-continued-
4) Looking at PMA's forecast for FY15 state revenue, its growing by over $1 million. Given the trends in state-sourced revenue, I can't fathom a reason why this would occur. Maybe there is a valid reason for this growth. Perhaps the BOE can explain this, but it doesn't look right to me. One wouldn't want to agree to a contract based on a $1+ million assumption error in state revenue. 5) Historical salary increases have compounded at rates far in excess of CPI over the same time period, which is a recipe for disaster. 6) The BOE needs to be careful with the retirement option of 5.75% compounded over 4 years. I'm not sure how many teachers will be eligible to get into the retirement pipeline over the life of the agreement, but it wouldn't surprise me to see an overwhelming majority sign up. The problem is then that the salaries for the most expensive teachers in the district are compounding at 5.75% over 4 years. Years 3 and 4 will bury you.

Jose, can you tell me what districts those were???? No, because the BOE did not list them. Can you also tell me what labels were used on the graph of the teachers salaries vs the CPI? No, because the BOE didn't use them. If you want to believe half truths go right ahead and keep drinking the BOE kool aid. You owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the facts.

so...a teacher starting in 99-00 at $30,000 works 13 years and invests in a masters degree. This experienced, highly qualified, dedicated teacher now makes $59,000; less than the average salary of a Grayslake resident.

Terri - Teacher's salaries are what they are - comaparing them to average anything is pointless. The differences from district to district are not that great unless to go to the north shore, and we can not afford those salaries. If Teacher's don't like doubling their pay over 13 years, I suggest they find another profession. They know the starting salary ranges - no surprises here. The idea of freezing pay is short term and necessary. Ask ANYONE

Yes Terri, convenient to compare teachers to average Grayslake residents who work in the private sector yet you won't compare in any other aspect.

I never said that teachers didn't compare to the private sector...I simply stated, over and over and over and over, that to annualize their pay in order to make that comparison was misleading. In hind-site, its actually 14 years to double starting salary, PLUS, obtaining a post-graduate degree. I don't think $59k is outrageous for that. Unfortunately, you've continued to miss the point. A teacher accepts substandard starting pay (even Mr Jarratt says he'd find a way to make it better) because they know that with continued education, experience and loyal service, it will become more comparable in time. And yes, HM, when we try and change those expectations "slash and burn" as opposed to managed over medium term, it is a surprise.

You did just annualize it by comparing it to an average Grayslake resident. Or were you estimating that Grayslake resident makes more than $59,000 for only 190 days worked?

The average includes part time workers, independent contractors, statutory employees, seasonal workers and TEACHERS!!! I did not annualize anything.

Terri - what is the average salary in Grayslake and where did you find it? I can only find household averages, and that does not translate into what the individual average salary would be.

http://www.city-data.com/income/income-Grayslake-Illinois.html

Or...
http://bit.ly/V1hWLa

Terri...I looked at the site you referenced. According to that site "Median Per Capita Income" is about $36K (stop looking at the "Median Family Income"...in case you weren't aware "Per Capita" means per individual...compare apples to apples).

That data is for 2009. Using the starting salary you reference, a teacher starting in 99-00 at $30k, they would be at $54.4K in 2009...substantially higher than the $36K in the site YOU reference. But wait...there's more, the percent pay increases that Jose Cuervo mentions does not include step or lane changes for the teachers, only to the base salary at every level. So either you aren't very good at math (which I don't belive is the case) or you are just...once again...making a completely false argument on behalf of the teachers. This is why you zero credibility.

I would be willing to be any amount of money that every teacher who started in D46 in 99-00 at $30K makes far more than $59K...care to take me up on that...I didn't think so.

Now go paint your picket sign and get ready for Wednesday.

Thank you Jose - this is the $8 to $9 million everyone says the district has to spend, but what they don't realize is that these funds are what we have in reserve to pay the bills until the tax money comes in. By law, it must remain at a certain level. If we go below that level, we are put on a state watch list, and if we remain below that level, the state comes in to run the show, like they did at Round Lake H.S. That would be disasterous

There is no law law governing reserve levels; there are recommendations.

