Funniest thing I've ever read

[doctorwho]

remember the Monty Python skit about the joke that can kill -- this has to be the funniest and most untrue one sentence in the history of print:

Indian Prairie Unit District 204 officials put on a clinic Monday night, on the value of their word.



Dist. 204 board freezes salary
By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald StaffContact writerPublished: 6/22/2010 12:34 AM.


Indian Prairie Unit District 204 officials put on a clinic Monday night, on the value of their word.

Keeping their word to their 2,100-member teachers union and the community, board members unanimously approved a pay freeze for 72 administrators at a savings of about $70,000. Then, within minutes, they doled out an approximate 1 percent increase to 13 elementary school principals, totaling $56,000.

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Nancy Valenta said the adjustment to 13 elementary principals salaries was the second phase of a two-phase plan launched in 2008 to keep the district's salaries competitive. The first phase gave the group approximately a 4 percent increase in 2008.

"We've waited until we saw that we actually had a little bit of a budget to carry out the second phase," Valenta said. "The rationale is the comparison data that we've gotten from our comparable districts and we're falling out of value. So what we're bringing is the very least that we think we need to do to hold some kind of marker in the position."

A series of confidential, internal human relations department memos shared with the Daily Herald following Monday night's meeting, however, indicate the bump was part of a deal struck between former Superintendent Stephen Daeschner and the principals after several new administrators were brought into the district in 2008 at higher salaries than the district was paying its current employees.

With board member Alka Tyle not in attendance, the board voted 4-2 to approve the second phase. Christine Vickers and Dawn DeSart objected to following through with the plan.

"I do not find the rationale presented for these retroactive increases substantiates the need for the increases themselves," Vickers said. "Retroactive to the 2009-2010 school year we asked our staff to support our austerity position, so to stay in line with that thought process I would not support this."

DeSart said the move flies in the face of the district's other austerity-related cuts, including the freeze given to administrators Monday night.

"Stakeholders should know the adjustments are being adjusted upward which I think at this time of austerity is not something we should do, especially after we just approved a freeze for administrators," DeSart said.

Currently the district is facing a $21.4 million deficit next year, which it has plugged by releasing staff, cutting programs and nonessential items. The district is also owed nearly $14 million from the state.

Calls and e-mails placed to Board President Curt Bradshaw and Valenta after the memos were shared were not returned before press time.

[blankcheck]

So, if it were not for Christine, no one would have know about this? She is the only one on this board looking our for the district a s a whole.
--------------------------------------------------

Indian Prairie Unit District 204's teachers union is angry over the district's decision late Monday to approve a $56,000 pay increase for 13 elementary school principals.

Less than a month ago, the 2,170-member teachers union accepted a two-year contract that includes a total freeze on salaries, step increases and lane changes.

"We're beyond upset," said Union President Val Dranias. "We took a hard freeze and we're being austere and everything else around here and then they very easily spend $56,000."

Dranias said $56,000 would have paid for another full-time teacher and one part-time position to be brought back from the 145 teachers released in March.

According to confidential memos obtained by the Daily Herald, 13 elementary school principals with the district less than 10 years received an approximate 1 percent increase on top of the 3.87 percent increase they got for this school year.

The move was the second phase of a plan to line up salaries to years of experience and realign salaries to those driven by new administrators hired in 2008.

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Nancy Valenta said she felt it was important to honor the commitment made by former Superintendent Stephen Daeschner's administration, in 2008, to bring the salaries in line. With the adjustments the average salary of the 13 principals, with between two and nine years of experience, is $108,587.

"Our average salary for these positions is consistently about 25 percent less than our comparable districts like (Naperville) District 203 and Wheaton Warrenville (District 200), Valenta said. "It's the teachers union's responsibility to look out for the teachers. It's mine to look out for the administrators."

That rationale was not acceptable to Dranias, who questioned how a board in 2010 can honor a commitment by a previous administration.

