As opposition appeared to be mounting to a parcel tax proposal that would impose a $495 tax on every residence, suddenly the school board’s Parcel Tax Subcommittee, comprised of Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden, is proposing radical changes to the ballot measure.
The Vanguard learned on Saturday, “After considering the district’s immediate emergency fiscal situation, public input, the Governor’s budget proposal, the economic pinch for our community and our previous board discussions,” that the subcommittee will propose changes on Thursday at the next board meeting.
It continues, “As a result, the subcommittee recommends that the district focus on the immediate and emergency needs in the near future. The subcommittee plans to recommend at Thurs BOE [Board of Education] meeting to change the May election proposal to $200 per parcel for for 2 years as an emergency response to current conditions.”
The statement went on to say that the subcommittee does not believe that wrapping the renewal of Measure Q and Measure W into such a short time frame would be appropriate. Moreover, it seems reasonable to separate the question and ask the community to respond to the current crisis.
They estimate that without the emergency funding, at least 42 core educational positions would be lost in the next year.
In a statement to the Vanguard Saturday morning, Board member Sheila Allen commiserated with the difficult plight of many families and community residents.
“I understand the hardship that many families in Davis are facing now,” Sheila Allen said. “I am a laid-off county employee and my husband, as a UCD employee, is facing additional pay cuts.”
At the same time, she wants to preserve to the best of her ability the quality of education in the local Davis schools.
“We also appreciate the public school education that our children are receiving in the Davis schools,” she said. “Just like so many people tell me, we moved to Davis in part because it is a community that understands and values education.”
The cuts have been painful over the last five years, and Sheila Allen is grateful that the community has stepped up to support the district.
“The school board has made strategic but painful cuts over the last 5 years and I am hopeful that our citizens will step forward to support this focused and short term support for our students,” Ms. Allen said. “I look forward to working with the community as together we make our way through these difficult times.”
This proposal may not eliminate the growing opposition, but it does change the game.
We had been pushing for a deflator to return funding back towards the current level as the state increased funding. However, with a two year proposal, that is basically a moot point. The voters would have the ability to determine in two years whether there is the need for another renewal.
Moreover the state’s budget crisis is likely to continue at least two years past this point.
In a communication from Bruce Colby on the State Budget projection this week, he noted that in the state multi-year projects, “there is no projected restoration of the revenue limit deficit. This projection goes out until 2015-16.”
By separating the question, the district is able to avoid the problem of attempting to renew their current parcel tax, while at the same time asking for emergency money. The voters can decide in May whether the district needs this emergency money.
There is a good amount of opposition growing, however, even to the idea of another tax increase.
As Rick Entrikin and Pam Nieberg wrote in a joint letter to the editor last night, “And now the school board is proposing to quadruple what was only four years ago a $120 ‘instructional’ tax to $495, while holding the teachers, students and taxpayers hostage.”
They add, “We support education, our teachers and students, but it is not right for longtime residents and senior citizens, who have supported our schools for so many years, to be ‘in the worst of times’ in the city we love.”
There is no doubt that the citizens are once again being asked to sacrifice in order to maintain the high level of schools for the children of this community. Now the question is whether the district is able to gain enough support to pass this measure.
We will see what happens on Thursday and whether the full board is ready to support this.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I don’t know whether bifurcating the process will be helpful or harmful. But asking for even more of a tax increase than before jeapordizes passage of a tax increase at all. Jay Zeigler took a poll, and the School Board would do well to pay attention to what the poll indicated…
I may have different “levies” confused, but isn’t the current parcel tax something that either ‘seniors’ or ‘low-income seniors’can apply to opt out of?
Yes Hpierce, there is an opt out clause.
Elaine: I think there are three points that need to be made here.
First, now they don’t have renewal of existing taxes, which don’t expire yet, in the table.
Second, they have reduced the length of time of the taxes. Ziegler’s poll actually I think showed shorter tax period would increase chances of passage.
