Culver Gets His 2%

We grow weary of McCourt's antics 

On Monday, the school board voted to grant District Administrator Tim Culver a 2% pay raise.  The board vote was 6-1, with John Welke the lone "NO" vote.  Welke offered no comments to explain his position, but did he really need to? Welke has steadfastly spoken from the big table that the budget is too much of a hit on a struggling community.  People in Culver's tax bracket are the least in need of such a pay raise.

Our hat's off to Welke for standin' tall in the saddle.  It's tough to be the lone ranger when you have Caren Diedrich gushing over Culver, and Jim McCourt serving as his personal cheerleader.

While on the subject of McCourt....when is someone going to say something about McCourt's class-less body language at the board table.  If anyone says something contrary to McCourt's personal feelings/opinion, he flops, makes noises of disgust, and rolls his eyes.  Does he realize that the cameras are sound sensitive and often pick this up?

McCourt's behavior at meetings?   Check!

Bad form, Jim.

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.

And Now.. A Taste of Things To Come?

Last night, school district administrators agreed to a contract "negotiation" salary and benefits package. In what was expected by some to be a protracted battle, administrations representatives simply said, "We'll take it", regarding the school board's offer:

1% SALARY INCREASE

1% ADDITIONAL PAY TOWARDS HEALTH INSURANCE

2% ADDITIONAL PAY TOWARDS DENTAL INSURANCE

There was some talk from Caren Diedrich about the school board changing its offer from initial...we wonder what it was initially.
Could the 1% be the magic number that was buried within the budget for raises?

There are many that will think, "They shouldn't get any raise at all...their [insert expletive here] salaries should be frozen".

....and we're inclined to agree.

However...the simple reality is that there are not 4 elected board members who collectively own a pair of cojones to freeze salaries. That is the fact, Jack.

WE the community elected them, so WE the community need to take responsibility for their lack of ...er....parts. Perhaps at next spring's elections, the community will take a deeper interest in candidates and support only those candidates who possess the required...let's say intestinal fortitude....to stand firm and represent the community's interests as well as they support education. Raises for administrators are not going to get our kids to scholarship levels.

A roadmap for other "contracts"?
Like dominoes toppling over in sequence, this agreement should establish the market for Administrative Support, Substitute Teachers, Local 60, and....come next spring...teachers.
Let the message ring loudly and clearly: 1% is the best you're going to get in this economy...and you WILL be paying a higher share of insurance premiums (except Local 60, who have been screwed for years).

We suspect we'll take some hits for this, but kudos to the school board for finally showing some semblance of fiscal restraint. Now let the other dominoes tumble and revise the budget DOWNWARD. This was the most community-friendly deal that the current school board was going to get done. And for at least a majority of them...even this deal is quite amazing. It may not be cost-neutral, but when one factors in the out-of-pocket costs associated with the 1% more towards health insurance (they are paying 4% now) and 2% more (it was 0%) towards dental, the percentage is much less than 1%. Remember this is the group that felt they were "entitled" to a 4.5% package increase last year, but "settled" for 3.8%.

If the average administrator makes $90K, a 1% increase is about $900.

Paying and additional 1% for health and 2% dental costs about $350-$400.

That means a net increase of about $500 for family insurance premiums. That, folks, we can live with.

Dear school board...nicely done. Keep the dominoes falling.

Raising Questions About Raises

So...district administration has built a * SECRET * percentage wage increase into the budget for Tim Culver, Administrators, Administrative Support staff, and Local 60 employees. Questions abound.

Did they factor in...o%? 1%? 2%, 2.5%, 3% ? 3.8%? 4%? More?

We don't know because they won't tell the public for fear of hurting their "negotiation position". Which position is that exactly? Bent over the table,waving a "We Give Shamelessly" flag?

Will the school board match what the teachers contract for 2010-11 provides? The SPEA contract, signed last June, calls for a net 2.81% salary increase per teacher. So...is the magic number 2.81%?? Is that what the board is shooting for? Did any of YOU get 2.81% this year? Wait...let's clarify...we mean did any of you get a 2.81% (or more) wage INCREASE this year?

What is a fair wage increase?

Is a fair wage equal to changes in the cost of living? Gee...all those folks living on Social Security income---increases to which are tied to "Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments" (COLA), were ZERO for 2010, and almost certainly will be ZERO for 2011 as well.

So...if the senior citizens that helped pay the way for us to be where we are at now...and who WE should be taking care of now...are getting ZippetyDooDah, why should we be increasing wages?

