|
Post by EagleDad on Jul 12, 2011 13:07:42 GMT -6
Why would any board members sign up and justify the school board's position on this or any board. I thought that is why there are scheduled meeting where public opinion is taken under advisement. Possibly because they wanted to dialog with the community and get feedback, rather than hide from them and slot limited discussion until after all action was taken and the input could have no effect on the outcome? Maybe they would actually want to use the input in the decision making? Yeah, you're right SSSM, that's just loopy.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jul 12, 2011 13:13:21 GMT -6
With these concerns in mind, the Board has agreed to increase the average administrator's 2011-12 net salary by 0.92 percent (comprised of a 2.88 percent salary increase, off-set by 1.96 percent in health care costs). Same raise for everybody, regardless of performance, no delineation of outstanding performance (or crappy), no accounting for where the current compensation is in relation to the market and peers for an individual. This needs to change to get with the modern times. I also love how the 2.88% raise is "spun" to try to make it seem lower. It's still a 2.88% raise. Maybe Holm can actually spin tit as Revenue for the district. I wouldn't be suprised.
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Aug 24, 2011 11:13:05 GMT -6
Now that I have a little more time, I followed up on that administrative compensation meeting on July 7. I have never been clear about the details of that meeting and Curt's response to an email I sent raises more questions. The original D204 summary, at the bottom, wasn't very informative based on the response. I will inquire further with Dave Holm.
Here is the correspondence:
-----Original Message----- From: Bradshaw, Curt Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:51 AM To: MACrockett Cc: board-members Subject: RE: Administrator Compensation
Hi Mike,
There were a number of aspects to the administrators' compensation package.
On the increase side of the ledger, administrators will receive the following which is equivalent to a 2.88% increase for the average administrator for the 2011-2012 year.
A salary increase of 1.5% on July 1, 2011 A salary increase of 1.5% on Jan 1, 2012 A salary increase of $1,400 on Jan 1, 2012
On the decrease side of the ledger, administrators will be responsible for the following which is equivalent to 1.96% for the average administrator for the 2011-12 year.
0.93% in various healthcare concessions negotiated as part of the teachers' union contract 1.03% in healthcare premiums (ranging from $1,057 to $2,697 based on the number of dependents)
Please follow up with Dave Holm regarding any documents or further specific details.
I hope this helps.
Curt _______________________________________ From: MACrockett [macrockett@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 2:18 PM To: Bradshaw, Curt Cc: board-members Subject: Administrator Compensation
Hi Curt,
Recently the Board approved a new salaries and benefits package for administrators (“the compensation package”) . You summarized this information in an IPSD news release which appears below.
It is my understanding that there are 3 principal components to the compensation package: a raise of 2.88% (since the new fiscal year 2012 had already started) , a condition that administrators, as of January 2012, begin paying 17% of their own healthcare costs, and finally, an annual offset to each administrators healthcare costs, provided by the District, in the amount of $1400.00.
Would you please verify this information as stated and provide me with a copy of the document that reflects this agreement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mike Crockett
Administrator Compensation Message from Board Reported by 204-info@ipsd.org on 7/7/11
Dear District 204 Community,
The Board of Education announces our next step in creating a consistent benefits package for our four employee groups and better aligning those benefits with that of our taxpayer community.
As in most school districts, our administrators currently enjoy health care coverage at no personal cost. While this level of coverage may have been appropriate in the past, we believe today’s economic times require all employees to pay a share of health care costs. As such, beginning January 1, 2012, our administrators will be responsible for the same share of their health care expenses as our three other employee groups.
We recognize that our administrators, comprised primarily of principals and assistant principals, are some of the best in the business and are critical partners in achieving success for our students. In addition, compared to benchmark districts, our administrators lead buildings with significantly more students and receive below-average compensation. Because administrator compensation is already below market, it is vitally important that we make this adjustment in a fair and reasonable manner. We believe doing otherwise would jeopardize our ability to attract and retain high caliber administrators and lead to lesser outcomes for our students.