Third, they are asking for what they need on an emergency basis, are they asking for more of an increase than before? I forget what the current level is, but if they are, it’s not by very much.
dmg: “Third, they are asking for what they need on an emergency basis, are they asking for more of an increase than before? I forget what the current level is, but if they are, it’s not by very much.”
They are asking for a $200 parcel tax increase, as opposed to $120 – 40% more!
They are asking for a $200 parcel tax increase, as opposed to $120 – 40% more!
Where did you get the $120 figure? The previous proposal asked for $175 increase over four years. This one asks for $200 over two years.
“They are asking for a $200 parcel tax increase, as opposed to $120 – 40% more!”
The current parcel tax is $375? That sounds too high. I thought it was closer to $300. But I don’t have it at my fingers tips.
There is always an “emergency”.
Not really but, but that’s why the voters get to decide on what constitutes and emergency.
The language from 2009=8 authorized a 3 year tax as follows:
The ballot question was, “Shall the Davis Joint Unified School District preserve existing classroom programs including math and science, English, music, physical education, librarians, secondary class size reduction, athletics and co-curricular programs including drama, debate, and journalism by being authorized to levy a special tax for a period of three years not to exceed the annual rate of $50.00 per dwelling unit for multi-dwelling parcels and $120.00 per parcel for all other parcels?”
Now, we are asked to pay for 6 years, a much higher amount:
The proposed amount discussed, but not finalized by the trustees on Thursday night, would be $495 per single-family home per year. That includes a continuance of the existing tax of $320 per single-family home per year – under Measures Q and W, which expire in 2012 – plus an additional $175, which will only partially compensate for the multiple reductions in funding that the district receives from the state.
The instructional parcel tax would have a six-year time span, up from the four-year period that has been the pattern in the past.
I say enough. Reject this ridiculous tax increase. Enough of these “emergencies.”
“Now, we are asked to pay for 6 years, a much higher amount”
Um, did you read the article you just commented on?
The proposal here is two years, $200. If the board puts it forward, the $495 would be off the table.
Mr. Shor:
Quoting from the article:
The instructional parcel tax would have a six-year time span, up from the four-year period that has been the pattern in the past.
Past amount: $50.00 per dwelling unit
Proposed amount stated in article: $495 per single-family home per year
I think this proposal is very responsive to the community’s concerns, and I commend Gina and Sheila for the proposal. The shorter duration, and separating it from the main renewals of Q and W, make it clear that this is targeted to the immediate shortfall. I don’t think anybody believes the state will be restoring funding cuts in the next two years, so any kind of deflator would be moot. If somebody would like to describe how that would work, and get feedback from Bruce Colby about whether it is even practical to implement such as ‘trigger’,
Bruce is able to separate funds and account for them. If you have ever been to one of his budget presentations, you can see the extraordinary detail he presents. In the years I have been watching the DJUSD budget, the transparency and accountability have vastly improved. If I didn’t have confidence in him, I would have more reservations about this tax. But by making it two years and thereby requiring voter review for future funding, I think the subcommittee has shown that the board got the message: these are tough times, and any further burden on taxpayers needs to be specific and well-crafted.
Mind_hunter: That was the previous proposal. As you will note in this Vanguard article, “The subcommittee plans to recommend at Thurs BOE [Board of Education] meeting to change the May election proposal to $200 per parcel for 2 years as an emergency response to current conditions.”
If the board approves the measure described here, as proposed by the subcommittee, the $200 per parcel proposal would be for two years. It would be separate from the renewal of Q and W in 2012.
Thank you for updating me as to the recently modified amount and duration. It seems to be the case that emergencies are regularly declared and the cry for more taxes is never ending. Why did the BOE subcommittee attempt to get $475 when $200 was the amount needed? Why would they try for a six year term when two years is apparently workable?
While I would prefer a longer term with a trigger, this is an improvement over what had been on the table. A trigger or deflator would fundamentally change the way our governments raise funds. I suppose this is why the Board was so opposed to a trigger that they say would never come into play. I assume this proposal will wrap the former emergency (measure W) into the ongoing base for the future. Any significant changes in the way we teach, provide services, etc. gets pushed down the road for a few more years. So, while it’s better, it is not the progressive forward looking solution I would hope for. There will still be many who oppose over the $ amount, but this has better odds of passing.