Terri, I think you're mixing a couple of topics together, let me see if I can clarify. A regular "RIF" reduces teachers based on seniority. Those with the least seniority are cut first. They usually also carry the lowest salaries on the staff, consequently you usually have to RIF many more in order to hit your savings target in a restructuring. The only way to impact higher salary-level teachers is if you eliminate specials (Art, Music, PE, etc) where a tenured teacher occupies that position and is not qualified to teach a different subject or grade level. Using an "average" salary to calculate an impact of 23 teachers is misleading. They should have already developed a RIF list in order to hit a savings target and that list will use actual salaries and, I would surmise, that it would have to be more than 23 because the list will be made up of the lowest salaried teachers.

I believe I heard them state that they have already taken the 19 teachers who submitted for retirement into account on the budget numbers. Besides, those teachers are not retiring now...the union demands are for the money now or next year. And I also believe that the consideration of closing a school wasn't based on decreased enrollment but on the fact that we are in a deficit budget. The process of closing a school they stated could take 3-4 years. The 23 teachers the unions proposal equates to, does not take into consideration that there will be additional RIFs because of the deficit. This guarantees increased class sizes for all.

I just can't believe the teachers who are standing united, agree with upping the retirement of a few on the backs of others. The superintendent stated the RIFs would happen, and if there is room in the budget to hire anyone back they would. That is a big "if" and who is to say when.

WP...
I think if you actually spoke with a few teachers, you'd find that the end-of-career bump is not the biggest issue; it's honoring the lane changes teachers of all ages earned and invested in. I think you'd find that they all agree that end-of-career raises need to be dealt with in the medium term, but the "slash and burn" approaches being floated aren't fair to those that have earned them. Lastly, the administration was very clear that they have not "RIF'd" and that the 23 teacher example was merely to express the figure; very misleading.

No, they have not RIF'd yet. But they were very clear, that if the board accepted the union's proposal as is, this would equate to 23 teaching jobs that would have to go. They do not have the money contrary to the funds you happen to think are there. And she was very clear, that this had nothing to do with the current deficit which would already mean additional RIFs. How many, who knows. But the mere thought of losing 23+ teachers in our community is troubling to say the least.

I have seen it in other communities, teacher's strike, board gives in, teachers lose jobs and class sizes increase. Just seems like a lose/lose situation for the teachers and the kids.

Charles,

With the new teachers evaluations effective this year couldn't some of the higher paid teachers and/or ones that may retire be on the RIF list (that is to say the administrators are doing their jobs effectively.) So can we assume that the RIFs would be the lowest senority teachers?

Worried, The new evaluation process will take time to implement. There is ongoing administrator training, etc. I don't think the new evaluation process could effectively remove a tenured teacher for another 4-5 years. In general, any RIF's now will be in order of reverse-seniority. Those most recently hired generally are at the bottom of the salary table. The only way to RIF a highly paid teacher with tenure is if the district eliminates a special (i.e. Art, Music) and that Art/Music teacher is not qualified to move into another position like a 3rd Grade classroom teacher or 7th Grade Language Arts, etc. If the district does eliminate Specials, that requires the classroom teacher to then deliver that subject as part of their curriculum. It also means that the classroom teacher that used to have a break when her kids went off to the Music room for instruction by the Music teacher, no longer has that hour of free time during the day.

How do you know the teachers aren't communicating with their representatives, as well as meeting with them, on a regular basis? I think you'd be surprised at the outcome of a re-vote. Just sayin'...

How do you know the teachers ARE communitcating with their representatives as well as meeting with them on a regular basis? Like you Terri, many of us are familiar with the dynamics and know teachers in the district. They haven't had a full meeting since the initial vote. I'll take the chance and challenge them to ANOTHER vote. It won't happen just like the union wouldn't give the parents and community a forum to have discussions. The offers have changed since that initial meeting. Don't the representatives have any obligation to their membership and doesn't that membership have an obligation to the KIDS? The entire membership should be taking each other, the kids, the budget, the parents, into consideration by at least meeting again and taking another vote.