With these concerns in mind, the Board has agreed to increase the average administrator's 2011-12 net salary by 0.92 percent (comprised of a 2.88 percent salary increase, off-set by 1.96 percent in health care costs). This follows the pay freeze our administrators received in 2010-11. Going forward, our administrators will proportionately share the responsibility of future health care cost increases in the same manner as our other employees.
The Board hopes you find these adjustments to be a reasonable solution for balancing the desire for public employees to pay an appropriate share of health care costs with the need to retain our very best educators.
We would like to thank our administrators for their hard work and dedication to our students. And, we would also like to thank you, our community, for your support as we continue to work to become Illinois' premier school district.
Sincerely,
Curt Bradshaw, President Susan Rasmus, Vice President Cathy Piehl, Secretary Dawn DeSart Lori Price Mark Rising Chris Vickers
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 24, 2011 13:30:59 GMT -6
That looks like 4.4% raise to me, plain and simple (on an administrator who makes 100K).
I like how it was "spun" as 2.88% with creative accounting, and attempting to annualize the raise over a single year (while in reality it goes on forever).
Nice job Holm. Cut the crap already. We (the electorate) are not idiots.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 24, 2011 15:04:28 GMT -6
That looks like 4.4% raise to me, plain and simple (on an administrator who makes 100K). I like how it was "spun" as 2.88% with creative accounting, and attempting to annualize the raise over a single year (while in reality it goes on forever). Nice job Holm. Cut the crap already. We (the electorate) are not idiots. Isn't he leaving here soon ? Not soon enough - hey there's likely a job in Springfield waiting where they are used to selling stuff to idiots...
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 24, 2011 15:40:27 GMT -6
Let me put this another way with the hypothetical $100K administrator (of which we have many).
In June, they are making $100,000 On July 1, they are making 101,500 On Jan 1, they get an instant permanent fixed bump of $1400 to $102,900. On the same day (Jan 1) they get another 1.5% raise to $104,444
So, in 6 months, they have gone form $100,000 to 104,444 or 4.4%. In 6 months.
And more importantly to me, exactly 0.00000% of the raise is based on performance and differentiation amongst peers. You get it for having a pulse.
Private sector - are you seeing these kinds of raises? I know I am not.
So, I say Dave Holm (and Curt) go peddle this crap elsewhere calling it 2.88% in the papers and to the district.
Sort of fitting that Curt worked for Morgan Stanley for so many years, who was one of the 3 financial companies responsible for wrecking our economy in 2008. Now I know where he learned his math.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 24, 2011 17:36:40 GMT -6
Or another way of putting it, by stating that the increase was 2.88%, they have contrived to conceal from the voters 35% or over a third of the increase (omitting 1.56% or 1.56/4.44 of the increase for a 100K admin).
I see this as fraud plain and simple, I don't know how it can be seen otherwise. The original email, blasted to the entire district, appears to be, based on Curt's clarifying email, the deliberate misstatement of fact.
I will not even honor the statement that "the Board has agreed to increase the average administrator's 2011-12 net salary by 0.92 percent" by addressing it. It is predicated on basically saying the administrators are now going to pay part to their own healthcare, which we are going to pay them to pay - that is complete drivel.
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Aug 24, 2011 18:23:02 GMT -6
Or another way of putting it, by stating that the increase was 2.88%, they have contrived to conceal from the voters 35% or over a third of the increase (omitting 1.56% or 1.56/4.44 of the increase for a 100K admin). I see this as fraud plain and simple, I don't know how it can be seen otherwise. It appears to be, based on Curt's clarifying email, the deliberate misstatement of fact to the electorate. I will not even honor the statement that "the Board has agreed to increase the average administrator's 2011-12 net salary by 0.92 percent" by addressing it. There appears to be a misstatement of fact ED, as you say. I am getting the facts from Dave. When I get the documentation, I will post it here.
