Critics are crying foul with the timing of Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger’s announcement that the state will face a deficit of 21 billion dollars should the state not pass the ballot initiatives next Tuesday. But at this point it almost does not matter. If they do pass it, the deficit will be a mere 15 billion dollars, hardly cause for celebration.
At this point, six billion is helpful if Propositions 1C, 1D, and 1E pass. That state would gain six billion dollars against the total total deficit by virtue of shuffling monies around.
By March, the LAO reported that there would be an $8 billion shortfall as the state had collected far less than expected in taxes while caseloads and other government obligations have increased.
Last week came the alarming report from the LAO that the state faces a $23 billion cashflow shortage in July if the propositions pass. That number is $17 billion if they do pass however.
The Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth already has said that there will be no new taxes.
“I don’t think you’re going to see any appetite in our caucus for taxes. They got a $12 billion tax increase and it didn’t work. Why would we want to destroy the economy even further?”
The LAO reported last week that there are limitations on the amount the state can borrow. There are also limitations as to how much the state can cut from it’s budget. For instance, California would not be able to cut into higher education, K-14 schools or Medi-Cal eligibility without violating federal stimulus guidelines.
Polling has very consistently showed that the ballot measures will lose by a fairly wide margin.
Mike Roth, spokeperson for the No on 1A campaign told the Sacramento Bee:
“I think the timing of this release is another in a line of tactics to scare voters into voting for these failing measures.”
Robert Cruickshank from the liberal Calitics blog wrote:
“Faced with collapsing support for the May 19 initiatives Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to try again to scare up support for the package of initiatives that, as far as I can tell, is being written off as dead by most of the state’s politicos.”
He later argues that the tactic will not work.
At this point, looking at the numbers, there appears to be little reason for it to work. At one point, you could argue that we would be able to largely rectify the situation by imposing admittedly draconian cuts to health care and mental health services in order to balance the budget. Now we are arguing that we should take from the most vulnerable in society in order to cut one-quarter of the deficit. That is not a compelling argument.
The bottom line here is that California is in deep trouble. We are going to cut deeply into the very programs that help the most vulnerable people in this society. We are going to devastate our education system. Those who argue that the education system is broken now, have seen nothing compared to what will happen when these cuts go through.
Bruce Colby back in March projected cuts of $3 million for DJUSD based on projections of up to $15 billion in state deficits in May. Now are we looking at $4 or $5 million? How many teachers are we facing losing now? Is there any end in site?
Anyone who believes anything but agony and hardship will come from this is hopelessly naive. But that’s what we face right now. One thing that is clear, if the Governor’s goal was to scare the voters into voting for the ballot initiatives he has largely made the election irrelevant.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
sort of makes the “OMG vote for these props or we’re doomed!” line look a bit misleading, doesn’t it? we’re rather doomed either way, the whole special election dance is a shiny object waved in our faces.
the legislative democrats are actually lucky that the props they backed won’t make it; if they had, after all of those loud, emotionally delivered false claims that 1a-1f would solve the budget problems, the voters would have eaten them alive had they turned around on may 20th and said “um, we actually have to slash your schools and services anyways. sorry we didn’t tell you about the other $15 billion.”
at least this way they can [falsely] claim that things wouldn’t worked out had everyone done what they were told.
this whole thing is a colossal waste of everyone’s time.
How about the collossal amt of money for the election??? That too.
It’s mere pennies compared to the deficit.
Cut defense spending!!!
oh wait… hmmm. Yup, this is going to be fun. Just about every cent we spend as a state winds up in the pocket of some public employee, or set aside to keep them happy into the future.
No budget trickery or borrowing can fix this deficit. In the end, we have to face up to the fact that we have too many public employees being paid too much for what we can afford. Its not a matter of how good they are, how important what they do might be, or how incredibly beneficial it is to the state in the long run for their work to go on… Nope, it just comes down to the fact that there are too many public employees at the trough.
It would be best if their unions would have to good grace to simply accept the fact that they are the cause of most of this pain and dissolve. Failing that, they should at least allow members able to provide the most service to the public to retain their jobs, rather than the unionists with the greatest seniority… as if that would ever happen.
As sad as all this cutting and loss of services will be, the decades of public union victories dictated that this day would come.
One problem with the governor’s announcement and what I perceive as the mood around these propositions is that it doesn’t seem like there is any end in sight.
