Well the next year should be an interesting one for the school board. Schneider is president and Lemberger is VP. Anyone surprised Becker isn't VP? As loyal as Becker has always been to Schneider and given his years of experience vs. Lemberger's I was surprised it was Lemberger who ended up VP.
I have to wonder if this is the beginning of a long alliance or a one vote aberration. Philosophically does Lemberger really line up with Becker and Schneider? Is Monte a wild card or will she fall in line with those 2 like a good little girl? This has the makings of a good Soap Opera.
How much of his agenda will Schneider be able to accomplish? He seems to have the votes to get his way but, will it be as easy as he thinks? The fact is there appears no end in sight to the budget cuts year after year and let's not forget the promises to ADD dollars to maintenance. Where exactly will the cuts come from? It seems that the Schneider, Monte, Becker trifecta has already put a number of things off limits: no teacher cuts, no program cuts, no maintenance cuts. So where will the cuts come from? From past comments it appears the targets will be staff salary/benefit packages and administrator positions...will that be enough?
I'll be watching things closely. Let us know what you think...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I find the board reorganization vote interesting too. What it suggests to me is Schneider is not playing favorites and feels the board needs to start the healing process. By supporting Lemberger, he does just that by setting a tone of "lets work together."
Even though, the public wants significant change and has rejected clearly the board majority's logic, these referendum supporters are still welcome in the board room as evidenced by Schneider appointing Mcdermot to chair a committee.
I just hope the referendum supporters will yield their past agendas and be open to new and fresh ideas.
Good luck to them! We need them to be successful.
Schneider, Becker, and Monte have all talked a good game about contract negotiations and salaries and benefits, which is great rhetoric for pandering to the voters. I predict if they carry forward in such an arrogant, unrelenting way we will spend a lot of time in arbitration, only to lose and end of spending even more money because of their negativity and pigheadedness.
BTW, one of Monte's first blog comments since being sworn in was snide and shows she lacks class and the ability to stay calm and be nice when dealing with those that share different beliefs than she.
Just what comment is "snide"?
If you are referring to the bit of sarcasm that she used regarding compromise, you need some thicker skin. Wow.
I have to agree that although the salary and benefits argument is getting really sickening, that "quid pro quo baby" comment pushes me over the edge. I really dislike having things stuffed in my face and quid pro quo just rubs me wrong. Michelle's comments were very nice in comparison to what I would have responded with. I am glad that she did respond becuase it gave me an opportunity to rethink whether I should post or not... I think we know the answer.
"Schneider, Becker, and Monte have all talked a good game about contract negotiations and salaries and benefits, which is great rhetoric for pandering to the voters."
I'm one of those voters who did vote for them in hopes they could reign in this runaway train called compensation.
They need to freeze wages and change the ratio structure of heathcare costs to place a larger part of that on the employees.
The cost of labor is 85+% of the budget. This new group needs to take a firm stance, especially in the economic times we are currently in, to shift more of the cost to labor and away from the taxpayer.
You are an uninformed voter as quid pro quo does not allow wages to be frozen. As for the cost of labor being 85% of the budget, welcome to the real world. Look at any business in the private sector and you'll find that the biggest chunk of any organization is salaries and benefits. Why? Because without workers to do the work you'd have no organization. That's why, and it's the way it should be. To the Monte comment, she's an elected official now and needs to learn how to curb her cutting tongue. But leopards can't change their spots and Monte will also have something nasty to say to her opposition. Just another fact of life like salaries and benefits being 85% of a budget.
May 4, 2009 7:33 AM said:
"I'm one of those voters who did vote for them in hopes they could reign in this runaway train called compensation.
They need to freeze wages and change the ratio structure of heathcare costs to place a larger part of that on the employees. "
I'm just wondering if you understand how arbitration works?
I have to agree with 8:04am... you are not going to win in arbitration if you go in with a wage freeze and a benefit cut.
I think the new crew has a voter mandate to cut expenses. Bottom line with the economy in the tank, people just don't have the bucks anymore. They sure aren't going to stand still and pay more taxes to give teachers more pay and more benefits if they (the taxpayers) are out of work or getting less pay and maybe NO benefits at all. Remember Oshkosh is a blue collar town not a white collar town like Appleton or Neenah.
Like it or not, they have no choice. The concept of quid pro quo is legislated by the state, as is the QEO and it really doesn't matter what some of the voters have told the "new crew". If they fight this too much they will end up in arbitration where they'll most likely lose. So then we still have these so-called "runaway" salaries and benefits and we'll have to pay the cost of arbitration. So much for the "new crew" being responsible watchdogs of tax dollars.
Oshkosh or even Wisconsin is not the only area experiencing this dilemma. This article points out the private vs public issue is fairly rampant.
As the nation’s unemployment rate escalates to 7.2 percent, pushing more Americans working in the private sector onto the unemployment line, the public sector has remained unscathed. The majority of those working for the state, and Connecticut’s 169 cities and towns, are not losing their jobs — but gaining pay increases.
Connecticut residents pay the highest property taxes in the nation, second only to New Jersey.
On average, 75 to 85 percent of the 169 municipal budgets are dedicated to paying wages and benefits of town and board of education employees. Pensions, in some cases, exceed base pay as overtime is factored in.