Why did the BOE subcommittee attempt to get $475 when $200 was the amount needed?
The actual increase requested originally was $175. Now they are asking for $200, but for a shorter duration.
Why would they try for a six year term when two years is apparently workable?
I think this is in response to the public comments, on the Vanguard and elsewhere. But that is just my opinion.
Why would they try for a six year term when two years is apparently workable?
I think this is in response to the public comments, on the Vanguard and elsewhere. But that is just my opinion.
Exactly — if we are not vigilant, we would have the increase for 6 years, at the end of which (or in the middle of which) a new “emergency” will be declared.
Putting Measure Q and W together with the current “emergency” additional parcel tax would have made its rejection when it came up for renewal almost impossible as the loss of this $400/parcel would have been pitched as a cataclysmic disaster for Davis schools.
wdf1: “Where did you get the $120 figure? The previous proposal asked for $175 increase over four years. This one asks for $200 over two years.”
My mistake – read the above article too quickly and misinterpreted something said in Letter to the Editor.
From the Jan 23, 2011 Davis Enterprise article: “During the past few years, as the state budget crisis has resulted in major reductions in funding to local school districts, Davis’ local tax has become even more important. In 2007, voters approved Measure W, a four-year parcel tax that charges $200 per year per single-family home, with 73.2 percent voting yes.
Then, faced with the prospect of major teacher layoffs in 2008 because of drastic state funding cuts, Davis voters approved Measure Q, a second, concurrent three-year parcel tax that charges an additional $120 per year per single-family home. Measure Q was approved by 75.7 percent of voters.”
So I would assume Measure Q + Measure W = $320
School Board was asking $495 = $175 increase over Q & W
School Board now asking for $200 “emergency increase” – 12.5% more
Don Shor: “I think this is in response to the public comments, on the Vanguard and elsewhere. But that is just my opinion.”
I tend to agree w you – it was the Subcommittee’s answer to the complaint about no deflator clause yet calling this “emergency funding”…
Teachers are paid handsomely in Davis — up to $75,845; with benefits and other perks on top of this salary. And this is for less than 10 months of work yearly. Many administrators are paid over $100,000 yearly; not counting benefits and perks. Again, for less than full time. Some more examples from http://www.djusd.net/employment/management
Crisis Guidance Manager 89,290
Manager of Student Achievement 97,266
Athletic Director 90,006
Director of Student Nutrition Services 76,733
While my comments here may not be popular and politically correct, I am calling things as I see them. As a taxpayer, I am tired of declared “emergencies” and “temporary” new measures that immediately become permanent fixtures on the property tax bill. There is a lot of fat that needs trimming.
Teachers are paid handsomely in Davis — up to $75,845
That is true if you have a Masters degree plus 30 semester units of college classes and twenty years of experience. In recent years I have observed that DJUSD has been frequently hiring teachers with experience in other districts, which often places them a little higher on the salary scale. You often find that beginning teachers get jobs more readily in more urban and possibly underperforming districts, and then move to other districts (like DJUSD). It allows DJUSD a greater chance to evaluate a track record. So I would argue that DJUSD is able to hire better quality teachers, on average. Also, surrounding districts often have higher salary scales, so if DJUSD’s salaries dropped too much relative to other districts, then we start losing teachers to other districts.
What will probably start stressing districts a few years from now is that not enough students are entering the teaching credential program in California to replace the number of teachers expected to retire within that time frame. The reason is that the current economy is causing teacher layoffs, and folks across the state like you don’t want to pay the money to keep them on.
Here is a good one:
Coordinator of School Climate Activities 83,163 (plus benefits for 10 months work)
If I am correct, this duty statement of this position which costs tax payers over 125,000 yearly is “Creating a Supportive School Climate that Appreciates Racial, Cultural, and Other Forms of Diversity.” No wonder we go broke.
WDF1 — I think it is important to remember that the salaries noted are for less than 10 months of work. When adjusted for the actual time worked, we are offering significantly more money than people realize when they just focus on the published. Also, mid career individuals with BA degrees and some additional units easily qualify for `,000 and up.
