Sorry about the light posting lately, I've been busy, but also not much has been going on at the board or committee level.
The July board meeting (which took place tonight) is usually when the board appoints citizen members to the standing committees. This year 14 people applied for the various openings- (My thanks and appreciation to those of you that applied for your willingness to help out the board and the district.) But after some discussion the board voted to abolish the standing committees (Curriculum, Policy and Business Services) and instead move to two meetings of the entire board each month. Concerns were mostly expressed about the inefficient use of staff time under the current system.
My feeling is that we risk distancing ourselves from the community and will have diminished working relationships with the administrators. My observation has been that the board's best work gets done at the committee level as items well vetted in committee tend to be broadly supported by the board. I am worried about the efficiency of trying to work out the details on issues with the larger group, this issue already came up tonight when it was suggested we would need a special policy committee to work through several pending policy issues.
On other matters we did make progress on the Kids Safari busing issue, by adding a "2nd Run" bus route we can provide service for these kids to after school daycare for about $8000 - the board consensus is that a reasonable approach would be to offer to provide this service at cost.
The board also approved a request from the Superintendent for a 1/2 time HR director for the district. Adding a position at this time may seem counter to the budget tightening times we live in, but this has been an identified need for several years. Craig believes that the position can be filled with little increase in overall costs to the district thanks to changes in the office staff and potential savings in legal fees if some of the contract negotiation duties are shifted to the HR director from legal counsel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Oh my. What were the votes on the decisions to abolish the commitees and to approve the HR position?
The board voted 5 to 1 to abolish the committee (I was the sole nay vote) and unanimously approved the HR position. .
5 to 1. that's six votes. Who didn't vote?
When is the strategic planning going to start? That was a campaign promise by many of the current members.
The 2 times a month could actually be a good idea. The board talks a lot, but the conversation often don't seem to go anywhere, and just bores people from paying attention. Splitting things up over two meetings might speed things up. Plus if there is something controversial, it can be separated from uncontroversial meetings and more time can be spent at those times.
But then you guys drop the committees, so now the whole board will talk about those issues too. It looks like 3 times as much work in only 2 times as much extra time. I know the committee meetings are shorter ones, but I don't think they are that much shorter, and won't free up much time.
So what did the decision get parents? Is the committee stuff going to come at the end, after the important stuff, or is this some way for the board to hide things until the wee hours of the morning? Keep the 2 meetings, but add a sub-committee or two back.
One of the concerns that some share is that because the committees weren't televised that stuff could go on outside the public view. Having only televised board meetings would make everything more public. But my opinion is that the televised broadcasts are a poor method for keeping the public informed. Board meetings should be structured to get the business of the district done, and communications should be structured to keep the public abreast of relevent information. Trying to use the meeting to do both functions compromises both.
The public would be better served by communications purposely designed to keep them informed, expecting them to watch 8 hours of cable access a month creates a barrier to the interested public.
Two of the issues I ran on were energy conservation to save money and strategic planning/continuous improvement process implementation. Over the last two years I have had the opportunity to work on the first, and the district has made great strides. The second item has been a substantial frustration to me. Early on the board adopted a resolution supporting the use of the Baldridge model for SP/CIP, but with the change in superintendent and other pressing issues this initiative has slipped away. I had laid plans to start running the Curriculum Committee on a continuous improvement model over the next year, hoping to lead by example- but I won't now have that opportunity.
Does the board have any formal goals for the coming year?
I am saddened about the loss of committtees. I think this was an essential part of allowing the citizens of the community to be involved in decision making and opinion gathering. In those meetings, citizen members were heard on issues on an equal basis as board members, and they brought a unique perspective as parents, members of the greater community and were not caught up in the inner workings of board decisions. I never served on a committee, but when reading about/watching those committees, the perspectives of the non-board members were critical and important.
I think we have just closed another door on community input and involvement,and that is disappointing.
just saying
What if teachers were paid based on the future income their students make? For example, student A grows up to make 100k a year. We look at the records and find the 20 teachers that taught student A and compensate them based on that. Compensation could be based on number of months spent with student.
That way the students would turn into "investments" for the teachers.
seriously, where did this comment come from?? since when is income a measure of complete success? In example, someone becomes a nun and touches lives of many each day but works for $10k a year. So that person is "not successful" because they pull in only 10K and her teacher should be punished for her lack of income?
