Teachers pay 5% of their insurance -- and the plan itself is very rich. The copay will go up to 10% in 2014! We are still paying the full portion of the retirement package for administrators. Teachers have always contributed 10% toward their pension.. There has been no increase. You do realize that the wage and step freeze means that they get no raise for two years? I haven't had a raise for 5 years. They make it sound like they're making some great sacrifice. But besides that, they are $13 million in debt. They didn't ask us to vote on those lease purchase agreements, but it's our responsibity to bail them out. School funding has been cut int he last two years. Had the Poland schools practiced any fiscal restraint, they would have money left over even with the cuts. Yet we are asked to trust you with money when the new superintendent announced an average teacher salary that was $15,000 less than is correct. I know he was given incorrect information, but I don't want to give any more money to schools where teachers refuse to renegotiate contracts when a worldwide recession occurs and when the interim superintendent charged with passing the levy doesn't know the financial situation. I expect more accountability by all staff and employees--not just taking things away from kids--before I consider voting for a levy.
And your statement says a lot about you. This is not about what teachers should make per year. It is about what can be afforded given the financial circumstances of the system they work for. It is about the fact that in the real world people have had no raises for years, and are currently paying a lot more for insurance plans that cover much less than the plan the Poland schools enjoy. Pensions--you can count on one hand the number of people who have them, and they pay into them, unlike the administrative staff at Poland. But you don't care about those facts--just keep billing the taxpayer. This is the attitude that so many voters find offensive. Even then, many would support a levy if the obvious cuts were made. It would at least demonstrate intent to reign in costs.
We don't fear the Department of Education--we're willing to vote for an honest levy. The state government does share some of the blame, but there has been rampant spending for years in the district with no attempt to reign in personnel or benefits cost. Let me say it again, given what this staff has enjoyed while the rest of the world has been in recession, all possible cuts should be made before coming to the taxpayer. We can't trust the schools enough to give them the money before they make the cuts. Been there, done that. Look where we ended up. And if there hadn't been a public reaction to the average teacher salary announced at the forum, I wonder if the real average would have been revealed. As for property values--you are kidding. We are so far away from this affecting property values it's laughable. What about the other side--making it so expensive to live in Poland that no one will move there?
I am not talking about the $700,000 for the stadium. I am talking about $10.3 million the taxpayer is on the hook for, debt that was incurred without any taxpayer input. Given these circumstances, the cuts have be made before going to the taxpayer. This is a question of trust--I am willing to pay my share but not until all possible cuts have been made. They have not. I want to look at this from a long term perspective. Will the administration and teachers do the same?
I am suggesting alternatives. You just don't like what they are. Your answer is for the taxpayer to keep paying while the employee portion of pensions for administrators is paid; while teachers continue to pay 5% of a deluxe insurance package until 2014; while teachers have salary freezes for two years when most people in the public and private sector haven't had raises in 5 years or more. There are solutions that could reign in the cost of the levy, and the burden on the taxpayer. Probably not what you had in mind?
Do you really think that other school districts have not have not had wage freezes? Let's see what the difference is in another year. The piece that is missing in your argument is the percent of increase between the steps, and the amount the scale goes up every year. These percents are very high in the Poland schools. Bear in mind that teachers have averaged a 5-7% raise each year. And if you want to see the math I will show you.
I do not blame the teachers. The board has oversight responsibility. Instead of allowing the school district to get $11 million in debt, they should have stopped the use of lease-purchase agreements. The taxpayer had no input into this. Up to this point, the teachers have enjoyed steady, significant raises each year and they have paid practically nothing for insurance most people have not seen in 10 years. This is not their fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either. More has to be done on their part, and the taxpayer will have to give some, too. Bear in mind that we owe more than $700,000/year in principal and interest. Combine that with the mere $300,000 that could have been saved all along and the you see that you're close to $1 million a year. It's a much different levy.