Excessive benefits
In East Hartford, for example, police can retire under a drop program. After 20 years of service they can elect to work another five years during which they’ll collect their regular pay while 96 percent of their pension is dropped into a savings account. A police officer scheduled to receive $60,000 upon retirement could collect a total of $288,800 through the drop program — before receiving his full pension of $60,000.
The lucrative pay, health benefits and pensions of government workers is due to the refusal of Connecticut’s Democratic-controlled legislature to reform state binding arbitration laws or force a wage freeze for all state and municipal workers at the same time their constituents in the private sector are losing their jobs.
Within two weeks a union contract will take effect costing Connecticut taxpayers an additional $86 million by giving 5,200 Department of Correction employees lucrative wage increases, some reaching 6 percent.
No courage
The legislature has the authority to bring this contract before them for a vote. However, many in the legislature lack the courage to vote publicly. To do so would demonstrate whose side they are on — the taxpayers who will pay for the wage increases or the unions who will reap the rewards.
Our state is in a fiscal crisis. State deficits are expected to reach $1 billion this year, and up to $10 billion or more in the biennium starting July 1. These deficits will affect every man, woman and child in the state now and in the future.
State labor economist John Tirinzonie predicts Connecticut will lose up to 80,000 jobs within two years. Like an unpaid mortgage which can force a homeowner into foreclosure by a lending institution, an unpaid property tax can result in a tax lien sale initiated by local governments.
First, Through state laws governing Binding Arbitration, arbitrators who render the decisions on local union contracts are generally not from the town they are affecting and they base their decisions on previously agreed to or arbitrated contracts, whether they are local or state.
Second, union contracts not only govern the wages, pensions and healthcare of workers but can also set policy; i.e. number of students in a classroom, number of fire houses open, etc.
Third, our Binding Arbitration laws must be reformed to include the following:
o Allow towns to suspend Binding Arbitration for up to three years due to a downturn in the economy, while employees continue to receive their same salary and benefits.
o Require that local arbitration awards must be ratified by a majority vote of the local legislative body. As in state government, if the awards are rejected, the process must begin again.
o Prohibit arbitrators from accessing a towns undesignated fund/savings account to fund union contracts.
Fourth, state laws must be reformed to give local officials the right to freeze salaries as they are doing in the private sector regardless of union contracts.
The next tsunami to hit our country will be the loss of homes through Tax Lien Sales which occurs when a homeowner cannot afford their taxes.
In summary, the public is now learning that their elected officials have limited control over their budgets or the operations of their towns. Instead those controls rest squarely on the side of the unions for which approximately 85% of local property taxes pay for their wages, pensions and healthcare.
Please contact your state representative today and tell them to freeze the salaries of all state and municipal workers, reform the state’s binding arbitration laws. Their failure to do so will set a precedent for future state and municipal government employee contracts and budgets — the costs of which will be passed on to you, the over-taxed taxpayer
Nice little post May 4, 2009 11:13 AM but the FACT is currently we have the QEO for teachers - that says the only way to avoid arbitration is to give a 3.8% package and there can be no material changes to health benefits.
So far there is currently a provision in the state budget to repeal the QEO and provisions that state an arbitrator may NOT consider Revenue Controls or Local Economic conditions when deciding which side's "plan" to choose. That pretty much tells me teachers salaries aren't going to be frozen and benefits won't be curtailed. That is the reality and if the board is arrogant enough to try, the union will prevail and likely get over a 4% package (some are suggesting the increase could near 7% -- don't know if I believe that one).
A smart board would settle quickly for 3.9-4.0% if possible but I don't think "smart" is the word I would use to describe this board.
I hope they take a firm stand,and if concessions are not made, more layoffs will result. If thats the only card they can play...so be it.
6:50 I think Questioning casts a blindeye towards those posts because he tends to be in bed with the union movement. Just my opinion. Nothing for or against unions, just he appears bias.
Come on people... I do NOT want to moderate comments and will just take this blog down if people can't follow the rules... they are really pretty simple. I know you can all read so.... PLEASE stay away from personal attacks --- on anyone!! There are so many ISSUES to discuss, can't we keep the personalities and clothing out of it?
I'm not going to babysit, I don't have time to check this blog 5 times a day (or even daily) so if when I do check the posts are filled with the nastiness I just deleted then I'll just take the blog down. There are plenty out there that seem to enjoy the personal attacks... go post there.
Questioning said:
A smart board would settle quickly for 3.9-4.0% if possible but I don't think "smart" is the word I would use to describe this board.
May 4, 2009 12:47 PM
I wonder how smart questioning really is. The administration budgeted 3.8% for teachers. If they pay more than that, it increases the already large deficit.
Questioning, where do they cut to continue to pay the bloated salary and benefits of your husband's?
Is that really smart to increase the deficit more? What about the children that will be the sacrifical lamb as we all know the teachers union will throw the children under the bus to get another buck.
I find it someone amazing that a few months ago that people were speculating that Michelle Monte would be a vote for fiscal discipline.
Folks, she said a 9% tax increase is OK. She said trailers at Lakeside was a good idea. What a disappointment! I wonder if John Daget would consider running again. She maybe a better choice that Michelle!
Post a Comment