Dr. Clay is currently attempting to explain some of the budget reduction recommendations recently passed by the Board.
Dr. Clay Email To BoE 3-11-2011
The most interesting decision was the Board’s agreement to attempt future budget reductions through renegotiated union contracts.
Of course, the unions are probably not going to be happy with that.
You can follow the current dialogue at: District 63 Makes Budget Reductions: Question and Answer .
One of the questions (comments) caught my attention.
| “Why aren’t cuts being made at the upper administration level? Whether that be in the way of salary or positions. The folks at the “top” are paid a lot of money, but yet they will keep their jobs while many important staff members will not. This does not seem right.” |
A very good question, indeed.
We now know that EMSD#63 is fast running out of money and Dr. Clay and the Board have little time to diddle on these issues. So, to speed things along, may I make a couple suggestions for the Board and Dr. Clay to ponder.
If you are interested, as I am, in the long-term financial health of the district, including the reduction and eventual elimination of the district’s debt (bonds), you need to stop thinking in terms of reductions in pay and step increases and start thinking in terms of real payroll reduction.
EMSD#63 Leadership starts with the Board!
It’s time for the Board to reevaluate Dr. Clay’s contract.
Dr. Clay’s current base pay is $170,000. This amount should be reduced by 15% or $25,500, reducing his base pay to $144,500; a number still greater than Dr. Clay received in 2009. This reduction should remain in effect until the local economy recovers.
The Board also needs to reduce the Superintendent’s fringe benefits. For example:
Board should change vacation policy to use it or loose it. No more exchanging today’s vacation days for tomorrow’s dollars.
What was this Board thinking?
How could Jane Wojtkiewicz and her Board enter into a three-year contract ,with a untried and apparently undertrained Asst. Superintendent in need of $87,000 in mentoring and con sulting services from former boss, Kathleen Williams, without first demonstrating competence as Superintendent, is still mystery to me.
Dr. Scott Clay's 3 Yr ContractDistrict taxpayers can no longer afford to pay for Board derived largess.
Based on my research, between 75% to 85% of a School District’s budget expenditures can be attributed to payroll. See: New EMSD#63 Teacher/Administrator Payroll Report for 2002-2010 – Updated.
At the same time, based on data derived from Zillow.com, property values in my neighborhood have dropped 40% since 2006 and taxes have risen 29%+. That’s a spread of 70%!
Show me yours, then we’ll talk about mine!
The Board and Dr. Clay need to show leadership by substantially modifying his contract in order to demonstrate to the public and to all the other EMSD#63 Administrators and Teachers, the Board’s and Superintendent’s desire and determination to do everything reasonable and financially possible to bring about long-term financial stability to the district.
My next comments are based on my belief in the District’s need to retain it’s current staffing levels while moving quickly toward long-term and debt free solvency.
Everyone takes a hit!
If everyone takes a “hit” like the one the District’s taxpayers are now experiencing, we may find that there is no need for a reduction in staff or services as currently proposed by the Financial Task Force and EMSD#63’s Board.
So, let’s stop nibbling around the edge.
We need a first-year 15% reduction in payroll costs, followed by a stabilization in payroll costs covering a period of at least three years. That process of payroll reduction begins at the top. Dr. Clay and the Board have a responsibility to do this for the overtaxed homeowners of this District. But more than that, they have a responsibility to do it for the children.
One last thing. Before you decide to go over the edge, read this and this and this and this .
This is only my opinion of course!
4 comments:
Mr. B:
You and I come from very different experiences in this issue. Your position on Doctor Clay is well documented. I have no experience with D63. My family has experience with D64 and, in the future, D207 (Maine South). As previously stated in posts here, we are thus far very satisfied with with our families public school experience. Based on what we have seen and heard related to MS, we have no reason to expect that feeling to change. I will freely admit that this positive experience may color my view on the "big picture".
So having said all that, let me get to my question. Let's ignore Dr. Clay for a moment and talk about "pau grades". Do you think that 170K is the proper pay grade for a Superintendent? If one looks at this position around the area that is about what they make. One might argue, as I am sure you would, that Dr. Clay is not doing his job and therefore does not merit this pay. Does a SI whi is doing a "great" job deserve 170K? In other words, I know you have a problem with the man but is your problem also with the number?
I will give you my answer in advance. I will again admit that my feeling on this is colored by my experiences. When I consider what I make, what my family makes, what my friends (old and new) and neighbors make, when I look at various "pay grades" for various professions and, most importantly, when I look at the role of an IS, running a district with hundreds (or more) employees responsible for the education of 1000's of students, I have no problem with 170K.
March 23, 2011 8:20 AM,
You say you have no experience with EMSD#63. I got that.
