:
“If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to lay off K number of classroom teachers.”
If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to pay off K number of classroom teachers.
That should read:
“If we used that money on a 2009 election, we will have to lay off K number of classroom teachers.”
That’s a very interesting typo…
Seriously, I think that is a good suggested and in fact, I took the liberty of forwarding it to the district.
That’s a very interesting typo…
Seriously, I think that is a good suggested and in fact, I took the liberty of forwarding it to the district.
That’s a very interesting typo…
Seriously, I think that is a good suggested and in fact, I took the liberty of forwarding it to the district.
That’s a very interesting typo…
Seriously, I think that is a good suggested and in fact, I took the liberty of forwarding it to the district.
By the way, if they write such a letter, I would recommend that those trustees — who have not been frugal with regard to raising employee salaries and benefits and who did not take a stand in dealing with the bargaining groups — to not include language like David quoted two of them saying: “I won’t waste any money if that results in having to fire teachers.” That is not credible. You have already made that error.
By the way, if they write such a letter, I would recommend that those trustees — who have not been frugal with regard to raising employee salaries and benefits and who did not take a stand in dealing with the bargaining groups — to not include language like David quoted two of them saying: “I won’t waste any money if that results in having to fire teachers.” That is not credible. You have already made that error.
By the way, if they write such a letter, I would recommend that those trustees — who have not been frugal with regard to raising employee salaries and benefits and who did not take a stand in dealing with the bargaining groups — to not include language like David quoted two of them saying: “I won’t waste any money if that results in having to fire teachers.” That is not credible. You have already made that error.
By the way, if they write such a letter, I would recommend that those trustees — who have not been frugal with regard to raising employee salaries and benefits and who did not take a stand in dealing with the bargaining groups — to not include language like David quoted two of them saying: “I won’t waste any money if that results in having to fire teachers.” That is not credible. You have already made that error.
They haven’t passed this proposal yet, so let’s see what happens before we suggest that.
They haven’t passed this proposal yet, so let’s see what happens before we suggest that.
They haven’t passed this proposal yet, so let’s see what happens before we suggest that.
They haven’t passed this proposal yet, so let’s see what happens before we suggest that.
7:51 anon says, I agree and think Rich’s language is good and transparent…..AND they should not pass the salary raises….to me that would decrease their credibility. Perhaps they should even say budget is so dire that……
in the bulleted items that Rich wrote…..NOW if they do ok the increases AND extend their terms I think they will show a large amt of hypocrisy……
7:51 anon says, I agree and think Rich’s language is good and transparent…..AND they should not pass the salary raises….to me that would decrease their credibility. Perhaps they should even say budget is so dire that……
in the bulleted items that Rich wrote…..NOW if they do ok the increases AND extend their terms I think they will show a large amt of hypocrisy……
7:51 anon says, I agree and think Rich’s language is good and transparent…..AND they should not pass the salary raises….to me that would decrease their credibility. Perhaps they should even say budget is so dire that……
in the bulleted items that Rich wrote…..NOW if they do ok the increases AND extend their terms I think they will show a large amt of hypocrisy……
7:51 anon says, I agree and think Rich’s language is good and transparent…..AND they should not pass the salary raises….to me that would decrease their credibility. Perhaps they should even say budget is so dire that……
in the bulleted items that Rich wrote…..NOW if they do ok the increases AND extend their terms I think they will show a large amt of hypocrisy……
What is the procedure for replacing a board member if they resign? Would that trigger a special election?
What is the procedure for replacing a board member if they resign? Would that trigger a special election?
What is the procedure for replacing a board member if they resign? Would that trigger a special election?
What is the procedure for replacing a board member if they resign? Would that trigger a special election?
All other local districts are also already in deep financial problems (contrary to what some comment here, that Woodland is just fine, they are in a multi-million dollar hole as well). Other districts will also likely be laying off staff. It seems unlikely that steep competition to obtain new staff members is going to be a big problem in the next few years at least.
All other local districts are also already in deep financial problems (contrary to what some comment here, that Woodland is just fine, they are in a multi-million dollar hole as well). Other districts will also likely be laying off staff. It seems unlikely that steep competition to obtain new staff members is going to be a big problem in the next few years at least.
All other local districts are also already in deep financial problems (contrary to what some comment here, that Woodland is just fine, they are in a multi-million dollar hole as well). Other districts will also likely be laying off staff. It seems unlikely that steep competition to obtain new staff members is going to be a big problem in the next few years at least.
All other local districts are also already in deep financial problems (contrary to what some comment here, that Woodland is just fine, they are in a multi-million dollar hole as well). Other districts will also likely be laying off staff. It seems unlikely that steep competition to obtain new staff members is going to be a big problem in the next few years at least.
I believe they appoint a member to fill out a term. For example, Keltie Jones was appointed to replace a member who had moved (help me out someone I’m drawing a blank as to who she replaced).
I believe they appoint a member to fill out a term. For example, Keltie Jones was appointed to replace a member who had moved (help me out someone I’m drawing a blank as to who she replaced).
I believe they appoint a member to fill out a term. For example, Keltie Jones was appointed to replace a member who had moved (help me out someone I’m drawing a blank as to who she replaced).
I believe they appoint a member to fill out a term. For example, Keltie Jones was appointed to replace a member who had moved (help me out someone I’m drawing a blank as to who she replaced).