Where the H--- is the Comparative Lin...

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 832 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 12:55 pm:        Where is it? Why does the Superintendent feel compelled to hide information from the public? What is the problem? Can someone please post it?   Dad23 Citizen Username: Dad23 Post Number: 51 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 8:57 pm:        The staff doesn't even get to see it. His thinking is the less people who see it, the fewer people who will argue about it.   spw784 Citizen Username: Spw784 Post Number: 468 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 2:48 am:        Maybe the person responsible for posting it is away, since schools were closed this past week.   johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 833 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 9:34 am:        We have been waiting much longer than a week. There is no excuse for the delay.   bookgal Citizen Username: Bookgal Post Number: 495 Registered: 7-2001 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 11:23 am:        It is posted as is the information for the special proposal.   mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 398 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:13 pm:        And the answer is - salary increases ranging from 5-61% raises. I thought the big increase went in last year. I did not get a pay rise, but the teachers got what appear to be massive pay rises - eg 61.26% increase for salaries of supervisors of instruction - on a decrease in headcount from 1.3 FTE to 0.5 FTE if the comparative document (where is 2001-2, 2002-3 on this, and where is the pure line item summary by majopr line - eg salaries in toto, utilities in toto) This is only a partially useful docment because a fair amount of data mining is required to get to what happened - which is looking like 10% average salary increase - this after a large increase went through last year. Headlines Total enrollment: flat Total headcount: declined by 6.4 FTE Total increase in costs: $6.6m So that's an average of about $1m increase in costs for each FTE reduced. No where near good enough Dr H. 1/10 for not taking it seriously.   Dad23 Citizen Username: Dad23 Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 6:16 pm:        mellie In response to "eg 61.26% increase for salaries of supervisors of instruction - on a decrease in headcount from 1.3 FTE to 0.5 FTE if the comparative document (where is 2001-2, 2002-3 on this, and where is the pure line item summary by major line - eg salaries in toto, utilities in toto) " I don't fully have my mind around all the figures yet, but a couple of things jump out at me. 1. There is no such thing as a supervisor for instruction. There are subject specialists, but no one with that title. That was made up for budget purposes. 2. The assistant superintendent for curriculum is included in that grouping (in the annotated budget). He makes A LOT more $ than subject specialists. Central office is trying to bury the central office jobs in the budget so their BIG salaries don't stick out. I have never seen or heard the assistant superintendent for curriculum supervise instruction in any form. 3. The sheet says there are currently 11.3 FTE supervisors of instruction. I am unaware of any part time positions for subject specialists. Since CHS subject specialists teach one class, maybe each of them is counted as 4/5 of a supervisor? I don't know how they got to 11.3 FTE. 4. The sheet says they will cut 4.2 supervisors of instruction. Again, I don't know how they got that .2. Everyone is full time. The plan was to cut 4 K-8 subject supervisors and add one K-5 curriculum specialist. 5. On my first skim of the comparative budget I do not see the salaries for the super, asst. super for K-8 (Davenport), asst super for HR (Corino), director of assessment and planning, or the 2 business administrators. 6. You were right when you said "a fair amount of data mining is required to get to what happened". Of course data mining is required. The super wants info out late and to be hard to understand. That's his M.O. Nobody could digest all this in time for tonight's meeting.   mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 403 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 6:28 pm:        Thansk Dad23 - are going tonight (is it public - and is the Thurs one public do you know). Sounds like you are saying that the document is not really comparative because there are classifications this year that are different from alst year - so it is not really a "comparative" budget at all. I am kind of late to the party here, sorry, so if you are going can you push the envelope re the dollars. Which is basically how the f*** can comp go up again after last years big increase ? Where are the CBAC in all of this I wonder   Dad23 Citizen Username: Dad23 Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 6:49 pm:        The big leaps are in several places. Everything jfburch has said is true. Increases in health benefits, heating, and other musts have all pushed the budget up. But so did salaries. When teachers negotiated a new contract they got increases every year for 3 years. I don't remember the percent per year. The teacher salaries go up about the same amount each year of the contract. So whatever they went up this year, they'll go up that much next year. Central office staff gave themselves raises this summer AND they added another assitant superintendent. Their raises could hire several more teachers. Eliminating just one central office administrator (supt, 3 asst. sups, director of assessment, business admin.) would let you hire 3 or more teachers. So, you can look at the comparative budget, but they worked on it long enough to bury what they wanted to bury. I found the annotated budget interesting. They grouped asst. sup Memoli with "supervisors of instruction". General admin included "Superintendent, lawyer on payroll, community relations, Asst Supt for Admin" So where is asst. sup Davenport? If Memoli is hidden with the supervisors then Davenport must be hidden with the principals. This goes well beyond standard budget padding. This is just plain deceptive.   jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1305 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 7:07 pm:        Mellie, yes, both meetings are open to the public. Dad23, the teachers' salary increases were 4.5% (02-03), 5.5% (03-04) and 4.75% (04-05) about 2.75% of each increase covers salary increases due to moving up the salary guide, longevity etc.   mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 405 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 7:22 pm:        thanks JFB. the big leap is comps and benefits; and it is structural insofar as if nothing changes costs increase 2.75%% pa on comp (minimum) due to longevity - why is that I wonder as an aside ? What were the teachers salary and salary increases for the preceding 3 years...and what were total and administrator salary increases for all 6 years; and what dollar and proportionate amount do the administrators consume? What has been the 5 year trend in incentive comp for administrators and for teachers ? where is there a summary of the KPI that bonuses are paid or witheld on ? is peformance against these documented ? what do the other 2-3% of teachers pay rises result from? One would think that as teachers move away or retire or fall off the top end of the scale there would be a save at the bottom end so that there would not be an in perpetuity increase in comp just for breathing in and out. what steps could have been taken to hold health benefits flat; why were they not taken; what plans are there to hold them flat next year ? etc, etc   michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 483 Registered: 1-2002 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:36 pm:        Check this past Sunday Times New Jersey Section "Taking Strident Look at School Leaders' Pay" Can't find link (help?) C'mon Sb - you could find the link in a second VEry interesting article and quite relative to our stiuation here.   Dad23 Citizen Username: Dad23 Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 2:27 am:        michael I found also found it relevant. Couldn't find the link either. Am curious. What parts caught your attention?   michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 485 Registered: 1-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 1:21 am:        "Local school adminstators and state education officials who are trying to cut administrative costs at the request of Governor McGreevy" Don't see any in Super H's proposed cuts. Maybe the State Commision needs to take a closer look at our district. Sounds like a phone call may be in order.