The need for these propositions gets discussed in more immediate terms — the current budget budget shortfall, next year’s budget. But do they have a clear, positive benefit after that? Does it help us get out of this mess? Or are we just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
It would be nice if all of this could be discussed in the context of a bigger picture. Will the situation get better any time soon? When? And based on what evidence?
it almost does not matter
we’re rather doomed either way
Yes, the budget is going to stink whether 1A passes or not, but $6 billion (the extra revenue if 1A passes) is still a lot of money. There will be a lot of cuts either way but reducing the deficit from $21 to $15 billion is actually pretty significant.
1A will likely fail, but I’m voting yes. We need the revenue.
For the sake of accuracy, Prop 1A has no impact on this year’s budget shortfall, it will in two years. But the props that have immediate impact are 1C, 1D, and 1E.
Oops, thanks for the correction.
1A = continue sales, income, car taxes through 2013, budget cap & rainy day fund
1C = borrow against future lottery income
1D = transfer some First 5 funding to fund other services
1E = transfer some mental health spending to fund other services
Now we are arguing that we should take from the most vulnerable in society in order to cut one-quarter of the deficit. That is not a compelling argument.
I would instead say, roll-back services (and public compensation) a decade. I just googled, 1999 state budget had expenditures of $58 billion. The state budget passed in March had expenditures of $96 billion.
I realize a variety of numbers have gone up substantially… but is a 65% growth in expenses over 10 years absolutely critical? How did the most vulnerable in society survive in 1999?
So, on the morning of May 20 the governor, as CEO of California, will need to declare the state bankrupt.
Will they bail us out like they did the banks?
@davis parent –
health insurance has gone up WAY more than 65% in the past 10 years, and that ripples throughout the government. basically, wherever there are public employees, their costs to the state will go up as the cost of providing basic health benefits by buying it from for-profit corporations skyrockets. additionally, our population has grown on both ends of the barbell – kids and elderly – and that costs the state more in services.
wu ming,
The numbers still don’t work out. If you punch in inflation + population changes, you would expect 2009 expenditures at about $81 billion. I have a hard time believing that the *growth* in health care expenses is equivalent to a quarter of the *total* state budget.
And going back to the original point I was responding to… David asked rhetorically how these cuts would affect the “most vulnerable” elements in society. If we have that much tied into health care expenses for state workers, then I would expect cuts to affect that category first, and the “most vulnerable” in society last.
“Bruce Colby back in March projected cuts of $3 million for DJUSD based on projections of up to $15 billion in state deficits in May. Now are we looking at $4 or $5 million? How many teachers are we facing losing now? Is there any end in site?”
Now remember I reminded you of the following: Bruce Colby was just given a raise, and DJUSD is going to renovate DHS stadium and WJUSD is going to do the same for Pioneer – as teachers lose their jobs. UCD just increased the President’s salary from $400K a year to $800K a year. UCD is building a new convention center in partnership with a hotel chain. This in the middle of one of the worst budget crises we have ever seen in our lifetimes. And I don’t want to hear any nonsense about how the stadium funding comes from a different pot of money, or how the raises are just a drop in the bucket. Enough multiple drops in various buckets can add up to heavy pails of water! I told you so, I told you so, I told you so…
Bruce Colby’s “raise” amounts to less than $8,000 per year. What’s 8000 divided by 4 million?
“DJUSD is going to renovate DHS stadium”–with money that cannot used used for the general fund
“And I don’t want to hear any nonsense about how the stadium funding comes from a different pot of money, or how the raises are just a drop in the bucket.”
What you call nonsense is in fact, facts. The stadium funding does come from a different pot of money and the raises are not even drops in the bucket. I guess if you could find a couple of thousand drops of that size, you might be able to have a point. Until then you’re just as bad as the city of Davis looking at council money for dinners that maybe amounts to $50 per week instead of looking at the real issues.
“and DJUSD is going to renovate DHS stadium and WJUSD is going to do the same for Pioneer – as teachers lose their jobs.”
“UCD is building a new convention center in partnership with a hotel chain. This in the middle of one of the worst budget crises we have ever seen in our lifetimes.”
You seem to be incapable of engaging in anything but spewing hot air — no solutions, just a bunch of “I told you so”, as if you were there at the very beginning. If your such a bright fellow, then advance a positive, workable solution.
For instance, there was a good point made to your litany before. What do you want to do with these voter-approved bonds, as well as private donations for facilities? Turn that money over to politicians in a fiscal crisis like this to spend as they see fit??
