Original post made
on Mar 15, 2012
This story contains 1296 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
Wow! PARS was the supplementary retirement program that initiated the successful recall of 4 members of the St. Helena school board. Is this the same PARS program? It was promoted as a way for teachers to take early retirement and only non-management certificated employees (teachers) were eligible because according to their Board meeting, this would save money because less experienced teachers would be hired with less pay to replace the older teachers.
Then in St. Helena, it all went haywire!
Administrators that were management certificated employees started taking the PARS golden-handshake, even though that was never mentioned in the original adoption of PARS. So it ended up being the MANAGEMENT Golden Handshake.
Non-management certificated employees were not eligible, then they started taking the PARS golden handshake, and didn't save the District money, because you don't save money by replacing an administrator with another administrator. All of a sudden, Management Certificated Employees became eligible.
The article says for Pleasanton-
To be eligible, an employee must be 55 or older with five or more years in the district or 50 years or older with 30 or more years.
Is that management and non-management?
"Bowser abstained from the final vote because his wife, who is a teacher in the Pleasanton district, would be eligible for the buyout, although he said she has no intention of retiring."
I used to think we only had 3 yes people and that Arkin and Hintzke were good, but it seems they too, are yes people.
With Bowser abstaining, there is no way this would have passed unless either Arkin or Hintzke also voted yes.
This november I hope more people run for the board and we can clean house. Getting rid of Grant, it seems, won't be enough.
"While students still claim they're getting homework on weekends and holidays, Cindy Galbo, assistant superintendent of educational services, said a part of that may be procrastination by students who are given an assignment early in the week and wait until the last minute to complete it.
Not really. I know of a middle school teacher (regular, not honors or gate class) who gives kids too much homework, and it has nothing to do with procrastination by students.
I was listening to the meeting. I think it's designed for teachers, but the other groups can also take advantage of it if they want to. I could have misunderstood though - it wasn't all that clear.
The article here is not correct, according to the school board members. The vote this week was to authorize $3500 for the consultant to further analyze the early retirement, not the approval. That is unless the staff mislead the board members. It will come back to the board after the analysis is completed and there is enough interest, and the consultant (who will make a lot of money if it is approved) says it is good financially for the district. Then they can look at the numbers again and make the final approval. If the newspaper feels the vote was the official ok, please respond as maybe some board members were duped into voting for this.
Pre-kindergarten? How about mommy and daddy raising their own kids rather than expecting the taxpayers to pay for what will amount to pre-school and daycare?
Just read the whole article, it says this is just for teachers and other groups are not eligible. Long time parent - they made it clear in the meeting this is just a test and the maximum exposure at this point is $3500. They will only go ahead if it breaks even.
Here are my concerns:
1. There is a projected deficit of $8.3 million in 2013-14. If more cuts happen, how will it feel to those losing jobs while others are home with a nice bonus?
2. Why are we starting at 75%? Why not $3,500 for two years (or three or four . . . ) or start at 10%?
3. Why are we needing to pay PARS 5% of the retirement amount to monitor the fund? Do we not have a business department to do that?
I have asked that this be checked, but I believe the board only approved the research, not to go ahead with the payout.
Alright, that does it. I've given money to the schools until it hurts, just like every other taxpayer in this economically depressed city. But I'm fed up. $3500??? When kids knock on my door asking for help to go to Europe or some other fancy place, instead of saying no like I have in the passed I'm going to say NO!!!!!!!
And I forgot
4. If you rehire people being cut, like counselors or reading specialists (who are likely higher than the bottom of the salary schedule), you will not get a 1:1 savings. 59 leave and maybe you save 40 jobs from the cut list.
Cute Gwen, It isn't $3,500; it's more like $15,000/year for five years (top end teachers can make $98,000). And why would you hurt kids?
I'm with 'raise your kids'. Sign up for Gingerbread pre-school, which is SUPER, and the city 'makes' money. The system, college degrees, everything is set for K -12, not pre-school. It would only be for 'some', which would amount to sitting for those parents who don't plan ahead. Pre-school is 2 hours, maybe 3 days/week, otherwise it is called child care. More transportation and shuffling. How many rooms would need to be built? Increased number of care attendants required would raise the cost per child....right back to 'bad proposition'. Not now.
I guess pre-K will be 30-1 like everyone else in 2012/13. Now that will be interesting . . . !
The average teacher at retirement age makes $90,000...plus all the benefits, for a 10 mo. job.?....how sweet . And newhire salary of $62,000. is a pretty good place to start !
I just looked. The resolution adopts the plan and approves it.
It says that if not enough is make it viable, it won't be implemented.
Also the actual text of the resolution has nothing in it to distinguish who exactly is eligible that I can find.
This whole deal seems like it is meant to confuse the public enough so the administration can present to their friends a gift. They say it is for non-management only. Am sure they will get around that somehow at the last moment. Remember, it is also the consultant company that stands to make 5% of the total deposits. So they will be working real hard to make it look like this early retirement is a good deal for the district.
There is a lot of money involved here in the administration of the plan. Are there other companies that do this? Did the district go out to bid on this or did they just contact one of their friends and are giving the deal to them? I thought the district had to go out to bid on contracts over a certain dollar amount. I would imagine that if this goes through, the dollar amount will be significantly more than the threshold. Something fishy going on here.
I agree with Kathleen that even if this goes through, teachers will still be layed off. So some teachers will get a bonus for retiring and others will just loose their jobs. Talk about a messed up system. This will make it quite difficult to hire good teachers in the future knowing our district is willing to give compensation to those are older (and only have to be at the district for 5 years) and laying off just about anybody else. If you are a good up and coming teacher, would you want to risk this in the future?
The PUSD Board cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you will save 59 teachers from receiving layoffs and then say this incentive will save the district the difference in salary between a first year teacher and a retiring teacher. Those teachers who (and rightfully so) do not get layed off have a salary higher than a first year teacher. Guess they think we are not intelligent enough to figure this out.
is there a way to get in on the handout even if you've taught school?
No money to teach kids how to read but there is money for this? I used to think Grant was good but now I think he was just riding in the wake of Jim Ott and Juanita Haugen. The three nitwits need to be gone, maybe by recall unless they can demonstrate they understand the first priority of a school district is to TEACH ALL CHILDREN TO READ.