I personally know MANY teachers in D46 and they are in fact, not turned off but more united than before. The BOE 's actions and inability to responsibly guide a school district is embarrassing. They all need to be removed. You must not have seen the parents who voiced their displeasure with the BOE at the last meeting. On the other hand, I didn't see one parent who said something negative about the union.
The teachers also have a lot of support from community members as they realize the important and incredible job that they do EVERYDAY with their children. (see media outlets such as Facebook and the last board meeting)
I suggest you also read the open letter that the union presented to the Patch. I realize for many of you it is easy to look at the BOE presentation and nothing else. Do yourself a favor and fully educate yourself before you rush to judgement.

Jose...the teachers have met with their representatives. They know what is being offered before it's offered. They have significant input and vehicles for being heard. If the teachers you know aren't keeping you informed, good for them! You'd just spin it backwards on every message board you subscribe to! I don't ask for specifics. I wouldn't put them on the spot like that. I think Jack Nicholson said it best in "A Few Good Men"...

@Swanson, I totally support the teachers and think they do a great job. But this isn't a merit raise..there is no money! We can't give them their demands while being fiscally responsible at the same time. I cannot gauge my support on this contract based on the warm fuzzy feelings I have for the teachers or what they do. The decisions we make today with impact the future of our kids in this district for years to come.

I agree that the board AND the superintendent has severely lacked in many ways including being fiscally responsible in the past so we aren't in this spot today, but I can't fault them now for doing what is best for everyone.... teachers jobs, the kids, the taxpayers and the future of this school district. Did you not read any of the stats that @Charles so nicely laid out. Does that not scare the heck out of you?

@ Terri & Swanson, You are so confident in your position and how the teachers feel. If the union is so confident that their membership is united, TAKE ANOTHER VOTE!

Lastly, in relooking at the PMA 5 year projections, that State Revenue number just doesn't look right. Here's the trend: FY13 10.1 mil, FY14 9.6, FY15 10.6, FY16 10.9, FY17 10.9, FY18 10.7. I can't explain why FY15 revenue would increase by $1 million and then maintain an elevated level. Maybe they're rolling the dice anticipating that the state's finance's will improve and they'll make good on the full GSA payment. I sure wouldn't make that bet.

The 19 teachers retiring will exit, and represent a RIF (a RIF is a Reduction In Force; it can be accomplished through layoffs or attrition, the former being most common), as early as next year; most of the 19 will be out by 2014/2015. They put in for retirement prior to the expiration of the prior Contract and are "locked" into the 6% for 4 if they worded their notices properly. With enrollment reductions of 50 per year, at least 2 retiree's per year will not have to be replaced...that saves four times the end-of career bump. In the event they were replaced, the savings would still be significant. No, according to AK, the retirees are not factored into the budget. Closing a school would be necessary regardless if enrollment continues to shrink. In 4 years, student population might be down by 200.

Terri, the impact I am describing has to do with those teachers that are not yet in the retirement pipeline, not the 19 that are already in. If there is a significant number of teachers that would be able to opt in under the proposed contract terms of 5.75% over 4 years, that will have a significant, negative financial impact. The district would suffer until they finally retired at the end of FY17.

But isn't it a mistake to be so short sighted? Often a small investment now can yield high returns later. I would hope that eligible teachers flocked to the program. The retiree's that need to be replaced will be so at a significant savings. The ones that don't need to be replaced save a RIF and significant expense. Not everything needs to be "slash & burn" to be effective.

I would agree with you that for a financially struggling district, having higher-paid employees leave sooner rather than later would be a good thing. However, one could debate the merits of a scheme by which the district inflates the salaries of already highly paid employees over a period of 4 additional years to get them to retire, to be the most effective means to accomplish that goal. What do you think the perspective of a parent will be when the district, in order to meet its financial challenges, has to RIF teachers, resulting in higher class sizes, because state funding is collapsing and the retirees are bleeding the district dry? The 5.75%/4 program just exacerbates the problem for the next 4 years. What do you tell the parents, "Just wait until August of 2017 when everybody retires and then we'll be able to hire back more teachers to reduce class sizes, in the mean time, your child will have to suffer through the next 4 years with 33 students in their classroom?" I don't think that when they start to express their displeasure, that telling them they're being "short-sighted" is going to be an effective rebuttal. But, perhaps I'm projecting a mountain out of a molehill. We don't know how many teachers there are aged 50 and up that could opt in to the program over the next 2 years and or their salaries. You we need that info to project the potential exposure due to the salary spikes as well as the ERO penalty exposure for those that elect to go out under ERO.

