The board considered what was on the agenda last night, but they deferred decision-making for several of the items that were on the consent agenda, including the creation of new, cheaper-than-the-old, but still administrative positions.
I believe there's another board meeting next Monday night, June 29.
If you have objections, call and email the board! Come to the meeting. Let your voices be heard.
Posted by Katheryn, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Here is what I got from watching the Board Meeting last night, I'm simply re-telling the events:
According to Dr. Casey administrator's have agreed to a 3-day salary roll back. Additionally, he has decreased his car allowance by $250/month and the Assistant Supt. decreased her car allowance by $200/month, Dr. Casey didn't go into any other car allowance decreased, he only mentioned that additional allowances ranged between $25 to $150 per month (it was unclear if those who received allowances will be giving them up).
Dr. Casey stated that with those savings, the District would like to hire back:
1) 1.5 of the 3 middle school vice principals laid off.
2) Management Assistant (public information I think).
3) Coordinator of Career Tech Ed
From what I could understand, the Coordinator of Career Tech Ed has good relationship's with the Carpenter's Union, Firefighter's Union (and one other union but I can't remember what it was), and those particular unions bring income into the District (he didn't elaborate on how income was generated from these organizations).
Dr. Casey also stated that with the savings of the rollback's and the car allowance's, another 3 positions will be brought back temporarily (I am puting this down from memory and I'm not certain of the accurate job title's):
1) Nutritional Service Assistant (until September)
2) Director of Architectural Review (until September)
3) One other Temp Position (Can't remember the title until October)
The reason Dr. Casey would like the Board to consider bringing these 3 employee's back temporarily has something to do with their retirement.
So, he is asking the Board to consider bringing back 6 administrators, 3 of which will be temporary.
The above is item 11.1 on the agenda and will be differed until the next meeting 6/29. Reason being, the board members would like the community to have an opportunity to voice their opinion's.
Last night, only one member of the community spoke on this issue. He asked the board and the District to please consider bring back teachers in lieu of administrator positions.
Posted by Parent, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm
If the administrators are the ones giving up their money, they should absolutely be able to use it for administrators jobs. If teachers want to save teachers jobs, they should put pressure on their union and do the same! Same goes for classified!
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Bonde Ranch neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm
We should be asking how all of the monkeying around, creating part time positions, will effect retirements. My concern is that we will get stuck paying the hugh burden of more retirement from more people working less but still getting retirement.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm
This is awful. How can Dr. Casey justify this? The money saved should be used to save programs, teachers, people who work DIRECTLY with students.
By the way, their car stipend reduction is a joke. Casey lives in Pleasanton. Why does he need 1000/month? And now that goes down to 750/month....still unnecessary unless we are making his car payments, and it must be a nice car.
I feel silly for having donated to the current fundraising going on.
Posted by tired of it, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I encourage you to take the time to understand the role of the people working in the district office. With the loss of 10 administrators those left will be covering multiple jobs that were once full time positions. This alone will be causing serious effects to the classrooms. Teachers and programs do not run without those at the D.O coordinating and running them.
PUSD has proven nothing but success over the last decade. This didn't happen because of mismanagement. They know what they are doing and it shows in the success of the schools and the students.
People have the right to post their opinions here, but it is getting old when the opinions are taken as facts that are simply not true. The administration gave back enough to cover these 3 positions, this is not coming from money that people have donated. By posting false information, it continues the distorted perception of PUSD and those who are working to salvage what the state has done to public education in California.
Posted by Get the facts, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Off hand, three middle school VP's, one HR position (split between two people), and two (I believe) curriculum directors. Possibly some of the elementary VP's (there are 4.5 of them), but I'm not sure on that.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm
"The administration gave back enough to cover these 3 positions, this is not coming from money that people have donated. "
One of the reasons Measure G failed was because the administration did not do its part to show the so called "shared sacrifice."
We saw class size increase, etc, but did not see any effort at all from the administration as far as car stipends, etc. Now that they finally show that they are willing to "share the sacrifice" it turns out they are not really doing that.
The programs will still be cut unless the fundraising is successful.... but I doubt people in their right mind will donate knowing that there was money but it was used to hire administrators back, 3 positions, it seems, just so they can get better retirement (something that is not too well liked in the private sector right now, given the state of the economy and the unions' role in the mess)
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2009 at 12:23 pm
"given the state of the economy and the unions' role in the mess"
I meant to say: given the public employees' role in the mess - meaning that while the private sector continues to shring, the public employees continue to get raises, pensions, etc.
In my opinion: for Casey to propose to re-hire 3 people just to benefit their retirement shows what his main interest is, and it does not seem to be the students.
For any administrator to be hired back before a teacher is re-hired or a program re-instated, is simply wrong.
Successful private companies are having to do more with less too, many people have many roles, and no one complains. But if this happens in the public area like school districts, they all collapse and want to do what they can to re-hire management? Wrong move, and it will not go well in any community.
The economy is not doing well, the state budget is a mess, and all Casey can think is how to foolishly spend some money? In times like these, every penny whould be looked at as precious, and the money should be well spent.
I hope the board does the right thing and rejects Casey's idea. The money should be used for the benefit of the students, period.
Posted by Sara, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2009 at 12:41 pm
"Tired of it" stated 10 administrative jobs have been lost. I asked how many were from the District Office? It seems that we have two issues here, the three being allowed to keep jobs until retirement, and the bringing back of three full time administrators to the district office: Public Information Officer (AKA Management Assistant), Coordinator of Career Tech Ed, and Coordinator Information Systems. Can anyone help sort this out?
After watching, I understood Casey explained that 3 positions that are on the list to bring back (Assist. Director of Nutritional Services, Director of Architectural Planning, and one Coordinator) are just to be back temporarily in order to "match their retirement dates." Casey said it was to help these folks. So it seems to me that yes, they are being brought back (through Sept I think) just to help those individuals.
We are lucky to have Valerie Arkin on the board, who requested that the community be given a chance to have a public hearing before making these decisions.
I think Casey said that the budget would be approved this week with the admin positions in it, and on June 29, if the board voted not to re-instate those positions, the budget would be re-adjusted.
A board member asked that some items be pulled from the personnel document.
I hope the board votes NO for those positions on the list to re-hire, especially those 3 who are just to be re-hired temporarily to help their retirement.
Watch the meeting, it is very useful to see who said what and what the reasons for it was.