|
|
Post by casey on Jun 27, 2010 15:21:59 GMT -6
Letters to the Editor www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/letters/2436294,6_4_NA27_LETTERS_S1-100627.article June 27, 2010 Where are Indian Prairie School District's priorities? 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 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 percent 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. That $56,000 would have paid for another teacher-plus for the classrooms of District 204. In my view, a real question must be asked about where this district's priorities lie. Val Dranias President Indian Prairie Education Association Naperville |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jun 27, 2010 15:30:05 GMT -6
Thank you Val for pointing out the inequity here. I hope many people read your LTE and recognize the wrongness of the situation. I wish I had been at the SB meeting to hear MM and CB stand up and rubber stamp the raises (and lack of asking administrators to pay some of their own healthcare benefits).
Once again, our SB is pulled by the mighty puppet strings. Granted a $56,000 increase for 13 principals works out to an average of a little over $4,000 per person but it is the principle of the matter here. In today's economic down-turn with all the people out of work and teachers laid off, it sends the wrong message to approve ANY type of increase. Explain a $4000 increase (as well as forgoing any type of healthcare premium charge) to those out of work.
Thank you Dawn and Chris for voting "NO" to increasing any salaries of administrators in 204. Our SB made a big mistake here.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 27, 2010 21:21:28 GMT -6
Letters to the Editor www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/letters/2436294,6_4_NA27_LETTERS_S1-100627.article June 27, 2010 Where are Indian Prairie School District's priorities? 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 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 percent 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. That $56,000 would have paid for another teacher-plus for the classrooms of District 204. In my view, a real question must be asked about where this district's priorities lie. Val Dranias President Indian Prairie Education Association Naperville Val -- unfortunately you really do know where the priorities of IPSD 204 lie- they lie in the whims of it's SB 'leadership' - full of private agendas and totally wreckless spending over the past 4 years minimum. The rest of us - teachers, students and sure as heck the taxpayers are just along for the ride on their magic carpet. It has become such a joke that people in other districts laugh at us. We have one SB member - Chris who has tried to watch out for all of us for the part 4-5 years...with diligence...and for her efforts gets shunned by the goofspulling the strings and the puppets now also on the board. It appears Dawn may also now have seen exactly what many of us told her happens in this district first hand and is ready to also fight the good fight. All we an do is try and get Chris and Dawn some help next April- and rid ourselves of this nonsense. Unfortunately along with admin they have sepnt us into oblivion for the next 20 years- including that shiny new HS in the far corner of the district we needed like a 3rd foot. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 27, 2010 21:31:43 GMT -6
Thank you Val for pointing out the inequity here. I hope many people read your LTE and recognize the wrongness of the situation. I wish I had been at the SB meeting to hear MM and CB stand up and rubber stamp the raises (and lack of asking administrators to pay some of their own healthcare benefits). Once again, our SB is pulled by the mighty puppet strings. Granted a $56,000 increase for 13 principals works out to an average of a little over $4,000 per person but it is the principle of the matter here. In today's economic down-turn with all the people out of work and teachers laid off, it sends the wrong message to approve ANY type of increase. Explain a $4000 increase (as well as forgoing any type of healthcare premium charge) to those out of work. Thank you Dawn and Chris for voting "NO" to increasing any salaries of administrators in 204. Our SB made a big mistake here. 'so what's that, number 102 in the last 4 years ?' Geez a few of the people last elected you don't even see their name appear any more..do they even attend the meetings or does M2 just vote for them ? I hope people feel really good about their choices, voting for puppets instead of anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jun 28, 2010 7:39:17 GMT -6
Oh, I almost forgot to mention....did anyone else read that the superintendent in 203 chose NOT to accept his end-of-the-year performance bonus for the year? He felt like in today's economy that would send the wrong message so he chose not to take it. If I wanted to I could dig out the article from last week's Sun but if I remember correctly the bonus amounted to over $10,000. Way to go, Mitch (203's Super). Nice to see someone understands the big picture here.
Once again, 203 outshines 204 with class.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 28, 2010 10:57:21 GMT -6
I have a simple question. If, in 2008, as part of a deal there were two parts to that deal, why wasn't the terms of that deal disclosed at that time? Seems that in order to honor the deal now, the community had the right to know about it and the Board, or the then superintendent, had a duty to disclose it. Therefore, imo, there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of Board or anyone else to honor anything.
In addition, this race to the bottom on parity between school districts is a joke. While parts of the economy are starting to recover, mainly in manufacturing, our Federal and State(s) fiscal condition is still extremely fragile. States alone are projected to run deficits in excess of $300 billion over the next three years. It would be hard to believe, with the voters current distaste for government spending, that significant cuts are coming to all things government. Be it Federal, State and local.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 28, 2010 12:28:21 GMT -6
Oh, I almost forgot to mention....did anyone else read that the superintendent in 203 chose NOT to accept his end-of-the-year performance bonus for the year? He felt like in today's economy that would send the wrong message so he chose not to take it. If I wanted to I could dig out the article from last week's Sun but if I remember correctly the bonus amounted to over $10,000. Way to go, Mitch (203's Super). Nice to see someone understands the big picture here. Once again, 203 outshines 204 with class. and in the classroom -- hence the jealousy from the Crouse center and why rumor has it the current Super was looking seriously @ 203 last time also...or was it to boost the salary here ? We're very good at not letting people go you know -  |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jun 28, 2010 17:29:51 GMT -6
I too applaud Chris Vickers and Dawn DeSart for their NO vote on this salary increase.