Just one more thing--you will notice that even with a two year wage and step freeze, the average teacher salary in Poland is still higher than the state average. And, even with a two year freeze, they are less than $150/year below the average for teachers in comparable districts. That is very telling.
Your statistics may be correct, but the statistics released at the public forum by the interim superintendent were identified the average Poland teacher salary as $44,000. That should have been checked and verified. It makes one wonder if this was intentional, an attempt to deceive the taxpayer.
I know that teachers don't determine their pension contributions, but the administration does determine if they will do a pension pick up for administrators. Don't ask me to vote for a levy so some people don't have to pay once cent toward their pension.
The 10% teachers will pay toward their insurance is long overdue, and frankly, not enough because their plan is too rich for the taxpayer to sustain.
Do I want to push out experienced teachers? Of course not. But when the district is in debt $11 million, they have to be willing to share the burden. I know they've taken a pay freeze, but II think if you look at the numbers you will see that that teachers move up the salary scale to quickly and the percent of increase between the steps is significant. Something has to be done. The taxpayer can't pick up the entire bill.
As for Doctor Zorn--he has been made a scapegoat. Members of past boards should be ashamed of themselves--what were they doing? At least this board is trying.
The issue in Poland is much bigger than political party affiliation. Money has been spent, to the tune of $11 million dollars, that taxpayers are already paying for. The statistics given by the interim superintendent are incorrect--the average salary is actually much closer to $56,000 than $44,000--significantly higher than the national average. You would think someone would check these things. The benefit structure is completely out of touch with reality. Paid pensions for administrators, low insurance copays, and a cadillac insurance plan. But they promote the levy by saying it is for the kids. How would reigning in these costs hurt the kids? Are the teachers going to find a better job elsewhere?
Change coming to Poland schools
Teachers pay 5% of their insurance -- and the plan itself is very rich. The copay will go up to 10% in 2014! We are still paying the full portion of the retirement package for administrators. Teachers have always contributed 10% toward their pension.. There has been no increase. You do realize that the wage and step freeze means that they get no raise for two years? I haven't had a raise for 5 years. They make it sound like they're making some great sacrifice. But besides that, they are $13 million in debt. They didn't ask us to vote on those lease purchase agreements, but it's our responsibity to bail them out. School funding has been cut int he last two years. Had the Poland schools practiced any fiscal restraint, they would have money left over even with the cuts. Yet we are asked to trust you with money when the new superintendent announced an average teacher salary that was $15,000 less than is correct. I know he was given incorrect information, but I don't want to give any more money to schools where teachers refuse to renegotiate contracts when a worldwide recession occurs and when the interim superintendent charged with passing the levy doesn't know the financial situation. I expect more accountability by all staff and employees--not just taking things away from kids--before I consider voting for a levy.
November 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Poland officials hope 4th try succeeds
And your statement says a lot about you. This is not about what teachers should make per year. It is about what can be afforded given the financial circumstances of the system they work for. It is about the fact that in the real world people have had no raises for years, and are currently paying a lot more for insurance plans that cover much less than the plan the Poland schools enjoy. Pensions--you can count on one hand the number of people who have them, and they pay into them, unlike the administrative staff at Poland. But you don't care about those facts--just keep billing the taxpayer. This is the attitude that so many voters find offensive. Even then, many would support a levy if the obvious cuts were made. It would at least demonstrate intent to reign in costs.
October 30, 2012 at 10:15 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Poland officials hope 4th try succeeds
We don't fear the Department of Education--we're willing to vote for an honest levy. The state government does share some of the blame, but there has been rampant spending for years in the district with no attempt to reign in personnel or benefits cost. Let me say it again, given what this staff has enjoyed while the rest of the world has been in recession, all possible cuts should be made before coming to the taxpayer. We can't trust the schools enough to give them the money before they make the cuts. Been there, done that. Look where we ended up. And if there hadn't been a public reaction to the average teacher salary announced at the forum, I wonder if the real average would have been revealed. As for property values--you are kidding. We are so far away from this affecting property values it's laughable. What about the other side--making it so expensive to live in Poland that no one will move there?