I read that state prison expenditures are the fastest rising portion of the state budget, and all your talk is wailing about excesses of education. California already ranks pitifully low in education spending. Are you for turning this state into a gulag?
“So, on the morning of May 20 the governor, as CEO of California, will need to declare the state bankrupt.”
Can he do that? Could another state come buy us out? Japan?
Will there be a Gottschalk’s style “Going out of business” sale?
[quote]Can he do that? Could another state come buy us out? Japan?[/quote]We can sell our state parks to the Native American casino tribes. Maybe we can sell them Fresno while we’re at it.
[quote][/quote]Can he do that? Could another state come buy us out? Japan?[/quote]
We can sell our state parks to the Native American casino tribes. Maybe we can sell them Fresno while we’re at it.
[quote]
given the circumstances by which the national parks became spanish, then mexican, then american territory, it would be a rather delicious irony if that were to happen.
html fail
1)If the State of California can put propositions on a ballot to reallocate money to better serve the state in this budget crisis, I think we can find a creative way to reallocate stadium funds to better serve our local school districts.
2)What if the school districts just simply became the general contractor and hired its own subcontractors to build the new stadium?
3)What if we lobbied the California Legislature to eliminate the Davis Bacon Act (prevailing wage rates)? If we compared the quality of a building built by workers being paid prevailing wages to a building built by workers not paid prevailing wages, would there be a difference in the building quality? I think the answer is NO.
4)How many millions of dollars do you think we could save if our state, county and city governments simply quit hiring consultants to do the jobs we hired THEM to do?
“1)If the State of California can put propositions on a ballot to reallocate money to better serve the state in this budget crisis, I think we can find a creative way to reallocate stadium funds to better serve our local school districts.”
“Creative ways”… I’ve heard politicians and accounting specialists use terms like that before. That kind of language raises big red flags. Look where we are right now from those in power looking for “creative ways” to close the budget.
So according to you, it shouldn’t matter what you vote for in a bond measure or parcel tax, because politicians will find creative ways to reallocate that money to other things, because they “know what’s best for us”.
And do you think this will pass a statewide proposition vote? Look at Measures 1D and 1E. Those are reallocations of funds previously approved by voters, and look how much support they have — VERY LITTLE!
You just presented us with a good reason to vote down those propositions.
Congratulations!
http://www.davisenterprise.com/story.php?id=621.0
My column on the propositions ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/story.php?id=621.0[/url]) is now up on the Davis Enterprise website.
“Bruce Colby’s “raise” amounts to less than $8,000 per year. What’s 8000 divided by 4 million?”
This is the kind of thinking that causes the budget crisis we are in now. Did you hear how UCD just gave a big fat raise to the new UCD Chancellor? Did you get what I said? Let me give you another analogy – a penny here a penny there soon adds up to $$$. $$$ we don’t have for education, health care for the poor elderly, etc. Get it?
“Bruce Colby’s “raise” amounts to less than $8,000 per year. What’s 8000 divided by 4 million?”
$8000 would pay part time for a librarian! Or a part time school nurse! Or a part time crossing guard! What is more important, that Bruce Colby get fatter than he already is in the wallet, or that we have fully staffed schools?
“You seem to be incapable of engaging in anything but spewing hot air — no solutions, just a bunch of “I told you so”, as if you were there at the very beginning. If your such a bright fellow, then advance a positive, workable solution.
For instance, there was a good point made to your litany before. What do you want to do with these voter-approved bonds, as well as private donations for facilities? Turn that money over to politicians in a fiscal crisis like this to spend as they see fit??”
I have repeatedly suggested solutions – you just weren’t listening/reading:
1. Teachers need to take a temporary pay cut, to ensure as many teachers stay employed as possible. (Same is true for other gov’t workers/private employees.) If they don’t do this, then the laid off teachers will not be able to pay their mortgages, their houses will be foreclosed on, lowering property values even more than they already are. That means less tax revenue to the gov’t, which results in another round of layoffs.
2. Then over time the gov’t must start eliminating the frills, but on a timetable that will not disrupt the economy to a huge extent. Stadiums are frills. High salaries for upper management are highway robbery of the taxpayer. If schools want stadiums, let them raise the money through private funding – that is what our high school did many, many years ago. The schools I went to did not have swimming pools, stadiums and the like. We had a gym where all school events were held, and an outdoor field and hill for the audience to sit on to watch outdoor athletic events. People have gotten so used to having frills at gov’t expense, they just feel they can’t do without those frills now.