60000
Crisis Guidance Manager 89,290
Manager of Student Achievement 97,266
Athletic Director 90,006
Director of Student Nutrition Services 76,733
….There is a lot of fat that needs trimming.
First, not all of the positions you bring up are currently being staffed full-time. The numbers listed are the salaries on a full-time basis.
Public education is a highly regulated field that requires districts to file reports, implement district-wide plans, and show accountability so that, ultimately, skeptical tax payers, like you, as well as elected public officials, will feel that the the public moneys are being spent appropriately.
For instance, if a school district is going to participate in sanctioned sports, then you have to verify the ongoing eligibility of the students, make sure that the teams have regulation fields and equipment to play their games with, etc. That salary is about what an athletic director would get in most other districts. It probably requires someone who’s had several years of coaching experience as a school employee, and possibly a few years of administrative experience (vice-principal, for instance).
If you (or any other reader) would like specifics for what a particular position is in the district (and whether it is necessary or not), then I would recommend you contact either Bruce Colby (Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, which means “main budget guy”) at 757-5300 x122 or Kevin French (Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, which means “the guy in charge of hiring, firing, and giving out layoff notices during pink-slip season”) at 757-5300 x105. I find that both are approachable and willing to answer any reasonable question.
PS – Mr. Colby & Mr. French can pretty much tell you what each position does and why, as well as why that salary is set at that level. Also whether that position is currently staffed at full- or part-time. If you want to argue that those positions need to be cut, then you should contact the school board members.
But I would suggest you find out first what each position does and why before making your case to keep or cut it. Always best to be well-informed for your arguments.
[quote]But I would suggest you find out first what each position does and why before making your case to keep or cut it. Always best to be well-informed for your arguments. [/quote]
I have not made an argument to keep or cut any of the positions I noted. I simply pointed out that the stated salary levels are quite high, especially when annualized (the noted salaries are earned over an approximate 10 month — not full year) period. Tax payers are being asked to dig deeply into their pockets, again and again — perhaps it is up to tax increase supporters to justify the emergency with accurate information. I maintain tax payers have a right to rely on officially published materials such as the ones I reference, as we are being asked to fund them If they are incorrect, fix them. Always best to tell the truth before crying “emergency.” And you are right, I am skeptical — convince me that in light of the purported dire emergency, is a Coordinator of School Climate Activities position paid at over $100,000 (for 10 months)needed? And since the position appears on the current schedule of management positions, I have every reason to believe the plan includes ongoing payment for such.
[quote]For instance, if a school district is going to participate in sanctioned sports, then you have to verify the ongoing eligibility of the students, make sure that the teams have regulation fields and equipment to play their games with, etc. That salary is about what an athletic director would get in most other districts. It probably requires someone who’s had several years of coaching experience as a school employee, and possibly a few years of administrative experience (vice-principal, for instance). [/quote]
I reiterate … $90,006 + benefits — 10 months of work … job requirements are several years coaching experience, some administrative experience. Come on now.
I reiterate … $90,006 + benefits — 10 months of work … job requirements are several years coaching experience, some administrative experience. Come on now.
Mind_hunter: What do you think such a position is worth?
In some cases, I’m not sure that 10 months covers all administrative staff. The school board has meetings 11 months of the year. That means that some staff have to be available to prepare materials for those meetings. Also, when you start getting to adminstrative levels, then you are expected to work extra hours and lose sleep over your job. If you miss a deadline, then your job is on the line. D. Greenwald’s series on Tahir Ahad is one example of that. Mr. Ahad appeared to have missed a deadline and as a consequence had to leave.
Still, an appropriate way to support your arguement is to call Mr. French and ask what the job requirements and qualifications are, and then see what other school districts pay for an equivalent position. Often Davis salaries come in a little lower than other equivalent districts. Also, California has very low administrative staffing levels in the public schools, and DJUSD has below average staffing levels in the state.
