|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 21, 2011 17:22:45 GMT -5
It is probably cathartic to sign in anonymously and make a number of posts in a flame war. But even the best posts posted in a flame war are really irrelevant to what we should be discussing, here.
Facing down economic Armageddon, we have better things to do than to bash unions or teachers, or to bash the people who are in possession of factual data about the crisis that is about to annihilate life as we all know it, here in Wantagh Long Island.
As serious as anyone may like to think that teacher bashing is, or that making distracting 'shill' posts is, those things are not serious by any comparable standard. Wasting one's time and the time of others on that activity is sad, it is a shame, and it is totally distracting from the only real topic which is a $3.5 Million swing in Wantagh's school revenue versus school spending situation.
I would sincerely love to see the next post from any of the bashers or any of the 'shills' to be about how can we reduce the amount and the impact of that $3.5 Million negative financial swing before the school board locks-down the budget, crosses their fingers and presents it to the voters to have their way with it.
To make myself clear, let's see some posts with specific ideas for cutting costs, saving money, or how to best react to the ideas of the school board and others for dealing with this crisis.
Be advised that there is a default reaction that will result from a null response: layoffs, increased class size, and an untenable tax hike that will make passing a budget just so much wishful thinking.
So, either flame-on & flame-out, or, smarten-up and let's start talking dollars and cents instead of innuendo and intrigue.
Well, come on, say something....
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
|
Post by WantaghConcernedCitizens on Feb 21, 2011 20:58:25 GMT -5
IMO, I'm a Union basher, not a teacher basher.
Here are few ideas.
1- Limit the payout for accumulated sick, it will cost the district close to 100k this year, when 4 teacher retire. (contract item)
2- Stop paying over 100+ dollars per game for someone to announce athletic games. Furthermore, ask parents to donate time to supervise athletic events, since they will be at the games anyway. This will save us over 50k, not to mention addition pension liabilities. Seniors and Junior could do the books and announce the games, I'm sure we have a few communications people out there.
3- Eliminate the pay for assistant coaches, furthermore limit the amount of head coaching positions to 1 per employee and require that individual to donate time in order to qualify for the position. Furthermore, allow highly qualified individuals/non teachers to volunteer for the assistant coaching positions.
3- Fire to Public Relations Company, or other stipends payout to the staff for feel good items.
4- Consolidate our Administration with a few surrounding schools, such as seaford and Plainedge.
5- Cut any perks that our administration is currently receiving, end of story.
6- Here is another idea for all the football people, consolidate and make a seaford/wantagh team, this way we can start playing the Tier 1 teams and give the kids the experience they will need if they intend to go to the next level. I can see it now, the offensive and defensive lines will be on average 20-30 pound heavier. This will create better football altogether, as we will have to compete with the big boys. I can't see why both these towns wouldn't want to brag about beating Freeport, Massapequa, or Farmingdale.
BTW, IMO the stipend items would be easy, since the contract gives the teachers the first right of refusal. If you aren't paying anyone (policy change) to fill these positions are you truly braking the contract? I don't think so, because if we choose not to pay anyone, there is nothing to contest. Furthermore if we decide these positions are volunteer spots (non paid), the teachers can still have the first right of refusal for the position, if they do offer their services they should be a candidate for any available head coaching spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by WantaghConcernedCitizens on Feb 22, 2011 9:01:13 GMT -5
How about getting rid of the idea that every person that steps foot on school ground needs a union card. Example, when we need to hire a union approved cement company to replace the sidewalks, it costs us 3x the going rate that homeowners pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 22, 2011 11:46:31 GMT -5
WCC Proffered the following suggestions:- Limit the payout for accumulated sick, it will cost the district close to 100k this year, when 4 teacher retire. (contract item)