3. Gov’t workers, especially upper management, have to be more reasonable in their salary demands. Contracts need to be more fairly and independently negotiated. We cannot keep the mindset that our city/state/federal gov’t must pay slightly more to our gov’t employees in salary than the city/state next door does to get qualified people. That thinking is breaking the bank, and is fallacious thinking. More $$$ offered in salary does not necessarily equate to a better quality employee. Take Supt Murphy for example. He was being paid $240K for being asleep at the switch.
Specific enough solutions for ya?
You are comparing $400,000 that the new chancellor is getting to $8000 raise Colby is getting.
I don’t think it would pay for a part time anything and I believe librarians are fully funded through Q. What’s more important? Probably not having Colby walk in the middle of an economic crisis leaving us having to search for a new CBO. And btw, my understanding is that he’s giving back the raise and then some.
“Bruce Colby’s “raise” amounts to less than $8,000 per year. What’s 8000 divided by 4 million?”
This is analogous to saying that I’m not responsible for polluting my environment because individually it’s such a small contribution to the bigger problem. So I will continue to drive my gas guzzler and I won’t separate my recyclables. This is something that younger people are likelier to get, but older execs in their offices are likely to miss.
The administrative staff, the new chancellor set clear examples for everyone by their actions. This is public service and not private industry. There is a certain expectation of being in the public service sector because of wanting to make a difference. All I’m thinking now is that Chancellor Katehi is with us for the fat check, not because she cares about how affordable UCD is to all students.
Monetarily it’s modest and almost meaningless, but symbolically it’s worth so much more to set a positive example in these times.
I agree anon, and the first 50 times whomever harped on it I agree, but it’s still only $8000 and they have basically given back the raises, it’s not worth bringing it up either as an example of something egregiously wrong or a solution to anything. Nor for that matter is the stadium issue worth bringing up since it’s not even using money that can be used for the general fund.
I think the real question with Bruce Colby (and Dr. James Hammond, for that matter) is why we are paying school district bureaucrat far more in salarly than we are paying the chief administrative officer of the City of Davis?
Other than properly filling in the paperwork required by the state Dept. of Education, it’s not clear to me what policies these guys are being paid to create? I’m happy to be proved wrong. If the work the top admins in the District is so terribly difficult or takes creativity which is in short supply, then maybe they deserve the huge contracts they are getting. If so, please let me know.
As far as I know, Colby and Hammond are not, for example, creating new programs at the junior highs or at the high school to make sure all students are performing up to their capabilities? Are they?
Are our top admins creating incentive programs to make sure all of our teachers are top notch and performing their best? Or firing teachers and principals who are not doing a great job?
Rich:
Have you met with either one of them to discuss these questions you have?
Prop 1F is the only one I want to pass. Their basically was no argument against it other than, “well, but it won’t fix all of our problems.” I can’t see a reason to vote against it. Also, the opinion against it was written by some unknown Author.
Prop 1A stinks. It sets up a “rainy day fund” which gives politicians the authority to dip into it as they see fit. It also controls deficit spending under the condition politicians get to see increased taxes. I’m sorry but there should not be terms and conditions attached to limiting mismanagement. The politicians need to balance their budget.
The others stink too.
“Prop 1F is the only one I want to pass. Their basically was no argument against it other than, “well, but it won’t fix all of our problems.” I can’t see a reason to vote against it.”
The way I see it, it’s a solution in search of a problem. I’m not voting for anything without a good reason to do so and I have no compelling reason to do so. Also the initiative was placed on the ballot by means of extortion by Maldonado, I’d prefer not to reward that kind of behavior. I’m voting NO on ALL six.
The way I see it, it’s a solution in search of a problem. I’m not voting for anything without a good reason to do so and I have no compelling reason to do so. Also the initiative was placed on the ballot by means of extortion by Maldonado, I’d prefer not to reward that kind of behavior. I’m voting NO on ALL six.
I’m 5/6 in agreement with you, so I’ll take it. I still don’t understand no on 1F. 1F is clear. Politicians cannot have pay raises when they don’t perfrom. I’m still not sure about why no? I’m not sure about the extortion which you describe. Who is Maldonado?
