At this week's school board meeting, one very prominent agenda item was dubiously listed as, "6.02 Request of the Sun Prairie Education Association to re-open the 2009-2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement regarding furlough days and/or other reductions in the total compensation package "What a professional way to do business...er....cover up your own errors. NOT! The issue at hand is a memorandum, drafted by Tim Culver for the school board members' signatures, requesting that the teacher's union (SPEA), agree to re-open their contract to include one furlough day each in 2009-10 (yep, the year that's half over) and 2010-11.
Clearly the school board and Culver understood the economical climate.
Clearly, they knew they would be receiving a large cut in state aid.
Clearly, they knew that the QEO was being repealed effective July 1, 2009.
Yet, they rushed forward to reach an agreement before the QEO was repealed.
Yet, they rushed forward without even a hint of a district budget in place.
And then they patted themselves on the back for making the deal.
And now they want to "take it back"?
We don't think so.
How DARE they!
What this is all about is that the board --and Chief Culver-- were so busy patting themselves on the back, they didn't have a spare hand to put a finger on the pulse of the community that was struggling in the deepest recession of our lives.
It is simply unconscionable that the elected school board, who refuse to do their jobs and serve as the voice of the people instead of the voice of Culver, would now resort to "calling out" the teacher's union to "give back" some of the contractual monies that they negotiated on in good faith. It's more than that. What unmitigated gall Culver and the board have to use their "board meeting" to put public pressure on the teachers to give back what Culver and the board gave them 6 months ago.
At the risk of violating politically correctness, we had a phrase for this when we were growing up...it's called "Indian giving".
Getting a little more "PC", we had another idiom for it. Remember when we were young and we were making a "deal" with a neighbor kid? Perhaps over baseball cards or a treat? These "deals"--contracts, if you will-- even involved the pittance of allowance we received back then.
We frequently sealed these deals with the firmly stated, "NO Take-Backs!".
From the "Urban Dictionary"
No Take Backs
The command that instructs another party that once they have given you something they cannot change their mind.
Call it whatever you wish: renege, breaking your word, go back, welshing, backing out, repudiate, break a promise...it's all the same thing. And it's despicable.
YES...we have a budget crisis. But did you see anything on either the school board or committee agenda about the 2010-11 budget? If things are in crisis, shouldn't we have a standing agenda item to address these growing concerns? Especially when citizen representatives of school board committees (ahem!) have stated on record the need to begin openly discussing the 2010-11 budget TWO MONTHS AGO!!!
YES...perhaps the board should not have been so generous when agreeing to the contract they did.
YES...it's perfectly understandable why Culver and administration would have supported--recommended--the contract because it is school board policy that administrators are "entitled" to the percentage increase that the teacher's union received in the previous year!!! Gee...there's a term for that, isn't there? Ummm...perhaps conflict of interest?!
YES these are our ELECTED (so called) leaders (and three of them...Diedrich, McCourt, and Slane) are running for re-election in April. Keep THAT little note on your refrigerators.
But...all that being said...a DEAL IS A DEAL. A contract is binding. (Unless you are the Governor, of course).
At the heart of the issue is this:
" ...If the SPEA agrees to a furlough day in 2009-2010, it would save $165,508 in the 2009-2010 school year. If the SPEA agrees to a furlough day in 2010-2011, it will save approximately $170,239 in the 2010-2011 school year. This will significantly help address the budget deficit in 2009-2010 and the budget challenges for 2010-2011, which in turn will maintain the educational opportunities for students that our community has come to expect. "
YES...SPEA agreeing to take a furlough day in both this year and next year would "save" the district $336,000. And that would certainly help out the budget challenges.
But it's not right. It's wrong to publicly hang the teacher's union for a contract at least THEY negotiated in good faith. The blame here lies squarely with the school board (and administration) for not doing their jobs six months ago. Hopefully, this will be a lesson learned in the future.
In the meantime, it's time for administration--and the school board-- to put on their big boy (and girl) pants and fix this on THEIR OWN BACKS.
Before any of you rush to judgement on ole SP-EYE.... Let us be clear. We firmly maintain our stance that the contracts negotiated last June were unacceptably generous. Did any of you catch today's State Journal that wages nationwide were DOWN 1.6% in 2009??? This is a different issue. This is about wrong and wrong. The board was WRONG to agree to those contracts, and they are equally WRONG to request they be re-opened NOW.