The payout is already limited per contract. You are suggesting further limitation, which is worth considering. I would add that accumulated unused sick days be "valued" at the $ rate in effect the year they are entered into each employees balance; days entered in at $90 should never be increased in value once they are booked into the "bank". What right does the Board of Education have to increase the value of such assets (unused sick days) when they receive no offsetting value or consideration for doing so? [/li][li]Stop paying over 100+ dollars per game for someone to announce athletic games. Furthermore, ask parents to donate time to supervise athletic events, since they will be at the games anyway. This will save us over 50k, not to mention addition pension liabilities. Seniors and Junior could do the books and announce the games, I'm sure we have a few communications people out there.[/blockquote]The paid announcer could go, if there were reliable replacements willing to volunteer. Game supervision without any District Staff would be totally unacceptable from both safety and legal liability standpoints. The District has an affirmative responsibility to supervise sanctioned events and its premises. This probably would violate Section VIII Regulations as well. Score keeping at Section VIII competitions requires adults. Keeping the team books, stats, etc. could be done by students, I suppose. [/li][li]Eliminate the pay for assistant coaches, furthermore limit the amount of head coaching positions to 1 per employee and require that individual to donate time in order to qualify for the position. Furthermore, allow highly qualified individuals/non teachers to volunteer for the assistant coaching positions.[/blockquote]This is a pure negotiations issue. I see where you are coming from on the 1 head coaching job per employee, but I feel that piece is more spiteful than in any way truly beneficial. We have been blessed with some truly gifted coaches through the decades, Bill Hedgec0ck comes immediately to mind, and for us to have limited him, for example, to only coaching one team would have been a real injustice to our teams and the sports program. Eliminating pay for assistant coaches? Where is the equity in that? What quid pro quo would you suggest offering, and then how would this ever save any money? [/li][li]Fire the Public Relations Company, or other stipends payout to the staff for feel good items.[/blockquote]Limiting this suggestion to "Fire the Public Relations Company" you have a winner. I am all for this, and will be really surprised if the BAC would not unanimously support that as a formal recommendation. Eliminating stipends paid to staff for doing anything is a negotiating issue, completely different from the PR firm. You could not eliminate stipends if the work is still being done. Maybe you could eliminate some of the tasks, and thus the stipends on that basis. Maybe. That would depend upon what "feel-good items" do you have in mind? [/li][li]Consolidate our Administration with a few surrounding schools, such as Seaford and Plainedge.[/blockquote]Now you are talking! This should be examined in much more specific detail in the weeks ahead. Keep this thought! [/li][li]Cut any perks that our administration is currently receiving, end of story.[/blockquote]Not if any of those perks are in a contract, then it is just the beginning of the story. But I most strongly agree with you in principle on this, especially now at this time of crisis. [/li][li]consolidate and make a Seaford/Wantagh team, this way we can start playing the Tier 1 teams and give the kids the experience they will need if they intend to go to the next level. I can see it now, the offensive and defensive lines will be on average 20-30 pound heavier. This will create better football altogether, as we will have to compete with the big boys. I can't see why both these towns wouldn't want to brag about beating Freeport, Massapequa, or Farmingdale.[/li][/ul] [/blockquote]This could not happen unless Wantagh and Seaford actually merged into a single district. This would also be a primary reason why Wantagh & Seaford would never merge into a single district. Sports are all about opportunity. A suggestion to limit opportunity goes against the core value of interscholastic sports. This is not a viable suggestion without a merger taking place (Section VIII). ************************************************************************************************************** Some very sound ideas, some wishful thinking, and some, perhaps not as well thought-out as they could have been. Let's keep the realistic items on the "agenda" and moving along! Thanks for the good input. Who is next? Step right up.... W4L? 'Serious'? Ducky? Lilly? Tom? Michael? Cathy? Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 22, 2011 11:58:51 GMT -5
WCC also queried:
How about getting rid of the idea that every person that steps foot on school ground needs a union card. Example, when we need to hire a union approved cement company to replace the sidewalks, it costs us 3x the going rate that homeowners pay. I am sure you have widespread support for this suggestion. I know this because it is high on the priority lists of the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association and the NY State School Boards Association legislative agendas, and has been for 6-7 years. It is called "Wicks Law" reform or repeal, and comes under the topic of unfunded mandates. Problem is, big union interests (Building Trades) in every city in the State are behind this, and they put intense pressure on the State Legislators NOT to repeal Wicks Law. That is why this legislative agenda item has languished for 6-7 years. Marty Abrams should be prepared to speak to this in his upcoming BAC presentation: What exactly does Wicks Law cost Wantagh? Michael Soethout should make sure this is at the top of the list of items he recommends through the Advocacy Subcommittee. You should communicate with Senator Fuschillo about this, as well. Chris Wendt PS - Union cards and union contracts are NOT required, but "Prevailing Wage" (union wage) is required, just to be technically correct on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by sadpharmd on Feb 22, 2011 23:49:01 GMT -5