WDF1 — According to the official record set forth in the link below, the job of Athletic Director is 202 days annually, and is paid (top step) 90,006. By my rough calculation, the pay comes to $450 per DAY worked. If we additionally add in 33% for benefits (health, retirement), we come to approximately $600 PER DAY worked. On an hourly basis (8 hours daily) that comes to $75 per hour. Now, you tell me, is fair value in the private sector for an individual with a BA degree, several years coaching experience and some administrative experience. Is it $75 hourly? Now before everyone attacks me, I know my calculations are rough — I am merely trying to make a point. We as tax payers fund these positions and we deserve to really examine what we are asked to pay for, and how much we are asked to pay.
http://www.djusd.net/employment/management
We as tax payers fund these positions and we deserve to really examine what we are asked to pay for, and how much we are asked to pay.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Which is why, as part of your examination, I encourage you to contact Mr. French and ask all the questions you have about what each person does on the job in question so that we could evaluate why they get that salary. It would help so that we don’t engage in vague speculations, here.
Also, mid career individuals with BA degrees and some additional units easily qualify for 60,000 and up.
I don’t know what point you’re making, here.
If I am correct, this duty statement of this position which costs tax payers over 125,000 yearly is “Creating a Supportive School Climate that Appreciates Racial, Cultural, and Other Forms of Diversity.” No wonder we go broke.
Call Mr. French and ask for details about this job’s responsibilities. I also think this position is currently staffed part-time.
As to applying the argument that teachers work only 9 months for an exorbitant salary. My mom was a grade school teacher who retired about 15 years ago. She worked her school day, and then spent another 4+ hours at home grading and preparing for the next school day. She took a break on Friday evening and then typically worked a half day on Saturday and a half day on Sunday (about 6 hours each day). I accept that not all teachers work like that, but I know that many put in a lot of time outside. It looked grueling to me as a kid, and even now when I think about it. Probably the reason why I chose not to be a grade school teacher.
“I am skeptical — convince me that in light of the purported dire emergency, is a Coordinator of School Climate Activities position paid at over $100,000 (for 10 months)needed?”
I don’t know if the cost is needed, I know what it took to get the position and why it came up. I think those problems still exist today. Could we get the same job done for cheaper, perhaps.
Mind_hunter: Now, you tell me, is fair value in the private sector for an individual with a BA degree, several years coaching experience and some administrative experience.
I can’t think of any adminstrator who doesn’t have an advanced degree. Just a BA doesn’t typically cut it for administrative positions.
Sensing some possible “deception”/slight-of-hand… the newest proposal will be HIGHER [u](slightly)[/u] than the original proposal, but does not risk the existing assessments, and all will have to be renewed in the not-so-distant future, based on the facts available at that time(s)… despite concerns I’ve had with the original proposal (“upping the ante” for ‘base’ funding), I can comfortably support the current proposal. Teachers/staff need to ‘suck-up’ impacts similar to the extent that city/county/state/UC employees have done/will do… if that’s understood, I can actively support the proposal for two years…
A teaching credential is an advanced degree and an administrative credential is a second advanced degree.
The $90,000/year for an athletic director is a step 7 rate, step 1 is 67,000. Athletic Directors are not over compensated. They work long hours including nights and on weekends, oversee a multitude of sports programs, have responsibility for a great many students and have other responsibilities as well.
A few years ago when the economy and district budget tanked, a vice principal, Mark Dietrich, took on the added responsibility of Athletic Director. At the same time the School Climate Coordinator position was eliminated. So really Mr. Hunter it seems you are coming late to the party and shooting from the hip.