We can't ignore existing economic conditions

Look...as much as Seabass doesn't want to hear about state employees, state employees, like school district staff, are public sector employees. Unless you've been doing an ostrich imitation for the last 2 years, you know that NATIONWIDE, the economy stinks. Wisconsin state employees' contracts expired July 1, 2009. For 2009-10, there were NO raises. In fact, all employees were give 8 furlough days each, amounting to a 3% wage CUT. In addition, those scheduled for a 2% wage increase in June 2009 saw that increase canceled. For the July1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 fiscal year, another 8 furlough days and another ZERO percent wage increase.

County and municipal employees faced the same. So PLEASE...tell us why school district employees deserve a wage INCREASE when everyone else's salary is flat at best or being cut? Got an answer for that? Please....e-mail us. Don't be shy. Instead of just saying school district staff deserve more, please tell us why school district staff deserve more than what the rest of the world is getting.

Should wage increases be tied to COLA (like Social Security increases)?

The COLA for 2010, based on 2009 data was ZERO. Wanna bet that 2011 won't be much different? NEA, the National Education Association (the nationwide voice for teachers) has as one of their three primary missions, raises that exceed the cost of living in at least 50 percent of NEA higher education locals.

Should wage increases be tied to Consumer Price Index (CPI)?

The CPI for 200, based on 2009 data was NEGATIVE 0.8%. Through May 2010, the CPI was showing a 2.2% increase. But we know how things fared in June, don't we? The Social Security COLA is based largely on the CPI...and already they are projecting 0% increase fort 2011.

.......................

Dear school board...

Time to actually get in touch with what the rest of the world is facing and practice independent thought.

Poker Tells

"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker."
- Mike McDermott, "Rounders"

So...what's on the Human Resources agenda this week? Hmmm.
Seems innocent enough...Energy Educator/Manager Job Description revision.

Pure as the driven snow...until you recall a few recent events and think a few minutes.
So they want to CHANGE...check that...REVISE and UPDATE the job description for the Energy Educator/Manager.

Here's the part where you think back...to last July. The Energy Manager was the SOLITARY position that was "redlined", which is PC for "frozen". That's right...every one of the "Administrative Support" staff, EXCEPT the Energy Manager that is, got a raise last July.

At the time, we pointed out that it was this ONE position that actually saved the district money.
And so the Situation report notes:

Mr. Klaas’s Job Description Questionnaire did include most of his tasks. The district is fortunate that he approaches every aspect of operating building equipment from the perspective of how it impacts energy usage. After forty-five months of employment (through 12/2009) the district has avoided over 2.5 million dollars of energy usage.

Tom Brooks, Greg Klaas, Phil Frei, and Annette Mikula have reviewed and revised the current job description for the Energy Educator/Manager. The job description is now aligned with the work that is being performed by the position. We have also reviewed what we want the position to be able to do and feel that this is the work that will enable the district to see the greatest energy consumption reduction results. In addition, the district has contacted some other districts who do not use EEI to find out how they go about scheduling rooms and space for use and energy consumption. We have found that Janesville, Waunakee, and Deforest contract out this service with NAMI. NAMI is scheduling, monitoring, and providing scheduled maintenance like filter changes, greasing, etc. for these districts. NAMI's fee is $100 per hour.

And that's where the poker tell lies. Pat yourself on the back and consider a Vegas vacation if you picked up on it. Or ...maybe the district should refrain from playing any poker.
For those that don't occasionally play a friendly game of poker, a poker "tell" is a sign which suggests something about the hand someone is playing.

The key "tells" here are that (A) the job description is being revised, and (B) others that do this job are being paid $100/ hour.

Do we REALLY need to tell you what cards the district is holding?
Care to bet that the NEXT move will be to establish a new pay rate based on the "revised" job description?

The Energy Manager is currently paid $22.20/hour, and the job is not full time. In 45 months, Mr. Klaas has effectively "avoided" $2,500,000 in energy costs for the district. That comes to $55,555 per month. That's about 10-15 times what he grosses per month. File that under: Things that make you go, "Hmmmm".

So...Step 1: Update the JD. Step 2: Request a salary increase. How long before we see that one? Now, after all the pomp and circumstance of the whole admin support job review, we're going to revise things? NOW!? And where is that money coming from given the budget picture? Heck...maybe they'll use the revenue from personal appliance fees!

Wait...here is the bigger question to ask: which one got it wrong last year:

Was it the consultant whom we paid a ton of money to research ALL administrative support staff positions and determine an equitable rate of pay?

Or was it our district Human Resources staff, who really was not clear on what the responsibilities of the Energy Manager were and thus gave bad information to the consultant?

Oh...and did we forget to mention that the chair of Human Resources is none other than Caren Diedrich, who is up for re-election? Might want to watch her for more "tells".