Below are Emails and scanned copies of the documents I received regarding the proposed wage increases for the CEO and CFO. Tell me if you can decipher the proposed increase from the information provided. I have been accused of spreading misinformation. I believe my previous blog stated “As of posting time, I have not received a return phone call from the board president to clarify this issue. It looks as if the raises will be 4.5%.” Before reading on, please scroll down and click on Agenda Attachment #12. Let me know what you would have assumed from reading the information provided. This is the only agenda I’ve been provided where the yearly amount was not provided.
First I asked a bookkeeper, an accountant, and a really smart dude that I know to take a look. They all assumed 4.5%. Next, I called our board president. He informed me he was surprised to see this item on the agenda upon returning from vacation. He said he looked over the enclosed attachment and could not figure out what the proposed raise was. I then called our veteran board member. He thought it looked like the raise was 4.2 or 4.5%. But no one was sure. I called our CFO. She told me that she was baffled by the chart as well. But then she highlighted Akron and it became clear to her it was 3.3%. Our board president then called me back and verified it was 3.3%. I then heard from the board member that proposed the raises and was given the figure 3.3% “In terms of CEO’s salary, that would be an increase of $3470. For CFO, it would be $2706.” Why the total yearly amounts I requested was omitted from the response is left to conjecture. I also asked why this information wasn’t included on the agenda. Response- “ The board item regarding…proposed raises is framed the same way the motion for other administrative raises was.”
Ummmm I don’t know when she was voting on raises tied to the consumer price index for wage earners and clerical workers (for urban districts, no less), but I never did. Every administrative raise I have voted on so far has had an attachment with the exact yearly amount or the exact yearly amount printed directly on the agenda. The language on all other raises is very clear. See below for the language of the proposed raises. But the most telling part of all this is the fact that 4 of 5 board members were surprised this is on the agenda. Why you ask? Because we have had almost no discussion on this issue. This was concocted and proposed by one member, knowing another would be absent for the upcoming meeting. It will be a travesty if this is approved on Wednesday.
As I said before and the board attorney clarified- We need to give our employees goals, evaluate their performance regarding those goals, and most importantly- allow union negotiations to take place before handing them a trump card. They’re already ticked off about the previous administrative increases. And then there was this letter from the CEO rebutting the union president's comments at a Board meeting that won't help matters any (see link below). Why add fuel to the fire? How can our CEO successfully attempt to negotiate with a 3.3% raise on his back going in? Not to mention how this amount totally negates any savings gained in project recovery concessions. We bypassed giving raises last year to make up for it this year? That’s some savvy thinking.
I must stop here before my head explodes. I’m sure this will prove to be a very interesting meeting.
Agenda Language for “Board Business” Item A:
Adjust the 2006-2007 school year salaries for the Superintendent and Treasurer according to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), effective August 1, 2006. Increases will be based on the most recent (May 2006) annual local area (Cleveland-Akron, OH) data. Details may be found in attachment #12.
Agenda Attachment #12
Email to board members and the response
Holland's letter to the CFEA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The 'Consumer Price Index' is not the same indicator that it was 20 years ago. It is still an indicator that is 'supposed' to reflect a basket of consumer goods. However, the CPI has been redefined to support policy goals of the current federal administrators.
Please consider using indicators that have more meaning at our local level. For example, at this point in time, we have 260 homes 'For Sale'. And, we normally have 180 homes 'For Sale' during this time of year. This example is not meant to imply that we should use only one indicator. Other indicators like the price of homes should be included.
One house near me sold for about $80,000 within the past two years. And, recently it sold for about $60,000.
A dollar in Cuyahoga Falls is not what a dollar in Silver Lake is. This is not meant to diminish anyone in Silver Lake. The statement is a simple fact that adds to the complexity of our problem solving process.
We need to look at the two parts of the equation. What is our capacity to pay - as a community? And, what is the requirements of our educators -- whom I hope see themselves as 'problem solvers'?
In summary, I hope these comments will be seen as useful by all of the players.
Lou Schott www.tnl3000.com
Barry, I'll put it this way, they never asked me for a raise but whether they asked anyone else, I don't know. I do know the board member proposing the raises mentioned it to me back in March. I know of no formal process, but after talking to a few former board members and the board attorney, past practice seems to be raises given at contract renewal time. You would have to ask the board member in question why it was handled this way. Shields up!
TNL3000, as always you impress me with your knowledge and ability to combine data and facts with our real life situation here at home. I am concerned about the volume of home sales and value depreciation also. Unless we find a way to attract and retain residents, I think things will continue on a downward trend.
Wheeewww boy, if that letter is evidence of the CEO's subtlety and skill as a negotiator, we're going to get skewered next year! And I heard that the union membership all got copies, so they'll be good and ready to give our fearless leader anything he asks for I'm sure.
Lord help us all.
An update for those of you who couldn't make it to the meeting...
On the raises, they were passed at 3.3% for both the CEO and CFO by a 3-1 vote.
Also, there were 2 members of the community who live in the Newberry/Bolich neighborhood who commented about natural gas/oil wells. They have many concerns, rightfully so, since their properties abut the school's property. I believed their comments to be primarily negative although 1 was framed mostly in questions.
Also Marj Schlaeppi commented that she hoped that all areas of the city would be looked at for the natural gas/oil well proposal and mentioned that her feeling was that the property tax relief from wells across the city could be helpful. She also mentioned that the CFF had met and no longer felt that it was appropriate for them to receive the proceeds from the wells.
Post a Comment