I just thought it would start a conversation is not an attack.
"In example, someone becomes a nun and touches lives of many each day but works for $10k a year. So that person is "not successful" because they pull in only 10K and her teacher should be punished for her lack of income?
"
This is a great example of the problme around such an idea.
Peter wrote, “The board also approved a request from the Superintendent for a 1/2 time HR director for the district. Adding a position at this time may seem counter to the budget tightening times we live in, but this has been an identified need for several years. Craig believes that the position can be filled with little increase in overall costs to the district thanks to changes in the office staff and potential savings in legal fees if some of the contract negotiation duties are shifted to the HR director from legal counsel.”
I was surprised the Board approved the Superintendent’s request for a new half time administrative position. I was even more surprised that the vote was unanimous. Did any of the following questions come up in the discussion of this expenditure?
1. Why now? Yes this is an “identified need”, but we have needs across the district. With larger budget deficits an annual reality, and layoffs on the horizon, what kind of message does this send to the other district employees and the taxpayers? Didn't anyone suggest waiting until the district’s finances are more solid before even considering increasing the administrative staff?
2. The Superintendent “believes that the position can be filled with little increase in overall costs to the district”. Did the Board approve the position based on the Superintendent’s “belief” or did he present cost estimates?
3. What provisions were made to evaluate the actual annual cost of this position and the benefits it provides?
4. Half time today, full time tomorrow? When will the Board begin to take the long view and start the long promised strategic planning?
5. The Superintendent survived his first year in the district without an HR administrator, and his predecessor managed to do without for eight years. His first year’s salary, not including benefits and perks, was $150,000. That is 32% higher than his salary at G-E-T, 8% higher than the former Superintendent, and over 5 times what we pay a starting teacher.* Did anyone gently point out that we pay him a lot of money, that times are tough, and ask him to roll up his sleeves and make do with the administrative team that is in place?
*Reference: http://dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html
Bill:
As one who recently served on the school board, your comments on the HR position and superintendent merit some response.
One can always make the argument that there are other needs in the district. Districts continually, in good economic times and bad, wrestle with how to allocate resources, and there is no end to an argument that says, "Yes, but you could've spent money here instead of there..."
The implication, of course, is that the district is adding administrative costs when it could instead spend those dollars elsewhere. A few facts may help put the half-time HR position in context. The MG district is a $32.8 million annual enterprise. It has more than 3,000 students, and more than 400 employees. It is -- without question -- one of the most heavily regulated enteprises in our community, what with the myriad state and federal requirements (in addition to regular dealings with local government officials) that public school districts are required to follow.
To this enteprise, the MG district devotes all of 16 administrators -- and most of those (nine) are building principals charged with operating our schools on a day-to-day basis. Everything else -- complying with DPI financial requirements (byzantine, to say the least), state and federal oversight of special education students (all of whom are required by law to have IEPs, and require considerable work and coordination with parents, teachers and other building staff), feeding up to 3,000 students daily, getting them to and from school, updating curriculum, training teachers, running payrolls, negotiating five separate union contracts (and complying with state and federal labor laws, equally byzantine), making sure school buildings are safely maintained -- all of that essentially falls to six administrators and their staff. I know these folks, pretty well, and say what you will, they are all awfully hard-working and dedicated to the best interests of the district. They have taken on, in addition to their regular duties, many of the tasks that a half-time HR person will (in all likelihood) assume.
Superintendent Craig Gerlach first brought the idea of the HR position to the board earlier this year, and the board at that time had an extensive discussion about the position, the arguments for and against it, and the responsibilities that such a position would include. This is not some idea dreamed up by the current superintendent at the spur of the moment; indeed, the idea of having some sort of HR position devoted to things like labor negotiations (which the district often pays outside legal counsel to do, at a cost that's not cheap), labor contract enforcement and oversigh, job posting and reviewing/screening of candidates -- has been discussed several times in the past, by previous boards and superintendents. The implication that "it has always been this way, so why can't it continue?" is a typical candard, unfortunately often on display in school districts, for justifying practices that may or may not be in the best interests of the district. We used to cram 30+ plus kids into elementary classrooms in this district, as well -- was that a sound practice?
