To be certain my earlier comments were clear: the were a number of teaching positions eliminated throughout the district. Almost all were by attrition. Having said that, it’s my understanding that there were two teachers who were actually “unhired” as a result of the position reductions.

I only know for sure about that one particular situation at Norfeldt. Across the district I am not certain if there were interim or permanent positions cut. But an interim teacher is usually filling in for a permanent staff member, right? At KP I am pretty sure several full-time permanemt positions were cut because a full team (5 teachers) was cut back to a 1/2 team (2 full time and one half).

I honestly don’t recall if the rescissions were for interim positions or not (it appears that WH Alum knows more about the specifics). Regardless, if we want to attract and retain good teachers (get test scores up; teach our kids efficiently, etc.) the bigger problem here is that two people were told they’d have jobs in WH, may have given their notice someplace else, and then were told they didn’t have jobs here. While that action was clearly part of the reality of our finances this summer, it detracts from WH’s ability to attract/retain. (And yes, I have heard of it happening in the private sector, but it wasn’t pretty there either.)

As to your benefits question, my view as someone who does this work professionally is that there are two broad activities we (WH) need to undertake as an employer:

(1) long-term, we need to create serious dialogue amongst the citizenry, and then with our employees, over the concept of “total compensation” (I recently posted more on this over at TOWH (sorry, too old and tired to attempt the HTML tonight: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8964564652551074242&postID=7516536263010555563); and

(2) in the short/mid-term we need to get more of a “risk management” mindset around particularly our employee healthcare program. I won’t bore you with all the possible techniques. Just know that doing so could not only mitigate cost increase trends, but also support the health of the people participating in our plans.

These kinds of initiatives are what I’ve spoken about publicly – and frankly we (citizens, WH leadership, WH labor unions) have a long way to go in doing so.

Norfeldt had the classroom space – there was no discussion of redistricting there. They lost the teaching position. An interim teacher was bumped out of the long-term sub for maternity leave position and another teacher was moved into that classroom. The teacher returning from maternity leave does not have a classroom to return to. I don’t know the policy from here, but if her job is guaranteed then she bumps someone else somewhere in the district. Yes contracts were rescinded. I understand it was new hires, not whps teachers, but that does not change the fact that jobs were lost.

If we’re determined to continue debating a video to which no one in the thread has linked, you can continue an informed discussion after watching the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcOl41kS5E0

That said — a refocusing question.

What do we think of the WHTA post?

the video was not clear and it sounded like an entire contract had been abrogated. Weren’t these 2 teachers interim teachers, part of a group hired annually on a temporary basis and their numbers adjusted once they know the number of classes?

Also John, you have warned both the Council and Board of the dangers of the skyrocketing benefits costs. Have they reponded to you at all? Have they started looking for answers to this problem?

Duffy and Norfeldt are among the schools where class sizes are at the maximum 28 in grades 4 and 5. There was no talk of redistricting in the spring at either of these schools. Crowding issues at Duffy were initially to be handled through the reconstitution of a gym locker room.

All potential efficiencies ought to be identified and studied in a complete and transparent manner. I am opposed to a knee-jerk reaction such as closing a firehouse without such a process (which would properly include a cost/benefit analysis). If closing it is clearly the correct choice, as identified by a thorough, objective and public process, I will support doing so. That is the responsibility of all of us identifying as “pro-budget supporters.”

They bring up the Fire House several times, no mention that it may be closed no matter what happens to the budget. It has been looked at before and they will continue to evaluate it. The Fire Chief seems to think the Town will be fine with it closed, it’s the union that is arguing to keep it open.

I don’t recall any teachers contracts being cancelled last year. The BOE approached the union for concessions but was told to go to hell. Who knows what’s going on in the current contract talks. But, it sounds like they got rid of Barbara C. because she was trying to be conciliatory to the Town.

Crowded Classes, this same group came about because they did not want their kids redistricted. Instead we can expand the Capital Improvement budget to expand school size.

Last year the BOE cut Quest to get parents upset, this year they managed to figure out how to put it back. Instead they are increasing class size, of course those complaining about increased class size also refused redistricting – you can’t have it both ways. The Council picked the program they were sure would get people riled up by cutting leaf pickup, somehow they found the money to put it back in. Francis resigns, and VanWinkle gets an immediate raise for a position that is supposed to be temporary. Will this only act to increase his retirement payout? Then the Council makes sure to publiclly announce the possible closing of a Firehouse 2 weeks before the referendum, this possible closing is not new and has been up for discussion for a while. They are constantly trying to manipulate the Taxpayer with emotional issues

The Council and BOE have had years of 6.5% annual tax increases, last year the Taxpayers told them enough, and the tax increase was held to 4.5%. This year they want another 5.5%. This is an unsustainable rate of tax increases. One Town in California has declared bankruptcy due to the same problems that are plaguing our Town. The Town government has to get this budget under control or we will be doing the same.