"2010 is not 2008," she said. "If the teachers had signed a multiyear agreement which included pay raises, there would have been clamoring for the contract to be reopened and for the teachers to take a freeze to show their fiscal responsibility in an economic crisis."

Also, the administrators' raises almost weren't aired in public during Monday's night's school board meeting. The raises were on the so-called consent agenda, in which matters are approved by a voice vote with no discussion. Valenta said she had no intention of keeping the deal hidden, but said she merely didn't think it would cause any controversy.

If the salary item hadn't been called up for discussion by board member Christine Vickers, Dranias said would have never known about it.

"I may have seen it in the fall when I pull everyone's salaries to ensure proper payments are being made," Dranias said. "But I also may not have seen it because I don't represent the principals."

It really doesn't matter whether Dranias would have seen it all, Valenta said because the $56,000 was not money the district was bargaining with at the time.

"That's a whole separate fund," she said.

[doctorwho]

Jun 24, 2010 8:51:21 GMT -6 blankcheck said:

So, if it were not for Christine, no one would have know about this? She is the only one on this board looking our for the district a s a whole.
--------------------------------------------------

Indian Prairie Unit District 204's teachers union is angry over the district's decision late Monday to approve a $56,000 pay increase for 13 elementary school principals.

Less than a month ago, the 2,170-member teachers union accepted a two-year contract that includes a total freeze on salaries, step increases and lane changes.

"We're beyond upset," said Union President Val Dranias. "We took a hard freeze and we're being austere and everything else around here and then they very easily spend $56,000."

Dranias said $56,000 would have paid for another full-time teacher and one part-time position to be brought back from the 145 teachers released in March.

According to confidential memos obtained by the Daily Herald, 13 elementary school principals with the district less than 10 years received an approximate 1 percent increase on top of the 3.87 percent increase they got for this school year.

The move was the second phase of a plan to line up salaries to years of experience and realign salaries to those driven by new administrators hired in 2008.

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Nancy Valenta said she felt it was important to honor the commitment made by former Superintendent Stephen Daeschner's administration, in 2008, to bring the salaries in line. With the adjustments the average salary of the 13 principals, with between two and nine years of experience, is $108,587.

"Our average salary for these positions is consistently about 25 percent less than our comparable districts like (Naperville) District 203 and Wheaton Warrenville (District 200), Valenta said. "It's the teachers union's responsibility to look out for the teachers. It's mine to look out for the administrators."

That rationale was not acceptable to Dranias, who questioned how a board in 2010 can honor a commitment by a previous administration.

"2010 is not 2008," she said. "If the teachers had signed a multiyear agreement which included pay raises, there would have been clamoring for the contract to be reopened and for the teachers to take a freeze to show their fiscal responsibility in an economic crisis."

Also, the administrators' raises almost weren't aired in public during Monday's night's school board meeting. The raises were on the so-called consent agenda, in which matters are approved by a voice vote with no discussion. Valenta said she had no intention of keeping the deal hidden, but said she merely didn't think it would cause any controversy.

If the salary item hadn't been called up for discussion by board member Christine Vickers, Dranias said would have never known about it.

"I may have seen it in the fall when I pull everyone's salaries to ensure proper payments are being made," Dranias said. "But I also may not have seen it because I don't represent the principals."

It really doesn't matter whether Dranias would have seen it all, Valenta said because the $56,000 was not money the district was bargaining with at the time.

"That's a whole separate fund," she said.

The teachers are now learning they are no more important than the taxpayers or the students in this district.....

Someday the voters will wake the hell up also and get rid of all these morons. How many more kicks to the groin are people going to take ?

Thank God for Christine because no one else seems to give a rat's behind about us...

Herald- do some due diligence into the other matters as well- you'll be stunned what you find.


next shoe to drop on who will find out how 'unimportant' they are compared to the 'evil empire' running 204 -- coaches. There'll be a little surpirse waiting for many of you before the fall season starts is my prediction, which I also stated quite a while ago.