Perhaps another item for Michael's advocacy group:
To make school donations and/or gifts personalized Federal or State tax deductions; (could have deductions up to X amount per person, per household). The contributor should be able to direct where the money goes into the school. The tax deduction and the power to choose where it goes, should provide a nice incentive and have a substantial impact on a program, sport, activity that is most important to them, or that would enhance their child's school experience.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 23, 2011 6:54:40 GMT -5
Good suggestion. Coupled with that, on the theme of donations, I had suggested to the Advocacy Subcommittee the concept employed by Rockville Centre and Trumbull, Ct school districts: a district designated "Giving Coordinator". This is a person or small group of people, usually including 1-2 BoE members and a senior administrator who coordinate all giving to the district. Anyone, private citizen, parent organization, local service organization, and any lawmaker or public entity who wishes to donate to the schools first comes to the coordinator of giving. The Giving Coordinator has the following expectations: - to help fulfill stated giving goals for pre-determined district priorities, such as Smart Boards
- to increase the general level of giving by soliciting donors for ad-hoc needs, especially from legislators
- to avoid issues with directed giving that is not a priority or not in the best interests of the district or its mission, such as the incredibly wasteful LED sign on the front lawn of the Wantagh Elementary School (instead of more Smart Boards--in the classrooms).
Among the tactical responsibilities of the Coordinator is to help direct private monetary donations to the established IRC-501(c)(3) foundations for which foundations the district serves as the designated LEA, such as The Wantagh Foundation and Wantagh S.O.S. The coordinator also takes a proactive role with public officials who donate grants to insure those grants come directly to the District (and not through the Foundations) and that legislative grants best serve the goals of the District, such as Smart Boards versus a baseball backstop. Without a proactive Giving Coordinator function in place, beforehand, the district is open to the self-serving whims of legislators for the legislators' personal pet projects, which are sometimes not useful to the district at all, all the while crying needs of the district go unfulfilled. I recognize that may sound cavalier. But it is no less cavalier than having an embarrassingly ugly and totally useless red LED sign plopped on the front lawn of one of our district's architectural masterpieces (WES), or, having one County Legislator give us two Smart Boards for our classrooms but another one give us a baseball backstop. A baseball backstop...because no one was designated as Giving Coordinator to tell him or to ask him for..."Smart" "Boards"! I do apologize for insulting the people who donated that stupid sign. Your intentions were good. That sign, however, is a lasting and irritating testament to the dire need for planned giving in Wantagh. No apology to Dennis Dunne, however. He should take his cue from Dave Dennenberg. Sincerely Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 23, 2011 7:09:29 GMT -5
Another example of coordinated giving is the fund raising mission of those IRC-501(c)(3) foundations. There is supposed to be an operative, open "channel" between the District, which is the Lead Educational Agency (LEA) for those foundations, and the foundation's giving arm.
What?
Check out the RVC Foundation website. They regularly make grants to the district, to departments, to teachers for educational initiatives; and, the district, the department chairs and teachers know that they can develop grant requests and submit them to "their" foundation for funding. An off-the-top-of-my-head example for the Wantagh Foundation and the District would be (no, not Smart Boards, but) $3,000 worth of new and replacement scroll saws appearing on two lines of the proposed 2011-12 Technology Department budget.
If the Foundation solicited grant applications from its LEA (the District) like they do in RVC, then those scroll saws could be funded by the Foundation, and not put at risk of being cut from the budget and leaving an educational need go unfulfilled, here in Wantagh.
Just saying. They have the money.
With all good intentions....
Chris Wendt
|
|
ducky
Junior Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by ducky on Feb 23, 2011 9:03:25 GMT -5
Here is a "serious" idea from a retired school superintendent as seen in Newsday. - Let's focus on Transparency and accountability in superintendent compensation.
-Limit overall compensation to a max of $225,000 (should start at less)
-Term limit of 3 years, evaluation in 3rd year
-No guaranteed raises or renewals
-No perks on hidden contract riders
-Post all on website, total transparency
- Have BOE vote on, salary, renewal (when due) and any perks
We are a t a major disadvantage when negotiating since they have professional negotiators and we are primarily amateurs
|
|