[quote]Have you met with either one of them to discuss these questions you have?[/quote]No. I think criticizing me for that is fair. I probably should meet with each of them. However, I posed the question here largely so someone who knows a lot more than I do — I’m claiming no inside knowledge about the inner-workings of the admin — would enlighten me. I would really like to know why the second in charge at the District makes more (in salary) than the City Manager. If his duties and responsibilities and talents are such that we cannot suffice without him, that is what I would like to know.
One thing I do know — though I am not sure this really proves anything for the long term — is that the district has left a number of top admin positions vacant for a few years and we seem to be able to get along without them. (BTW, I think quite a few top admins for the city could leave and the city would function perfectly well, too.)
One more thing (which may be a silly point that someone can explain to me why it is silly)…. Not too many years ago, pre-Tahir Ahad, the District got did not even have a Business Services Manager. I’m not honestly sure when that position was created. I wonder what changed that forced us to create this job? If nothing changed, is that yet another job we could live without in the administration? The BSM makes roughly the pay of 3 full time teachers. My philosophical position is the best bang for your buck in education is putting as much of the money as possible in the classroom. I realize that our cockamamie education funding system with all those odd categorical programs and matching funds and federal Title programs and so on make administration terribly expensive, thus robbing classrooms of a lot of money. If it is not doing so already (maybe it is?), I would think the CTA could help its membership by fighting for school funding reform at the state and federal level, making the funding much more simple. At its very best, we would get rid of all categoricals, save special ed. (Special ed is very expensive on a per child basis; and thus needs to be funded differently.)
This ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1859694.html[/url]) just in:[quote]Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday will propose selling Cal Expo, as well as San Quentin State Prison and the Los Angeles Coliseum, as the state desperately tries to raise cash to solve its budget problems over the next few years, according to an administration document obtained by The Bee.[/quote]
Well, I’ll buy San Quentin or Cal Expo if I can get one of those nifty mortgages for my meager salary!
if our administrators were paid roughly the same as teachers, i suspect our educational system would function just as well or better, in addition to the savings. in years of asking, i have never gotten a satisfactory answer as to why exactly being a dean or superintendent requires a higher salary than a regular old teacher.
then again, the same can be said of upper-level management jobs in nearly every corporation.
[quote]the same can be said of upper-level management jobs in nearly every corporation.[/quote]In well-run* private corporations there is a big difference: the people paid top salaries (or given lucrative stock packages) are the people who bring in money to the company over the long haul. They are essentially being rewarded on the basis of performance. If they fail to make the company profits, they will get fired. That is not the case with people running bureaucracies.**
* Well-run is, of course, the key. As we can see with some old publicly held corporations on their last legs, there are many cases of overpaid executives who are not making profits for their companies. I think much of the fault for this lies with their Boards of Directors, who don’t represent the interests of stockholders very well. People like the wives of senators and the husbands of movie stars are often put on Boards of Directors; and they do a very bad job of it. The best run companies tend to have very actives Boards of Directors who make sure that the managers of the companies act on the profit motive at all times.
** It has been pointed out to me that the modern-day Chancellor of a university is not really an administrative position. Rather, she (or he) is the fundraiser-in-chief. That her main job is to beg for funds from wealthy individuals, alumni, companies and various levels of government. As such, it might make sense to pay the Chancellor (and his executive subordinates) much smaller salaries combined with bonuses based on how much money they raise.
“if our administrators were paid roughly the same as teachers, i suspect our educational system would function just as well or better, in addition to the savings. in years of asking, i have never gotten a satisfactory answer as to why exactly being a dean or superintendent requires a higher salary than a regular old teacher.”
I don’t think any regular old teacher would necessarily make a good dean or superintendent. Just as not any voter on the street would necessarily make a good president or other elected official. Being in a leadership role requires a rarer skill set — good social skills, ability to represent and sell the organization, ability to comminicate vision to an organization, ability to look at an organization from different perspectives, knowing how/when to motivate employees and when to back off, ability to set an example, for starters
Such leaders should deserve a higher salary to attract a good pool of applicants. The more appropriate question might be how much is an unreasonable salary?
