 |
| "Negotiating" raises before we know how much revenue we have a and other expenses....um...as in a budget....makes absolutely no sense. THAT is putting the cart before the horse. |
First--and foremost-- why on earth would the Board be discussing raises before the Board has seen even a peek at the budget? (Raises, of course, is what "negotiations parameters" means, since under Act 10, the only thing which CAN be negotiated is wage increases)
In fact, since we won't know how much state aid we'll be receiving until July 1, the board will be discussing raises before they even know what revenues will be! Of course, we know the board hasn't seen a budget yet, because the public hasn't seen a budget yet, and if the board has seen/discussed a budget without disclosing it to the public that wouldn't be very transparent, now would it?
Also there might be a teensy tiny error in the agenda since it talks about the PLURAL parameterS...and remember, under Act 10, the only thing negotiable is wage increases.
Taking advantage of overwhelmed new(er) school board members
We have two new school board members (one REALLY new and one relatively new), and this is just the kind of thing the administration likes to do with rookies. Oftentimes, rookies don't know enough to (or know that they CAN) speak up and say, "STOP!". The district counts on new members being overwhelmed and just calms them by saying, "we do this all the time". It doesn't make it less wrong. It just allows them to get away with it. These two "rookies" represent one-half of a majority needed to take any action.
What is the all-fire rush, school board? What would be so wrong about spending like 2 minutes in closed session Monday night? Just long enough to say, "Hey....until we see a budget that accounts fully for revenues and expenses, we are not even going to discuss raises. Move to adjourn."
Just laying it on the taxpayers.
Unlike a small business that depends solely on revenues on which to base its budget, the district has no problem discussing raises now. Why? Because if it isn't covered within state aids, they can always tack it on to the tax levy...right?
What does 2% raise mean?
Phil Frei has communicated that he used a "placeholder" of 2% for the 2012-13 budget. What he doesn't tell you is what dollar amount that translates to. Just teachers, admin, and Local 60 (not counting Special Ed costs) cost over $32 MILLION dollars. 2% of that figure translates to $640,000, which, in budget terms, means a levy increase of about 1.3%. Hmmm....that makes things rough if you are trying to keep the tax levy increase under 2.5%, now doesn't it? Looks like we may have just figured out why Culver and Frei initiated the top secret 10% cut for all department budgets. Can you imagine a little conversation that went something like, "You guys can have either a full budget or a 10% budget cut and a 2% raise...which would you prefer?"
Shame on you, school board, if you do not immediately vote to table this discussion until the community (and YOU) have seen a budget.
Agenda Item Details
June 25, 2012 - REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised), 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 300 E. Main St., Sun Prairie. President: Tom Weber
Closed Session
Subject: Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of April 23, May 2 (2 sets), and May 3 (3 sets), 2012; and developing negotiations parameters with the SPEA and Local 60 [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].
Type: Action
10. Closed Session
10.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of April 23, May 2 (2 sets), and May 3 (3 sets), 2012; and developing negotiations parameters with the SPEA and Local 60 [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].
Posts
