Last night, the school board directors voted and approved raises for head custodians, administrative assistants, supervisors, specialists, custodial/maintenance employees and administrators (3%). June 18, 2012 School Board Meeting Agenda Scott Goldman explained why he was going to vote no. Dale Ostergaard also explained why he was voting no. Watch the meeting or listen to the podcast and hear Josephine Posti publicly scold Dale for his reasons. Larry Lebowitz also chimed in and supported Josephine. We knew it was going to go that way since Josephine included in her monthly report how Dr. Steinhauer deserved his raise. Here is the best part. Scott Goldman asked Tom Peterson if the vote was 9-0 against the raises, would the staff still get the raises. Peterson said, "Yes." Then Goldman asked why even vote if it is guaranteed. Peterson said that's the way it's always been done.
It's on the podcast.
Remember what USC's superintendent did? Is Steinhauer in this for the money? Evidently.
5 comments:
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Ostergaard are to be congratulated on their principled stand with respect to this issue. Mr. Goldman's astute question concerning the rational of the vote, in light of contractual obligations that eliminated its necessity, is particularly telling. This was a time wasting "show vote"; more fitting for a North Korean Politburo than a democratically elected body.
Stil, it's refreshing to see a couple of men on this board "put on a pair of pants," as a female friend of mine puts it, and oppose the arbitrary nature of this benighted District; which slashes costs with one hand, and increases them with the other.
Congratulations, gentlemen; I know it's "mock Latin," but Illegitimi non carborundum!
I might see that a SB could not legally or procedurally vote against approval of wage & salary increases they had previously approved in CBA's, which might have been the case for head custodians and custodial/maintenance employees; however, where in the PA Public School Code does it stipulate that SB's cannot literally approve wages & salaries for nonbargining, at will employees ?
Bill Lewis
Bill,
See Act 93 for Administrators' bargaining rights.
"Our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker," said partner Lawrence Lebowitz on the video. "And, you know, that in a sense that sounds funny, but it's what we're trying to do here." Pgh Post Gazette
Is this the same Larry Lebowitz that talked about fair compensation for school district employees? Seems he doesn't care if you and I - have a job - or - can afford to give raises to administrators - in a down economy!
So who does he represent - his constituents or the district employees?
Anonymous June19th. @ 8:26 PM,
Can you tell us the Section # of Act 93 codified in the PA Public School Code of 1949, as amended, you are referring to; and, also provide a link to the Lebo District Plan and date of SB approval for administrators, undoubtedly similiar to what in other Districts are termed "Administrative, Supervisiory, Consultative Personnel (ASCP) Compensation Plan", or "Administrators Compensation Plan", etc. ? It will likely be a 10 - 16 page document.
It seems like the SB has very likely already previously approved a compensation plan contract similar in many respects to that of teachers without the public being fully aware. If so, essentially all District employees are covered and protected by compensation contracts required under Commonwealth law regardless of whether they are union or nonunion. The only difference is that the teachers 50-page contract per-se includes very exhaustive and specific work rules and conditions, as do perhaps those for custodians, mainterance & office secretaries to a lesser extent.
Bill Lewis
Post a Comment