The pecking order of 'importance' in 204 ius:
1/ School Board
2/ Admin
3/ Certain PTSA presidents
4/
5/

oh who am I kidding everyone else is lumped together and doesn't even get a number

[Arch]

I see the list is missing certain entities who do 'business' with the district...

[matty]

If I understand this right, the teachers agreed to take a pay freeze and take on increased insurance costs in order to get teachers rehired to reduce class sizes. The administration promised to freeze administrative salaries as part of negotiations. The Board froze the salaries as promised for about 15 minutes and then voted a pay raise to be "competitive" in hiring when people are clamoring for jobs. The Union is upset because they felt that excess money should be used to rehire staff so class sizes could go down. Admin says it was other money, what other money? Aren't teachers and admin paid from the same pot, our taxpayer pot? I side with the Union on this one.

[doctorwho]

OK-- something has been called to my attention that I guess I am not sure how and when this happened but there is a significant difference in what is on line at the Herald right now and what was on line when this thread was started. I am not sure when the Herald changed the context - but duly noted is that Dawn DeSart is now credited with raising this issue and I want to give credit where credit is due.
I have become so used to Chris being the only one to be pursuing openly the issues of 1/ finances - back to when the 3rd HS was being proposed 2/ nonsense of both capacity numbers and projected enrollment back to before planning of 3rd HS 3/ back room politics and ecision making 4/ stupid boundary decisions etc.. that the article seemed right.

_ am hoping this is a positive sign that 1+ years on the SB have shown DD that many of us were not trying to mislead her earlier and that our concerns were also based in facts..no political agenda other than decisions made on reality not private agendas. Everyone has to witness it first hand in 204 before they an reach their own conclusions and I recognize that --

here's to hoping we maybe now have 2 SB members concerned about the taxpayer / resident / parent and obviously the kids -- it would be a welcome addition


----------------
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=389819&src=76

Dist. 204 union: Principal raises could have gone to keep teachers
By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald StaffContact writerPublished: 6/24/2010 12:00 AM.Send To:
E-mail: To: From:
Name: E-mail: Comments:
.
(35) | read | postBuzz up! Indian Prairie Unit District 204's teachers union is angry over the district's decision late Monday to approve a $56,000 pay increase for 13 elementary school principals.

Less than a month ago, the 2,170-member teachers union accepted a two-year contract that includes a total freeze on salaries, step increases and lane changes.

"We're beyond upset," said Union President Val Dranias. "We took a hard freeze and we're being austere and everything else around here and then they very easily spend $56,000."

Dranias said $56,000 would have paid for another full-time teacher and one part-time position to be brought back from the 145 teachers released in March.

According to confidential memos obtained by the Daily Herald, 13 elementary school principals with the district less than 10 years received an approximate 1 percent increase on top of the 3.87 percent increase they got for this school year. The move was the second phase of a plan to line up salaries to years of experience and realign salaries to those driven by new administrators hired in 2008.

Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Nancy Valenta said she felt it was important to honor the commitment made by former Superintendent Stephen Daeschner's administration, in 2008, to bring the salaries in line. With the adjustments the average salary of the 13 principals, with between two and nine years of experience, is $108,587.

"Our average salary for these positions is consistently about 25 percent less than our comparable districts like (Naperville) District 203 and Wheaton Warrenville (District 200), Valenta said. "It's the teachers union's responsibility to look out for the teachers. It's mine to look out for the administrators."

That rationale was not acceptable to Dranias, who questioned how a board in 2010 can honor a commitment by a previous administration.

"2010 is not 2008," she said. "If the teachers had signed a multiyear agreement which included pay raises, there would have been clamoring for the contract to be reopened and for the teachers to take a freeze to show their fiscal responsibility in an economic crisis."

Also, the administrators' raises almost weren't aired in public during Monday's night's school board meeting. The raises were on the board's consent agenda, in which matters are approved by a voice vote with no discussion. Valenta said she had no intention of keeping the deal hidden, but said she merely didn't think it would cause any controversy.

If the salary item hadn't been called up for discussion by board member Dawn DeSart, Dranias said she would have never known about it.