October 30, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
I am not talking about the $700,000 for the stadium. I am talking about $10.3 million the taxpayer is on the hook for, debt that was incurred without any taxpayer input. Given these circumstances, the cuts have be made before going to the taxpayer. This is a question of trust--I am willing to pay my share but not until all possible cuts have been made. They have not. I want to look at this from a long term perspective. Will the administration and teachers do the same?
October 30, 2012 at 11:24 a.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
When will they be part of the solution? After the levy passes? Not likely.
October 29, 2012 at 9:50 a.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
I am suggesting alternatives. You just don't like what they are. Your answer is for the taxpayer to keep paying while the employee portion of pensions for administrators is paid; while teachers continue to pay 5% of a deluxe insurance package until 2014; while teachers have salary freezes for two years when most people in the public and private sector haven't had raises in 5 years or more. There are solutions that could reign in the cost of the levy, and the burden on the taxpayer. Probably not what you had in mind?
October 28, 2012 at 5:46 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
Do you really think that other school districts have not have not had wage freezes? Let's see what the difference is in another year. The piece that is missing in your argument is the percent of increase between the steps, and the amount the scale goes up every year. These percents are very high in the Poland schools. Bear in mind that teachers have averaged a 5-7% raise each year. And if you want to see the math I will show you.
I do not blame the teachers. The board has oversight responsibility. Instead of allowing the school district to get $11 million in debt, they should have stopped the use of lease-purchase agreements. The taxpayer had no input into this. Up to this point, the teachers have enjoyed steady, significant raises each year and they have paid practically nothing for insurance most people have not seen in 10 years. This is not their fault. But it's not the taxpayer's fault either. More has to be done on their part, and the taxpayer will have to give some, too. Bear in mind that we owe more than $700,000/year in principal and interest. Combine that with the mere $300,000 that could have been saved all along and the you see that you're close to $1 million a year. It's a much different levy.
October 26, 2012 at 6:26 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
Just one more thing--you will notice that even with a two year wage and step freeze, the average teacher salary in Poland is still higher than the state average. And, even with a two year freeze, they are less than $150/year below the average for teachers in comparable districts. That is very telling.
October 25, 2012 at 9:40 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
Your statistics may be correct, but the statistics released at the public forum by the interim superintendent were identified the average Poland teacher salary as $44,000. That should have been checked and verified. It makes one wonder if this was intentional, an attempt to deceive the taxpayer.
I know that teachers don't determine their pension contributions, but the administration does determine if they will do a pension pick up for administrators. Don't ask me to vote for a levy so some people don't have to pay once cent toward their pension.
The 10% teachers will pay toward their insurance is long overdue, and frankly, not enough because their plan is too rich for the taxpayer to sustain.
Do I want to push out experienced teachers? Of course not. But when the district is in debt $11 million, they have to be willing to share the burden. I know they've taken a pay freeze, but II think if you look at the numbers you will see that that teachers move up the salary scale to quickly and the percent of increase between the steps is significant. Something has to be done. The taxpayer can't pick up the entire bill.
As for Doctor Zorn--he has been made a scapegoat. Members of past boards should be ashamed of themselves--what were they doing? At least this board is trying.
October 25, 2012 at 9:34 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No change, no levy support
The issue in Poland is much bigger than political party affiliation. Money has been spent, to the tune of $11 million dollars, that taxpayers are already paying for. The statistics given by the interim superintendent are incorrect--the average salary is actually much closer to $56,000 than $44,000--significantly higher than the national average. You would think someone would check these things. The benefit structure is completely out of touch with reality. Paid pensions for administrators, low insurance copays, and a cadillac insurance plan. But they promote the levy by saying it is for the kids. How would reigning in these costs hurt the kids? Are the teachers going to find a better job elsewhere?
October 24, 2012 at 1:54 p.m. permalink suggest removal