No increases means NO increases!
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jun 28, 2010 20:22:42 GMT -6
Here's part of the Naperville Sun article which I referenced: No wage increase for D203 leaderswww.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2421308,6_1_NA23_D203_S1-100623.article June 23, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com Naperville School District 203 leaders will not be getting a pay raise this year. Superintendent Mark Mitrovich turned down the bonus he could have received under his contract by withdrawing it from the board's consideration Monday night.According to his contract, after his first year Mitrovich is eligible for a one-time bonus of 5 percent of his salary, which is $203,000. The bonus would have been $10,150."At the end of the day, I had the choice of whether to accept it or not," Mitrovich said Tuesday. "I just made the choice not to."In addition, district administrators will not be getting a salary increase."The teachers and everybody else had taken a hard freeze, so that was something we would do across the board for the various employee groups," Mitrovich said. |
|
|
|
Post by insider on Jun 28, 2010 20:37:51 GMT -6
I have a simple question. If, in 2008, as part of a deal there were two parts to that deal, why wasn't the terms of that deal disclosed at that time? Seems that in order to honor the deal now, the community had the right to know about it and the Board, or the then superintendent, had a duty to disclose it. Therefore, imo, there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of Board or anyone else to honor anything. Possibly we didn't hear about it because no open public record was made therefor this deal cannot be found. Wouldn't no record or open public action equal no validity to claim of this plan? School boards cannot vote in closed sessions. Why would SB members support a plan where no formal record has been made? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 28, 2010 21:20:13 GMT -6
I have a simple question. If, in 2008, as part of a deal there were two parts to that deal, why wasn't the terms of that deal disclosed at that time? Seems that in order to honor the deal now, the community had the right to know about it and the Board, or the then superintendent, had a duty to disclose it. Therefore, imo, there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of Board or anyone else to honor anything. Possibly we didn't hear about it because no open public record was made therefor this deal cannot be found. Wouldn't no record or open public action equal no validity to claim of this plan? School boards cannot vote in closed sessions. Why would SB members support a plan where no formal record has been made? Am I the only one here that looks at this last question and thinks: Isn't that how just about every 'real plan' is done in 204.... the real planning happens behind closed doors (without a formal record) and the public side of things is just an annoying procedural process. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 28, 2010 21:57:58 GMT -6
I have a simple question. If, in 2008, as part of a deal there were two parts to that deal, why wasn't the terms of that deal disclosed at that time? Seems that in order to honor the deal now, the community had the right to know about it and the Board, or the then superintendent, had a duty to disclose it. Therefore, imo, there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of Board or anyone else to honor anything. Possibly we didn't hear about it because no open public record was made therefor this deal cannot be found. Wouldn't no record or open public action equal no validity to claim of this plan? School boards cannot vote in closed sessions. Why would SB members support a plan where no formal record has been made?
"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." I don't recall hearing anything about a "two-part" plan and as far as I know, since this spanned almost 2 years, it had to be in writing to be legally enforceable:
5. Statute of Frauds. Some contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. Some of the agreements that must be in writing are agreements that cannot be performed in one year, agreements for an interest in land, agreements for the sale of goods valued at $500 or more and certain others. Among the exceptions are contracts that have been fully performed. They are enforceable whether or not the Statute of Frauds applies and whether or not they are written. Note that if a contract is unenforceable because not in writing quasi-contractual relief may be available. Sometimes the word quantum meruit is used. www.businesslawchicago.com/contracts.htmAnd as I said above we will soon, most likely, be swimming in administrative personnel due to unprecedented layoffs. At this point, it appears to be unavoidable.
As Arch says above, this is just business as usual. I certainly agree with that. And where was Metzger? What did he have to say about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 28, 2010 22:11:59 GMT -6
Lets see if we can get some more detail on this:
----- Original Message -----
From: MACrockett
To: nancy_valenta@ipsd.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:10 AM
Subject: adjustment to 13 elementary principals salaries
Hi Nancy,
I would like to see the "series of confidential, internal human relations department memos shared with the Daily Herald" as referred to in the Herald article dated 6/22/2010.
Please let me know when I can view this material.
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by insider on Jun 28, 2010 22:39:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 29, 2010 0:19:29 GMT -6
I think he has nothing to say publicly because all he has to say is behind closed doors and off the record... just like a coward.
Someone forgot to tell them our budget is in the crapper and DrD is long gone and there was no 'agreement'.
|
|