You say you are happy with the performance of District #64. I got that.
You then ask if 170k’s a proper “pay grade” for a Superintendent.
First of all, the 170k figure you allude to, is not a “pay grade”, but a value representing the Superintendent’s base pay. That number and the additional associated costs of employment at EMSD#63 are not set, but negotiated. What neighboring districts pay their Superintendents is also negotiated. The negotiated salary and fringe benefits are directly related to; an individuals capabilities and experience, funds available for the position and other esoteric and non-esoteric factors.
You’ve indicated that you’re not a EMSD#63 taxpayer nor do you send your children to EMSD#63 schools. That said, Park Ridge School District #64, your District of choice; is funded by a very substantial tax base. Ours is not. Your Board appears to have a lot going for it. Ours…..
Now, lets get to the heart of the matter.
District #63 is in debt and without a course change, soon to be out of money!
The district has once again spent its way into this situation; in spite of it’s winning a 22% tax increase referendum in 2005. EMSD#63’s taxpayers have long known this day would come. How? The Board and Administration told us so, more than once. Now, the day of reckoning is here. The State of Illinois is broke. Cook County is broke, and EMSD#63’s turnips have been bled dry.
This post was not about Dr. Clay or how I may or may not feel about him or how much money he does or does not make. That sir was your issue.
At the beginning of the post I presented future (2011-2012 School Year) changes to personnel and operations voted on by EMSD#63’s Board and purportedly designed to impart financial stability to the District. In my opinion, these changes will bring about a less rewarding educational experience, and by themselves, are not powerful enough to fix the District’s long-term financial problems!
In writing this post I was asking the Board and Dr. Clay to show true leadership. And I would have asked him to make the same salary and fringe payment decisions, even if he were only making 150k or 130k. I am, in this post, asking Dr. Clay to take a 15% base salary hit as well as other adjustments to his contract, in order to show the other Administrators and Teachers what must be done to keep the District’s activities in place and to save ALL OF THEIR JOBS, should that be their goal.
Maybe you’re into pain and suffering. I’m not!
I want this long-term problem resolved – this year! I want a plan and corresponding changes put in place; a program that goes beyond this year and one that makes economic, operational and academic sense. This we do not yet have!
Lastly, you really need to start reading the entire post before commenting.
Mr B:
I plan on addressing a few of your points in more detail in a future post but there is one thing I need to say now. You have gone after me in the past on a post by pointing out that your site posts are time stamped. Remember when you questioned a time referenced in my post and got all huffy??? I have pointed out that you are playing games so let's let the people decide.
You stated I need to "start reading the entire post". When I read that, I went back and read the post and had to scratch my head. It appeared to me that you added the last paragraph after I originally read it (and possibly after I made my post). I will admit that I sometimes read too fast and miss things, but I know I would have remembered and read those links.
After I clicked on the links I got my answer. You did add to the original post after the fact without any indication that it was added to or that the document had been midified. I did not read the last paragraph or the links because they were not there when I originally read it. I offer the fantastic time stamping you threw in my face as evidence!!! Your Original post was made on 3/22/11at 2:08. That would convert to 3:08 EST. When I look at 2 of the three links in your post (which I never saw when I first read it), they were posted on their respective sites AFTER you posted yours. The CNBC post was made at 3:22 EST on 3/22/11 - 14 minutes after you made your post. The post from Capital Hill was made at 5:22 PM EST on 3/22/11 - several hours after your post. So how does this happen??? Did you see it in a crystal ball before it even reached the internet and somehow link to it before it was even there??? So, with all respect, please do not lecture about reading the entire post when you clearly added on to the post after I originally read it.
Anon: March 23,2011 3:51,
Well you got me. I added an additional link to my post 14 minutes after my original posting. I also added the words “and this” in green as well.
This change occurred as part of the closing paragraph. As no other part of the post was modified I felt no need to indicate modification by changing the title to: “Leadership Starts From the Top – Updated”, as I normally would.
I can only hope that the other readers of that post or of my blog for that matter, accept at face value the addition of that link and will be more understanding of its insertion and value than you appear to be.
For the record; the original line read:
“One last thing. Before you decide to go over the edge, read this and this.”
The modified line currently reads:
“One last thing. Before you decide to go over the edge, read this and this and this.”
As to your comments about time stamping, I don’t control time stamping. The system does. One more thing. Time on the time-stamp is not “EST” as you currently believe but “GMT”.
I don’t know what your game is. If the game is “gotcha”, then I guess you’ve won. Bravo!
However, I’m dealing with an important subject and it takes a great deal of time to research and prepare these posts. I do my best to be as accurate and as thorough as possible. That said; I do not have any more time to play the game. Lets agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
Thank you, for sharing!
Post a Comment