Mr. Toad, I hope you are correct. However, each of the positions you claim have been consolidated or eliminated continue to appear on the current schedule of management positions — so the clear intent is that they be funded fully once again. As far as arriving late to the party — yes, another tax increase has gotten my full attention. As far as shooting from the hip — $75 hourly is way too much to pay for almost any civil service position , let alone for a job that requires several years coaching experience and some administrative experience. To contrast, here is an example of a state management position California — Title: STAFF SERVICES MANAGER III Salary: $6,779.00 – $7,474.00 RESPONSIBILITIES: Under the general direction of the Financial Management Division Chief, CEA 2, the Business Management Bureau Chief, (SSMIII) is responsible for the oversight of the department’s business management operations and all CDI statewide business management activities. The incumbent will manage and coordinate the daily operations of multiple disciplines in three Business Management Bureau operations; Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In Davis, a position of an experienced coach with a little administrative experience is paid almost twice as much as the individual who manages the state of CA’s dept of insurance. http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/more_info.cfm?recno=450343
Again, I am not making any disparaging remarks about anyone holding a position. I am making the point that we are overpaying and that we have fat to trim. This thread is about the dire funding emergency purportedly facing our schools. Oh, and Mr. Toad, I am sure the holder of the state position I set forth has to “work long hours including nights and on weekends …, oversees a multitude of programs, has responsibility for a great many employees and consumers and have other responsibilities as well.”
[quote]As to applying the argument that teachers work only 9 months for an exorbitant salary. [/quote]
Wdf1 — I did not say teachers are paid exorbitantly. The are paid quite fairly or perhaps well for the 9 month period, depending on years of service and education. I do not, however, buy the argument that they are underpaid and should receive increases.
Another example:
A position entitled coordinator:
Coordinators’ salary schedule based on work year of 190 days
$75,397 entry
$76,984
$78,601
$80,256
$81,942
$83,667
$85,424
$87,222 top
Now, if I am not mistaken this position, which starts at 75,397 + benefits requires a master’s degree. The holder of this position earns the salary for working 190 days per year.
You do realize that median income in Yolo County is about $70K per year. It’s higher than that in Davis. So all of these discussions need to be premised on that point.
I don’t know if the cost is needed, I know what it took to get the position and why it came up. I think those problems still exist today. Could we get the same job done for cheaper, perhaps. [/quote]
The thread is about the dire funding emergency facing out schools. Part of the problem has occurred due to cost control issues. Allowing pay levels to reach $75 hourly for experienced coaches and school climate coordinators is one reason we now have to look at a proposal to quadruple what was only four years ago a $120 ‘instructional’ tax.
“Part of the problem has occurred due to cost control issues.”
I disagree with that premise. The primary problem is that the state has cut billions from their educational budget over the last four years and districts have had to scramble to find the money and still preserve their programs.
The district cut out one of their associate superintendents and several other administrative level positions at the outset of this back in 2008. Since then, they have operated the district with a small staff.
Can you cut more of these positions? Perhaps. But sometimes cutting these positions save short term money but cost money in the longer term.
Bottom line is that the district is going to have to lay off a given amount of teachers unless they can recoup the different locally. If you want that to happen, then oppose the tax. But you are not going to find $3 million or anywhere close in unnecessary positions.
Moreover as WDF points out repeatedly, without talking ot the HR director, you have no idea what these guys do and whether the positions are essential to the functioning of the district. Go see Kevin French and come back here and report, it’s a far better use of your time, imo.
[quote]You do realize that median income in Yolo County is about $70K per year. It’s higher than that in Davis. So all of these discussions need to be premised on that point. [/quote]
The point is that we are paying in the range of $75 hourly for our school employees, when, for example, a very senior manager of a department in the state receives less hourly. While I sympathize with the desire of our employees to earn more, I also recognize that they will always push for salary increases, always state that their jobs are hard and demanding, argue that they are underpaid, and threaten dire impacts from funding changes.
MH: In Davis, a position of an experienced coach with a little administrative experience is paid almost twice as much as the individual who manages the state of CA’s dept of insurance.
How do you make that calculation?
STAFF SERVICES MANAGER III Salary: $6,779.00 – $7,474.00
What does this mean? Monthly gross? What kind of PERS benefits does this position offer?
How many applicants do you suppose they can get for that?
With administrative positions you’re looking at an advanced degree, no question. And familiarity with California Ed Code. And many are responsible for answering to the public as required.