"I may have seen it in the fall when I pull everyone's salaries to ensure proper payments are being made," Dranias said. "But I also may not have seen it because I don't represent the principals."

It really doesn't matter whether Dranias would have seen it all, Valenta said because the $56,000 was not money the district was bargaining with at the time.

"That's a whole separate fund," she said

[asmodeus]

It's not just $56,000 either. It's $56,000 every year until they retire and then an increase in the eventual pensions these people will have until the day they die.

It's simply disgusting. I wish at least one of them would have the courage to reject the raise.

[rew]

Dranias says the $56,000 could have been used to rehire 1.5 of the 145 teachers laid off earlier. I thought the district had already rehired most, if not all those positions, once the new teacher's contract was ratified??

[macrockett]

Jun 24, 2010 18:03:25 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

It's not just $56,000 either. It's $56,000 every year until they retire and then an increase in the eventual pensions these people will have until the day they die.

It's simply disgusting. I wish at least one of them would have the courage to reject the raise.

And don't forget the raises on the increased salary as well.

I am shocked to hear that stuff like this goes on in D204. Personal agendas, backroom deals, lack of transparency. Who would have guessed?

[insider]

Posts by Val Dranias to Daily Herald’s comments blog:

This was the letter to the editor that I sent in. Since it wasn't published, I wanted you to be able to read the whole thing. Thanks for letting me do this.
Val Dranias :: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:39 AM

At a time when the teachers of District 204 took a total freeze on salaries - nothing added to the base, no step increase for years of service and no lane change for advanced education - not to mention absorbing increases in insurance coverage, and seeing their class sizes increase due to the release of 145 of their colleagues, the District 204 school board approved a $56,000 pay increase for 13 elementary school principals.

Since I had no prior notice of this action, I couldn’t speak to it at the meeting on Monday night. I am speaking to it now.
Where is the much touted fiscal responsibility of this school board and administration? The rationale provided by the administration and accepted by the four board members who approved the deal was that this deal had been crafted in 2008 and was the second step of a plan to increase the salaries of administrators to a competitive position among comparable districts.

2010 is not 2008.

If the teachers had signed a multi-year agreement which included pay raises, there would have been clamoring for the contract to be reopened and for the teachers to take a freeze to show their fiscal responsibility in an economic crisis.
The pain of these deficits caused in part by the state budget crisis has not been equally felt by the administrators and the teachers. Very few administrative jobs were cut. The few positions that were eliminated put the administrators back in the classroom, taking a job from a probationary teacher. No administrator actually lost his or her job, as many teachers and support staff did.

The call has come over and over for the administrators to pay their 17% portion of health insurance costs just like every other employee in the district. This has been routinely rejected every time it is brought forth and the Association chastised for thinking that it even has the right to suggest anything about administrative pay and benefits.

The Association applauds the stand taken by Dawn DeSart and Chris Vickers on Monday evening. Both voiced their concern and opposition to increasing any salaries in this economic crisis and voted against the motion.

Fiscal responsibility to the students and citizens of District 204 must come from more than just the teachers and the classified staff. All need to do their part.

We are stakeholders in this District and we owe it to our students to give them the best education possible. $56,000 would have paid for another teacher + for the classrooms of District 204. In my view, a real question must be asked about where this District’s priorities lie.

Val Dranias

[Arch]

Jun 24, 2010 18:33:36 GMT -6 rew said:

Dranias says the $56,000 could have been used to rehire 1.5 of the 145 teachers laid off earlier. I thought the district had already rehired most, if not all those positions, once the new teacher's contract was ratified??

Rehiring to fill the positions does not equate to a 1:1 of people who were let go. You could let go 3 people and use one admin stepping down to a teaching position to 'fill the positions' 3 part timers were doing.... yet out of the 4 people, only 1 is now working.

[asmodeus]

While I almost always disagree with Ms. Dranias, in this case I think she is 100% correct. This will have a negative impact for the district (and its taxpayers) in the future, as the next rounds of negotiation will be even more contentious.