Charles - you hit the nail on the head with this. I would like to add to this the fact that there is a very real possibility that the state will shift the burden of teacher pensions back on the districts. If that happens, we are in an even deeper hole, for a much longer term that 2017. As if it is not bad enough that we are facing deficits for the coming years, we will be forced to add on a substantial liability (how muchof a liability no one yet knows). IN this scenario, inflating the final four years will hurt us all even more. This all needs to be carefully considered. Consider your $15K salary differential times every teacher;s pension benefit, for every teacher that retires from now on, and tack on cost of living increments.

Actually, Madigan took the pension responsibility push off the table. Why is this issue always so focused on how it "hurts" a non-teacher? We all knew this was a bedroom community when we moved here. We all knew the responsibility for keeping the promise fell on our shoulders. Why do we feel that this burden should to shift to the teachers who had no responsibility for the mess we're in?
Charles...we had the opportunity to incent teacher retirement using stimulus funds (what they were intended for). Instead, the board chose to divey it out in non-life-changing amounts to all the teachers. Just one more bad decision that helped create this problem.

Madigan took it off the table for now...kicked the can down the road yet again. Unless the federal governement, which is broke, bails out Illinois, which is broke, then the pension issue will be back on the table again. The state simply can not afford the pensions.
This hurts everyone, Terri, not just non-teachers. I am not anti-teacher. I am anti-bleeding the tax payers to death for benefits we can not continue. Look at why private sector pensions dried up. No one can afford to pay everyone until they die. Personal accountability is the way we will need to go in the future. Its time for the pensions to be re-evaluated. Not just teachers - all public sector pensions. Keep in place what is promised as of today, and from this point forward, come up with a new formula or go to the equivalent of a 401(k).

HM
Now, we fundamentally AGREE!!! Build that into our current D46 negotiation, and I think you have a winner!

Charles...
One last point. The district does not have to accept a teachers notice to retire under the provisions of the pending contract. They normally do, because it makes financial sense for the long term. If there were the "mad dash" you describe, the district can manage it.

Terri, That's not correct. The current contract does not provide any Board option for denying a valid, qualifying retirement applicant. Nothing that the Board has released regarding the current negotiations indicate that they have retained a right of refusal on the 5.75%/4 Retirement Program. If they did have that right, the Board might as well capitulate on this disputed item and give the union the 6%/4 Program and then in practice, never, ever approve a retirement application. Perhaps you are confusing this with the Board's right under the law, to restrict the number of applicants taking advantage TRS' ERO option. Due to the substantial employer penalties with ERO retirements, the Board can restrict the number of ERO applicants to 10% of the ERO-eligible employees each year.

Yes...I did confuse that with ERO. Thank you

@Scott There are many people who support the teachers and the numbers are growing as they see how shady, inept and childish this BOE is. I agree with your comments about teachers not wanting to apply for jobs in D46. The politics of it have become a joke.

Good point Scott. And how many Lake County home seekers will find Grayslake a desirable place to live and raise a family given their continually eroding educational system? A strong, reputable school system could draw a higher population and therefore more tax revenue. When I and my family relocated to Lake County from out-of-state, we also were drawn to the fine schools of Grayslake. In fact, our realtor steered us away from other areas whose schools were not as good. I can remember asking her why these other school districts were having problems and her response was "people in those districts were not willing to support their schools through tax increases". I wonder what they'll be saying to potential new residents about Grayslake schools?

And our teachers make well below the state average.

Terri...

You continually cry that Grayslake is rich, therefore we should just be able to pay whatever the unions demands are. What is the point of showing average income....show some statistics that based on the average income what is the median property taxes paid on the homes, what percentage are the taxes as a percent of income. If someone who is making the median income you state above owns a home that "once" was worth 350,000 they are probably paying 10-11,000 of that income to property taxes. So now after federal and state taxes take their cut, as well as social security (which that retirement amount probably won't be around) that household is probably down to a net income of about 55-60k. I know there are teachers in our district that make that or more after their taxes.

Just because you can rattle of income statistics that automatically proves that Grayslake can afford to run even further in a deficit budget. Or are you suggesting that because of your statistics that we should be able and to happily part with even more of our income?