[quote]I don’t think any regular old teacher would necessarily make a good dean or superintendent.[/quote]No doubt you are right. The skill-sets are different. However, I suspect that among the best teachers, you would find a lot of the skills it takes to be a good administrator. [quote]Being in a leadership role requires a rarer skill set — good social skills…[/quote]All good teachers have good social skills. They likely have much better skills in dealing with diverse personalities than the vast majority of administrators.[quote]… ability to represent and sell the organization… [/quote]I don’t doubt that sales-talent is a great plus for a superintendent or for any job dealing with the public. That said, how often are administrators picked for their salesmanship? A good teacher may or may not possess this skill. I don’t think there is any reason to believe much higher paid admins have greater talents in sales than much lesser paid great teachers have. [quote]… ability to communicate vision to an organization… [/quote]The communications aspect of this is really a subset of the sales-talent and general social skills. I don’t see that being a weak-spot for good teachers. What is rarer is the ability to formulate a vision. A great superintendent would have this skill. Yet, most folks in top admin positions (AFAIK) are not great visionaries. Perhaps most great teachers, also, are not great visionaries. Yet I would think, if you take a top teacher (one who inspires even his least able students to try their very best and learn as much as they can in his subject area), you have someone who intuitively has a vision for how an education system can and should work. By contrast, because most administrators (today) tend to be trained as administrators (as opposed to teachers), I think it is less likely that one of them would be a scholastic visionary. He’s more likely to be an accounting, finance and vendor-relations visionary, if he has foresight at all. [quote]… ability to look at an organization from different perspectives, knowing how/when to motivate employees and when to back off… [/quote] Again, more subsets of people skills, which all great teachers have naturally. [quote]… ability to set an example, for starters.[/quote] Again, no reason to think a great teacher doesn’t have this skill, too.
What I think admins really have over teachers, as a skill set, is bureacratic knowledge. They know public accounting. They know where the money comes from and where it goes. They know what forms need to be filled out and when. They know whom to order books, A/V equipment and other supplies from. They know whom to speak with and what forms to fill out when issues of disciplining personnel arise. … I don’t doubt we need this bureaucratic skill-set in our administration. I wonder why we have to pay 3 times as much for it as we pay a top quality teacher? [quote] Such leaders should deserve a higher salary to attract a good pool of applicants. The more appropriate question might be how much is an unreasonable salary? [/quote] We can attract high quality talent for much less than we are paying. What we likely cannot do, if other districts are paying more, is keep that talent here for the long haul. Turnover, of course, comes at a price. However, I think the district (just like the City of Davis) needs to get out of the comparitive rat race. Pay what we can afford, suffer the consequences of turnover as it comes, and forget about what other, richer districts might be doing.
Rich,
You make some good points, as usual. What sticks in my mind are instances when I’ve seen good teachers make poor administrators, which leads me to think there is something more about being a good administrator that isn’t found in just any good teacher.
An interesting side note is that the charter proposal for Valley Oak would have drawn the administration (principal) from the teaching staff. Charter schools have far more flexibility on these issues. In fact, a lot of the complaints about DJUSD could be dealt with by having all the schools go to charter status. Problem is, each one would probably be unable to provide the county board of education with a viable financial plan for the required three years. DJUSD can barely provide that at the moment, and it is based on a lot of suppositions.
Bruce Colby has brought a lot of skill sets to his job. He and the staff basically had to rebuild the books from scratch. He has to update and present the budget conditions for the board and the public. He has to certify the various accounts to the state and county office and board of education. He does the paperwork for grants and funds; recently we received an update about federal bailout funding applications the district has done. There are many evening meetings with citizen groups and the board. There is a level of openness and clarity of communication that was lacking in previous years.
I am not saying his salary is or is not valid. Nor can I make that judgment one way or another about the chancellor of UC Davis. No single administrator is going to voluntarily take a substantial pay cut; the whole market for public employees at all levels is going to have to change due to dire necessity. It is up to the school districts to begin collectively reining in these contracts at all levels. What every administrator is paid is entirely a board decision. But I do think Bruce is outstanding and that DJUSD is lucky to have him here.
There are three current estimates of the State budget deficit. Unfortunately they are different and reported by Lockyer and Schwarzenegger. So, it appears to be a scam, for some reason, they want the voters to pass tax increases, but they don’t know why, they just want tax increases:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/californias-budget-deficit-what-hell-is.html
Rich,
The DHS principal general job description is posted here, because Cawley is retiring:
[url]http://www.edjoin.org/viewPosting.aspx?postingID=288713&countyID=58[/url]
As an example of an admin. type job, it requires previous teaching experience (meaning also a teaching credential + BA/BS), a master’s degree, and an administrative credential. So in one respect you (or maybe Wu Ming) are right that teachers can fill that position. But it requires additional credentialing/education than a teacher.
If Colby gave back his raise, then even he realized the unethical taint the raise had in such dire economic times. I told you so!