Greewald might be able to say more, but I believe the Climate Coordinator in part fields situations of bullying and student disaffection in the district. For a number of years complaints build up that the district was doing nothing to monitor the bad “climate” that many students were experiencing. It requires experience as a professional counselor (advanced degree, and with fees that professional counselors can earn, I think this salary is probably within range). Ability to fill a liaison role to various parts of the community, as required — family & social services, police, organizational analysis. Without this position, I would imagine the police might end up spending extra on time/staff on its end dealing with the direct social fallout of disaffected students.
So what do you think the position is worth? Is your proposed salary comparable to salaries offered in other nearby districts? and could you find a qualified person to fill it?
[quote]Moreover as WDF points out repeatedly, without talking to the HR director, you have no idea what these guys do and whether the positions are essential to the functioning of the district. Go see Kevin French and come back here and report, it’s a far better use of your time, imo. [/quote]
I suspect that the HR director is unlikely to say the positions are unessential or that the incumbents are overpaid. Has anyone ever heard of an HR person (who has kept his/her job) who will say his/her own boss and his/her colleagues are unessential or overpaid?
[quote]How do you make that calculation? [/quote]
The salary noted is the monthly range. The State position described is for full time, 12 months a year. Our school administrative salaries are for 202 days (athletic director); and 190 days (coordinator). The comparative positions carry similar health and retirement benefits.
[quote]
It requires experience as a professional counselor (advanced degree, and with fees that professional counselors can earn, I think this salary is probably within range).[/quote]
Unlicensed Master’s level counselor positions are paid around $25 hourly and do not carry anywhere close to the level of benefits associated with the climate coordinator position. Licensed master’s level state employees are paid substantially less as well.
[quote]Without this position, I would imagine the police might end up spending extra on time/staff on its end dealing with the direct social fallout of disaffected students.
[/quote]
I do not dispute that the position has a purpose. I maintain we are systematically and significantly overpaying. The guy that cuts the neighbor’s lawn, plans the daily activities, does a good job, works hard, manages the guys that edge the lawn and weed the flowerbed, — still isn’t worth $75 hourly when comparable positions are paid at $15 hourly.
[quote]
So what do you think the position is worth? [/quote] I think a large percentage of people polled on this would agree that the hourly salary of a coach with some administrative experience, or that of an unlicensed counselor should be in the range of about 1/2 of what we are paying.
[quote]Is your proposed salary comparable to salaries offered in other nearby districts?[/quote]
Other districts are going broke as well — same reasons apply. Overpaid staff is one reason, however politically incorrect this statement may be.
[quote]could you find a qualified person to fill it? [/quote]
Below are sample pay ranges for State of CA counselors and senior counselors, which appear to be about 1/2 of what we pay our coordinator. I have already posted what the manager of the entire state earns as a state employee, which is less than we pay our athletic director.
9152 EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM COUNSELOR
Click here for Class Spec
Base Salary Range: B 3503.00 – 4256.00
9806 SENIOR VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION COUNSELOR
Click here for Class Spec
Base Salary Range: A 2738.00 – 3215.00
9581 YOUTH CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR
Click here for Class Spec
Base Salary Range: K 31.22 – 37.95 (hourly)
On the objectivity of HR in general: (From another Vanguard article posted today I think:-)
[quote]One of the big pushes that was made in the last round of negotiations was the need for an outside negotiator. Instead the city had a negotiating team, fraught with conflicts of interest. In fact, the HR director said across the table from her husband on negotiations for one of the bargaining units – by the way, her own as well as her husband’s.[/quote]
I suspect that the HR director is unlikely to say the positions are unessential or that the incumbents are overpaid. Has anyone ever heard of an HR person (who has kept his/her job) who will say his/her own boss and his/her colleagues are unessential or overpaid?
I think that argument is a red herring. All I claim is that the DJUSD HR director can answer your questions about what that person’s job responsibilities are, and what kind of qualifications are expected for that job. This is all written out in documents that you could even request from DJUSD in a public information request. Without those details, we’re all engaging in half-speculations as to what the job does and what it’s supposed to be worth.
If you are appropriately armed with those specifics, then you can make a more meaningful case with school board members and the public as to whether that position is paid appropriately or whether it should be cut or not.