Besides...there's a quiet element of contract discussions that most don't understand, but should be known. In fact, it would have never been discussed save for district resident (and school board candidate, we might add) John Welke speaking out during the meeting. Welke asked Culver and the board to clarify whether or not the SPEA contract was just like state employee contracts in that once re-opened, discussions are not limited to the "intent" of the re-opening. They reluctantly revealed that, once open for re-negotiation, ALL parameters in the contract are subject to negotiation.
YES...we have a budget crisis. But did you see anything on either the school board or committee agenda about the 2010-11 budget? If things are in crisis, shouldn't we have a standing agenda item to address these growing concerns? Especially when citizen representatives of school board committees (ahem!) have stated on record the need to begin openly discussing the 2010-11 budget TWO MONTHS AGO!!!
YES...perhaps the board should not have been so generous when agreeing to the contract they did.
YES...it's perfectly understandable why Culver and administration would have supported--recommended--the contract because it is school board policy that administrators are "entitled" to the percentage increase that the teacher's union received in the previous year!!! Gee...there's a term for that, isn't there? Ummm...perhaps conflict of interest?!
YES these are our ELECTED (so called) leaders (and three of them...Diedrich, McCourt, and Slane) are running for re-election in April. Keep THAT little note on your refrigerators.
But...all that being said...a DEAL IS A DEAL. A contract is binding. (Unless you are the Governor, of course).
At the heart of the issue is this:
" ...If the SPEA agrees to a furlough day in 2009-2010, it would save $165,508 in the 2009-2010 school year. If the SPEA agrees to a furlough day in 2010-2011, it will save approximately $170,239 in the 2010-2011 school year. This will significantly help address the budget deficit in 2009-2010 and the budget challenges for 2010-2011, which in turn will maintain the educational opportunities for students that our community has come to expect. "
YES...SPEA agreeing to take a furlough day in both this year and next year would "save" the district $336,000. And that would certainly help out the budget challenges.
But it's not right. It's wrong to publicly hang the teacher's union for a contract at least THEY negotiated in good faith. The blame here lies squarely with the school board (and administration) for not doing their jobs six months ago. Hopefully, this will be a lesson learned in the future.
In the meantime, it's time for administration--and the school board-- to put on their big boy (and girl) pants and fix this on THEIR OWN BACKS.
Before any of you rush to judgement on ole SP-EYE.... Let us be clear. We firmly maintain our stance that the contracts negotiated last June were unacceptably generous. Did any of you catch today's State Journal that wages nationwide were DOWN 1.6% in 2009??? This is a different issue. This is about wrong and wrong. The board was WRONG to agree to those contracts, and they are equally WRONG to request they be re-opened NOW.
Besides...there's a quiet element of contract discussions that most don't understand, but should be known. In fact, it would have never been discussed save for district resident (and school board candidate, we might add) John Welke speaking out during the meeting. Welke asked Culver and the board to clarify whether or not the SPEA contract was just like state employee contracts in that once re-opened, discussions are not limited to the "intent" of the re-opening. They reluctantly revealed that, once open for re-negotiation, ALL parameters in the contract are subject to negotiation.
Oh...and one other thing neither the board nor Culver mentions: the teachers are being asked to give up a furlough day in BOTH this year AND next year. We have heard no mention that the board will impose an equivalent sanction on the Administrators or Admin Support groups for next year. Geee...we guess the teachers just are supposed to TRUST them, eh??? Trust. Yep that's something we just have oodles of in this district. NOT.
Whether you agree with the teachers' contract or disagree, put yourself in THEIR shoes. Given this situation by YOUR employer...would YOU be amenable to renegotiate? We don't think so. You don't have to like that...but you have to agree that it makes no sense to do so...so let's not judge SPEA should they (as we expect they will) decline this magnanimous offer to renegotiate their contracts to give back wages which were negotiated in good faith.
Sorry school board, but you're going to have to put a little firmer hand on that budget knife. And do NOT even attempt to threaten "the kids" before you tap into the rich veins of administration.
Whether you agree with the teachers' contract or disagree, put yourself in THEIR shoes. Given this situation by YOUR employer...would YOU be amenable to renegotiate? We don't think so. You don't have to like that...but you have to agree that it makes no sense to do so...so let's not judge SPEA should they (as we expect they will) decline this magnanimous offer to renegotiate their contracts to give back wages which were negotiated in good faith.
Sorry school board, but you're going to have to put a little firmer hand on that budget knife. And do NOT even attempt to threaten "the kids" before you tap into the rich veins of administration.
Posts