(Continued from previous post):
Also, a word or two about pay. The current superintendent was hired at a time of considerable market pressure for superintendents, with openings at several well-regarded suburban districts in the state (Waunakee, Ashwaubenon, Germantown, to name three off the top of my head). He was paid a salary -- $150,000 -- roughly 4 percent higher than what former superintendent Gary Schumacher would have been making had Gary chosen to stay on as superintendent. Yes, Craig is making more than what he made at G-E-T -- he's leading a district with twice as many students, more than twice as many employees, and with a budget that's twice as large as what he oversaw at G-E-T. The comparison to a teacher's salary is just silly -- the two operate in completely different labor markets, with responsibilities that are hardly comparable.
Finally, the notion that the current superintendent should just "roll up his sleeves" and "make do" wihtout a half-time HR position is beyond ironic, given your other comments. It is the very reason, I believe, that this superintendent wants to focus on long-range planning for the district that had led to this request for a half-time position. A superintendent, working in conjunction with the board, can't just "fit in" long-range planning into his duties; it has to be central to what he does. And if the superintendent is spending his hours on HR duties (like negotiating teacher contracts, to name just one...), that's less time he has to devote to the necessary task for long-range planning for the district.
I agree with what Phil said.
Thanks for Craig
About the upcoming goals of the board - so none have been delineated for the future? Is there even a plan to to make a plan? How can the board be "transparent" if nobody knows what is you are planning to work on?
Phil:
Thank you for your response. You gave a good description of the difficult challenge of running a school district. You also make a case for the value of an administrator who handles HR responsibilities, but did not tackle the question of whether the District can afford it at this time. You neglected to acknowledge the grim economic climate in which this decision was made, and I still do not know if the board addressed questions regarding cost and budget impact.
With the District facing annual budget deficits the Board needs limit any new spending. Did the Board ask the Superintendent questions such as: What is the estimated cost for this position? Where will the money come from? How long will a half time position meet our needs? What provisions were made to evaluate the actual annual cost of this position and the benefits it provides? I am not advocating being penny wise and pound foolish, simply that the Board be financially responsible.
Your suggestion that the Superintendent cannot accomplish any long range planning without an HR administrator is disappointing. That a new initiative requires a new administrative position is "a typical canard". If the Board has been considering splitting the duties and adding a new position for some time, why wasn’t the additional expense and the reduced responsibility considered when negotiating a compensation package for the new Superintendent? You say there was “considerable market pressure for superintendents” at that time, but I think you overstate the case. Of the three districts you cited, Ashwaubenon paid their superintendent $104,696 in salary, Germantown $133,500, and Waunakee $134,000, in 2009. Simply put, we appear to be paying more and getting less.
On a final note, over the past eight years the salary of our Superintendent has risen 20%, from $125,000 to $150,000. The starting teacher salary has gone up 9%, from $26,000 to $28,340. Comparing these salaries does not seem silly from a teacher’s perspective. You are correct that “the two operate in completely different labor markets”, but one could make the case that the market has inflated the value of one and left the other undervalued. Yes the responsibilities are quite different, but the difficulty of the challenge and the hours that many of our teachers put in, rival those of the Superintendent. If layoff notices go out next March, it will be these starting teachers that receive them.
(For salary data see http://dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newasr.html)
Hi Bill- I understand your concerns about affordability of the HR position, but for me this was an easy decision:
1) The need is readily apparent, I could go on about this, but suffice it to say that any private company of this size would have an entire HR department.
2) The downside risk is small: The net cost of the position is likely to be minimal, and if it doesn't work out the position can be readily eliminated in a year or two.
3) The upside potential is large: the costliest decision (in both budgetary and educational terms) the district can make is to hire and tenure a teacher that turns out not to be a top performer. Add to this the potential for smoother and more satisfactory (for all involved) contract negotiations, better navigation of the costly and complex world of employee benefits, improved staff evaluation and performance management. I think there is potential for significant cost savings and improved educational outcomes associated with this position.
Balancing the costs against the potential risks/rewards for this position makes it easy for me to justify.
I also believe that to be successful a chief executive needs the freedom to organize his staff around the management style and philosophy he finds most useful. Accountability and responsibility go hand in hand, if the superintendent is going to be held accountable for district performance, we need to give him the responsibility to make the changes he deems necessary to deliver the performance for which he will be held accountable.
Interesting thread on the committee topic on Doug Wood's blog.
http://mononadoug.blogspot.com/2009/07/monona-in-news.html
Post a Comment