The teachers have had raises for the last at least 20 years, the taxpayers have continually been levyied, and it wasn't until the economy tanked and we are all hurting that we have had to say uncle. And the first time we ask for a little relief in our community the union doesn't like it and wants to take it out on the kids.

9:10 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
WP...
Our district is funded by taxpayers...it's a bedroom community and we all knew that when we moved here. Yes, we can afford it. Those crying "poor" are clearly in the minority.

Then triple the levy...

If you think your taxes are to high and you don't value quality education then move somewhere else and stop crying poor!

And even after all those increase, Our teachers still make well below the state average. Hmmmmm.......

@ Terri: "then triple the levy"; can't be done by law, but you know that. (opposite of the posture for someone who thinks they should accept a freeze).You argue to argue.
@ Swanson: I think my taxes @ over $10k/yr are enough to provide a quality education. It's why I don't move that and selling your home here is next to impossible. The district is in deficit. The community is hurting (as stated by volumes of posters here). If that offends you to the point that you tell someone to move and assume they don't value quality education, then I suggest the problem is yours.
@ Joe: The avg. teachers salary in D46 is a little over $55k. Who cares if that is over or under the state avg.? Right now Grayslake can't afford to increase that.

I appreciate and respect the teachers. I talk with many in and out of this district . I talk to neighbors, parents, businesses. I disagree that the community is in support of the union. Quite the opposite. They are the silent majority-no surprise given the venom those of us who speak up against the union's offer have to endure.
How many teachers do you think are being held hostage by the choices and suggestions of Jim Pergander and the Union? I agree with HM, a lot are unfortunate pawns in this. Many, albeit quietly, don't want to strike. Many want the union to accept the offer. You can bet not one wants to lost their job so another can have more.

Jose
This community is far better off today than yesterday. Everyone has taken a paper hit in net worth from real estate. But incomes have risen at above average rates. If this doesn't describe you, the statistics suggest you're in the minority. Clearly, what we pay in taxes is not enough. Yes, it's high, but that's how it works in a bedroom community. Want lower taxes? Move to a community where you'll get less house for the dollar. It's a balance.

@Terri, site sources that show incomes are rising in Grayslake at above avg. rates.
I'll help you with the last 5 years:
Average salary raise in D46 (avg. Base & Step)

'07-'08: 5.20%
'08-'09: 3.96%
'09-'10:: 3.96%
'10-'11: 2.75% + $1,100 bonus
'11-'12: 3.96%

Yes, these are above avg. compared to CPI. For once I agree with you!

Thanks Swanson11...but don't take that to believe I feel the union's request is appropriate. I still believe that our teachers should accept a freeze in the short term in return for the district keeping it's promise relative to lanes. I also believe that end-of-career raises should be minimized medium term.

HN
Birds of a feather...15 is far from a representative sample.
Please look up the definition of "per capita". I supplied a link above.

Terri - not birds of a feather at all. This was not a group of friends who went out to enjoy each other's company. Never said it was a representative sample - but it was a very diverse group of people, and everyone had the same point of view. I was struck by that. And a number of these were parents who are extremenly involved and visible at district 46, with extremely smart and engaged students.

Per Capita does not work with regards to property tax- I pay that as a household, not as an idividual, so household income is the appropriate variable to look at in that instance. Not sure where else Per Capita applies in my statement. Average teacher salaries are higher than the per capita income in Grayslake. Unless you know what the average household income is where one or more contributors is a teacher, there is really no other comparison to be made.

Teachers do not make, on average, what an individual Grayslake resident makes, on average. "Per capita" is not an individual earner.
http://bit.ly/RRYyhe

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/per+capita?s=t

Somebody had better notify the folks at dictionary.com that "Per Capita" does not mean individual...their first definition:

1. by or for each individual person: income per capita.

Oh wait...somebody needs to explain to Terri, in small easy to understand words, that "Per Capita" means individual earner and "Median Household" means amount earned by all wager earners in the house.

In case you are still confused Terri...at the top of this post is a link that defines "Per Capita"....maybe you are telling the truth about not being a teacher....I sure hope so.