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Aug 25, 2011 21:13:34 GMT -6
It appears that the 2.88% to which Curt refers is the 1.5% plus the $1,400. Starting with 100K base, the first 1.5% gieve you 101.5. The next two increases work out to 2.88% in total.
As you say, that ignores the initial 1.5%.
Math always seemed to be a problem in this district.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 26, 2011 7:32:34 GMT -6
It appears that the 2.88% to which Curt refers is the 1.5% plus the $1,400. Starting with 100K base, the first 1.5% gieve you 101.5. The next two increases work out to 2.88% in total. As you say, that ignores the initial 1.5%. Math always seemed to be a problem in this district. They just use their own rules as to what to include. If they think the people have forgotten parts of transactions they purposely leave them out- remember the cost of MVHS Birkett first gave to the papaers until she was called on it. Things like this are purposely deceptive.. along with repeating false facts often enough to where they become part of the landscape eventually. I can't wait until we get accounting on BB costs one day...I promise you they will be deceiving and not accurate from day 1
|
|
|
Post by rchurch on Aug 29, 2011 11:41:43 GMT -6
Being a bit curious about this, I applied the planned payroll actions to the 2010-2011 administrative salary compensation data (available online) and looked at things on a monthly basis to compute the annual change. In my analysis, total administrative salary compensation rises 2.88% over 2010-2011 by the end of this fiscal year. Healthcare concessions and premiums reduces the net increase employees will see to 0.86%, a bit lower than what was communicated, but close enough for this estimation. My spreadsheet is attached for fellow data geeks here so let me know if you spot anything awry. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 29, 2011 14:45:36 GMT -6
Your calculation assumes the 1400 increase is applied after the second 1.5% raise. Do you know this as fact? I would not make this assumption unless I had it in writing in this district (and then I would not trust it to not change before it came to pass).
Your way of calculating %Increase (column R) is the same method as Bradshaw and Holm. It uses the last 6 months of salary data after all of the increase ONLY and is a way of crafting the analysis to have the percentage as low as possible (by only using 6 months of the after raises salary).
What does matter is the salary on Jun 1, 2011 vs June 1 2012, or YoY increase. That percentage is more like 4.4%.
Factoring changes in healthcare contribution is irrelevant and unrelated. We all have fees they change over time. My state taxes went up by 1.5% as did everyone here, so what not put that into the equation as well. Heck gas prices are rising, so why not call that less income. Income is income, costs are costs, nary the twain shall mix. I know Holm doesn't get this basic accounting principle as he tried to call not renting portables (a cost) as revenue when it suited his purpose.
Again, the only number that matters is salary on Jun 1, 2012 vs that on Jun 1, 2011. That is the percentage salary increase or "raise", plain and simple. The rest is playing games to hide or minimize it.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 29, 2011 15:06:35 GMT -6
Here is the spreadsheet with the true salary increases. They range from 3.7% (Birkett) to 4.9%. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rchurch on Aug 29, 2011 17:54:20 GMT -6
I have not seen analyses by Curt or Dave so I cannot speak to those. Yes, I assumed that the $1400 raise was a fixed $ amount and not subject to the 1.5% bump on January 1, 2012. If it were subject to the 1.5% bump, personally, I wouldn't call it a $1400 increase Your analysis, on the other hand, subjects the $1400 to the % bump. Both are valid assumptions since terms are still a bit ambiguous. However, by calculating it both ways, you now have the range. Either way, you are looking at roughly $288K - $428K total payroll increase for the administrative class. A 2.88% or 4.27% bump. Yes, and these employees are seeing their expenses rise. Aren't we all...
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 29, 2011 19:01:18 GMT -6
To be honest the honest, the 1.5% on the 1400 doesn't mean a hill of beans, it's only $21 in the first year, but I think one must keep an eye out on annual raises, as they tend to compound, well, annually (as do property tax increases).
No matter how you slice it, 0.92% as proudly proclaimed in the press release board message is a major Streeeeeeetch, if not outright fabrication.
|
|