Who Are You Bargaining For?

The question of the day is: WHY is the SPEA Negotiating Team dragging out negotiations for 2012-13 (Hello!  We're beyond the midway point!  Time to start working for 2013-14!!!)

The school board offered a very fair package which addresses what SPEA (and WEAC) have declared to be a primary mission: raising the starting wage for teachers.  But that's not good enough.  You see, in order to do that with the pot of money available, a significant portion must be earmarked for those teachers with 1-6 years of experience.  That means that a small amount would be available to more tenured teachers, most in the form of a stipend (as opposed to a base salary builder).

It's called compromise, people!   You are getting to do some serious good for starting teachers.  But you're not willing to accept that because this plan calls for either a small token stipend (or perhaps nothing) for those teachers that already earn like...say...$86,000 in base salary. REALLY?  Is THAT what unions are all about?

Here's a novel idea.
If the union is really... well....unified...
...and union members really feel strongly but raising the base wage...
If they are that unhappy with a stipend amount of $460 each, why don't they all agree to donate those stipends to further increase the base wage?   As it is, the board proposal still means a base wage that is no more than par with the average paid throughout Dane Co. districts.
If even HALF of the stipend amount going to the upper 2/3 was used to further increase the base wage of those on the bottom rung, we could have a very competitive base wage.
What? sacrifice $500 to help your fellow teachers just starting out?  Fat chance!


What does a 2% across the board pay increase look like?
Let's take a look at that 2% increase and how it would play out the way SPEA wants it to.  Now, the best way to do that is to use that great salary matrix(for 2011-12 ending June 2012) put together by the District Office.  Yes...we'll state it up front...some of those upper end teachers (and some throughout the list) have either retired or moved on.  But we need a model to work with and this is what we have.
We also culled the list; we sorted it by base salary and excluded all individuals earning below $32,505, which is the base wage for a starting teacher.

What we are let with was a list of 552 staff members.
The total base salary of these folks was $26,971,406.
Th school board has budgeted for 2% of that amount for wage increases.
2% comes to $539,428.

Now...from the top of that amount, we have to pay those that earned a step or lane change.  The rest would be available for across the board (or whatever) wage increases.  For our purposes here,however, let's just assume there were no lane/step payments.  Let's just spread that $539 K evenly across the board at 2% increase per person.  And let's split the 552 employees into three groups, those earning the top, the bottom, and the mid-range base salaries.

And here's what happens....

Why should the upper 184 teachers glom onto 42.8% of the available wage increase pool?

Is SPEA suggesting that by virtue of tenure, those teachers at the top deserve a larger share of the pool?  Because while a 2% "across the board" wage increase sounds equitable, clearly it is not.

Remember...we only simplified this.  In actuality, after paying for those due an increase for lane or step movement (hopefully for the last time), we can only raise the base wage for teachers with less than 7 years tenure to $35,000.  That will leave approximately $460 for each of the remaining staff members paid as a stipend rather than a basebuilder.

For actual details of the standing school board offer:
http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2012/11/spasd-offers-contract-proposal-to.html

2012-13 Administrator Increases and Pay

It seems only fair that if the teacher salaries were published, then we also publish the salaries for administrators.

We've got 10 members of the $100K club plus one that's right on the edge.

The question in our minds right now is that a 2% pool was set aside for administrators, admin support, and Local 60.  The average increases was 2% for these groups.

Click for a full-sized view

For the teachers (Professional Educators), however, the board proposed using a significant portion of the 2% pool to raise the base wage paid to teachers.

We fully support any move by the school board to raise the floor and create a reasonable ceiling on teacher wages.   We're just a little concerned how that comes off in the waking of approving a flat 2% for other groups.  We realize that administrator increases are doled out by Dr. Culver based on his performance evaluations, so it's not quite the same.  We remain concerned, however, that board members could cave in on their position with the teachers and lose the ground they could--and should--gain.   Perhaps its unfounded concern, but we're keepin' it real.

Economy in Shambles, Foreclosures Up, but Culver Gets 2%

How's your forecast for a raise?
Sorry...didn't mean to pour salt in a gaping wound.

Tomorrow, Dr. Culver the Sun Prairie School Board will officially throw nearly $3,000 of new salary money at Dr. Culver.  Geee...we wonder how many hours of RTI assistance that just killed.

Oh...theres' nothing you can do about it.  These things are carefully crafted behind closed doors and not put on the agenda until there certain there's at least 4 votes.  And, sadly, the other 3 board members--even if they disagree--will vote "Yes" as well.  Decorum, you know.  Gotta stand as one.  Even if the one is doing some pretty silly things.

We know Caren Diedrich supports this raise.  She can barely contain her zeal about him.  She'll even support his Mandarin Chinese plans.
Jim McCourt and John Whalen are also unabashed Culver groupies.  So they'll vote "Yes".
Terry Shimek, that affable, flipflopping dozer at the board table also believes that Culver is a "CEO" and we compensate CEOs handsomely in this world, don't we.  Of course, as a banker, we expect nothing less than that from Shimek.

So there are the 4 definitive votes.  Where do the others lie?  Does it really matter?
Of course, we have no idea how they feel on the subject, but we're betting that the 3 of them (Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke) aren't all that fond of doling out a 2% increase to Culver in light of the economy.  Especially this close to the annual meeting.

YOU know...decorum

You know, SPASD is not exactly some great beacon of hope or shining example, either.  Sure, there are most definitely some bright spots.  Kinda like when you drag the Holiday lights out each year, there are some bulbs that still burn brightly, others that have dimmed a bit, and still others that are completely shot.  McCourt likes to say that "we're falling behind" other districts.  He's right, of course...but not for the reasons he likes to cite.  A "company" only fares as well as its CEO leads.  And , while Culver's a nice guy and got us this far, the path down which he appears to be "leading" the district seems to be diverging from what this community wants--or needs.

What Will  Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke DO
Well, we can tell you right now they won't be pleased with us for putting them on the spot.  YOU KNOW...Decorum.  But decorum doesn't fix what's broken.  Decorum has done nothing but get in the way of progress.  People need to be free to speak their mind.  School board members simply voting the same way on any issue for the sake of "team unity" (decorum) only makes us DeForest.

So...even if Camber-Davidson, Weber, and Welke disagree with giving Culver a 2% increase (and, right or wrong,  we believe that to be the case) it will be difficult for them to say so publicly with a "NO" vote.  That is the singular most difficult thing for a public official to do.

And why should they put themselves "out there"?  If the motion already has enough votes to pass, that's just making yourselves into low hanging fruit...right?  So is the issue board members not voting they way the really feel?  Or is the real problem Terry Shimek, King of Waffles?  We wonder how Shimek would vote on this issue if 100 taxpaying community members gave them a piece of their mind.

You see...the problem is that school board members (collectively) don't really vote the way the people who elected them would prefer.  THAT is the problem.  People elected to represent the people don't vote the way the people who elected them would vote.