Gee, Ben...I didn't think I'd need to draw a picture...
A family in Grayslake is composed of a mother, father, an infant, a pre-schooler, and a 3rd grader. Mom works for a law firm as an associate earning $85k per year. Dad works part-time from home as a graphic designer earning $35k per year.
What is their household income?
What is the "per capita" income in that household?
My link gives you direction, but you really have to read it all.

Terri - what teachers make relative to anyone else is not at all relevant to any argument here. They agree to work in that profession, knowing they won't get wealthy doing so. A number of my family members are teachers - they understand this well. I have a neighbor who makes a lot more than I do - should my income be bumped up to be more in line with his? We both live in Grayslake! I work really hard, put in hours well beyond 40 per week, and have an advanced degree. Maybe I should threaten to walk off my job because my income is not in line with that of my neighbor! Oh wait - I accepted my job knowing full well what the salary was, and when times are tough, and my employer does not have the money, I don't get a raise, even when I deserve it. That's life. When families are having to pay 10% of their income to property taxes, it is more than too much. You seem to think tripling the levy is fine - please do so for yourself and write a check to Community Consolidate District 46. I'm sure they will appreciate it. No one is stopping you.

Based on your statement, you are statistically in the minority. You keep asking teachers to take less because you're making less, but don't feel you should make more when others make more?

Terri...You just keep pulling numbers and definitions out of your...well you know where you pull them form. On YOUR link, it uses terms such as:

Median Household Income - the income of the householder and all other individuals 15 years old and over in the household, whether they are related to the householder or not. Because many households consist of only one person, average household income is usually less than average family income. According to your source, in 2009 in Grayslake it was $85,888.

Per capita income is the average income for each person in a particular group. Most commonly, per capita income is computed for various geographic entities, such as ZIP codes (as is the case here). According to your source, in 2009 in Grayslake it was $36,031.

Median Family Income is an annual income figure representing the point at which there are as many families earning more than that amount as there are earning less than that amount. According to your source, in 2009 in Grayslake it was $101,061.

Your silly example of mom the lawyer and dad the graphic designer means nothing as you just pulled the numbers from thin air. My numbers, from YOUR source are real. The average wage earner in Grayslake makes $36,031.

I am but a mere simpleton, so please draw a picture, based on your source, that says something different than the average wage earner in Grayslake makes $36,031.

You really do have to read it, and, more importantly, understand the terms used therein.

Statistics for individual wage earners are available in the document. Per capita is total income divided by total people...working or not, infant or adult. $36k is NOT the average salary for a Grayslake resident. In my example, per capita income is around $24k. That is an actual household in Grayslake.

Terri....at 8:38 am on Friday, January 11, 2013 you posted "so...a teacher starting in 99-00 at $30,000 works 13 years and invests in a masters degree. This experienced, highly qualified, dedicated teacher now makes $59,000; less than the average salary of a Grayslake resident."

Then today: 10:57 am on Monday, January 14, 2013 - "Statistics for individual wage earners are available in the document. Per capita is total income divided by total people...working or not, infant or adult. $36k is NOT the average salary for a Grayslake resident. In my example, per capita income is around $24k. That is an actual household in Grayslake."

For both of these examples cite the same reference: http://bit.ly/RRYyhe

Your reference state that the "Aggregate household income in Grayslake in 2009: $745,930,991"...again you have to understand the term. Aggregate household income means all the money earned by every person in Grayslake. Your reference states the 2009 population of Grayslake at 21,698. When you divide $745,930,991 by 21,698, you get $34,378.

So when you state "In my example, per capita income is around $24k"...what orifice did you pull this number from? After all, you claim "Per capita is total income divided by total people...working or not, infant or adult." As you can see above...you are way off - as usual. But don't worry I completely understand now...you qualify by saying "In my example"...which we all know comes from Fantasyland.

I tried to make it easy for you with a simple sample. You still don't seem to understand that"per capita" is not "per wage earner". The average individual wage earner in Grayslake makes more than the average Individual D46 teacher. Further, the average individual wage earner in Grayslake will receive a raise in income in the neighborhood of 3%. Why not the average teacher?

Per YOUR source:
"Aggregate household income in Grayslake in 2009: $745,930,991"
"2009 population of Grayslake at 21,698" (this includes every man, woman and child, regardless of age)

When you divide $745,930,991 by 21,698, you get $34,378. Where do you get your $24K figure from. I provide clear info where I get my figure from...why can't you?

Now you ask: "the average individual wage earner in Grayslake will receive a raise in income in the neighborhood of 3%. Why not the average teacher?"

Average Pay Raises for the Past 13 years:
D46 Teachers Everybody Else
99-00 9.98% - Average US Worker raise in 1999 - 5.3%
00-01 6.54% - Average US Worker raise in 2000 - 5.2%
01-02 5.78% - Average US Worker raise in 2001 - 2.3%
02-03 5.84% - Average US Worker raise in 2002 - 1.0%
03-04 5.39% - Average US Worker raise in 2003 - 2.4%
04-05 6.37% - Average US Worker raise in 2004 - 4.4%
05-06 5.20% - Average US Worker raise in 2005 - 3.5%
06-07 5.21% - Average US Worker raise in 2006 - 4.4%
07-08 5.20% - Average US Worker raise in 2007 - 4.3%
08-09 3.96% - Average US Worker raise in 2008 - 2.2%
09-10 3.96% - Average US Worker raise in 2010 - (-1.5%)
10-11 2.75% - Average US Worker raise in 2010 - 2.3%
11-12 3.96% - Average US Worker raise in 2011 - 3.0%
(source National Average Wage Index)

They already got more than their fair share the past 13 years. Why did they deserve more all those years?

Ben, Ben, Ben...
In my example, phrased as a question you never answered, the per capita answer was $24k.

You are correct HM, many of the teachers are pawns and victims of their own union leadership.

Mr Jarratt
Teachers have real time access and input to everything that goes on during negotiations. While their opinions differ, they are nearly unanimous in their support.

Just be aware that you will be subjected to Lennie's hyper extreme right wing agenda.

Regardless, if ALL the BOE candidates will be there, it will be attendance worthy. If only the right-wingers will be there, a list of names would suffice.

If ANYONE goes, ask the board how the fact that the teachers giving back money the last time the board screwed up the budget is conveniently left out of the meetings. Listening to another night of yada yada by the board and their cronies, that sounds like fun.

Scott, they didn't give back anything. It was a contract deal and they took "less" of a raise, but they got a raise anyway. And after they gave out the govt refund and passed it out to the teachers as a "thank you" most teachers made a salary above what the increase they "gave up" would have given them.

I will attend.. I want to see your plan...I really do.

3) Begin restructuring the district to live within the realties of the current financial environment. That includes holding firm on union labor costs, evaluating school closures, class sizes, specials, extracurriculars, stipends, retirements, outsourcing services like janitorial and transportation, employee benefits, admin staffing levels, special ed services, etc. IF after all of that, the budget still can't be balanced, then it is an easier case to take a limiting rate increase to the taxpayers.

Charles, your path #3 is dead-on in my opinion. Thus far, I have seen very little to nothing from the BOE with respect to the other spending categories you mention except for "union labor costs". They have yet to present materials showing how they have exhaustively analyzed different scenarios showing plans to reduce other expenditures over the coming years. The widely-held perception is that union labor costs are the ONLY cure-all. Their extreme focus on this alone has generated much distrust with the union and community. Should teachers alone be responsible for resolving the financial issues? The union definitely has a large part to play, and I'm sure they would be willing to contribute more if they were assured the BOE were doing their proper due diligence. That said, I think it would be extremely disappointing if a strike occurs, given how close negotiations are. The BOE needs to give some on lane changes, and the union needs to give some on pension spiking ... meet in the middle!

Good stuff! It would be even better if Charles didn't refer to negotiations as "caving" and joe didn't refer to end-of-career raises as "pension spiking". Those are very loaded, offensive terms and not wholly accurate.

Well, I was going to use capitulate or surrender, but I had reached my character limit on the post and so I went with cave.

Charles...
In a successful negotiation, both parties win. That could happen in this situation as well. Referring to the course of action as cave, capitulate, or surrender is offensive and inaccurate. In all cases where you used or wanted to use those particular verbs, you were baiting. Number 3 works for me with one change; instead of "holding firm on union labor costs", insert, " negotiate contracts and salaries that in the long term provide financial benefit to the district".