Well, we are in a New Year and we need to close up our 2008 SAUSD corruption thread before it becomes overwhelmed with comments. Consider this to be our new 2009 SAUSD corruption thread.
Click here to read our 2008 thread. And here are links to all our previous SAUSD corruption threads:
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2008 Comments
- SAUSD-Temporary Thread (Migration 5/16/2008) Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2007 Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2006 Comments
The results of last year’s SAUSD School Board elections were disappointing. The incumbents were re-elected. Shame on the teacher’s union for supporting them! And the one new Trustee, Roman Reyna, is not likely to make a difference.
The SAUSD budget is a mess and our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, appears primed to make it worse. So this is going to be a very tough year. As always, this forum will be here to allow you to vent about what is going on at the SAUSD!
Al Mijares is long gone, but the corruption at the SAUSD continues unabated…
Willard was doing okay in 2001 with its student population being what it was with Mendez opening. It had 4 computer labs that could house 36+ students each. The staff had already taken lead and had planned collaboration between subjects and between grade levels. It was holding its own but when new admin came in those discipline numbers were not favorable. It was the creative efforts to make the numbers look more positive by admin that has really undermined the behavior of the students. If you don’t suspend, expel and otherwise have a behavioral plan in place then the numbers can’t be held against you. Blame the teacher for the kids not wearing a collared shirt. Do away with all detentions and Saturday schools and any other form of deterrent; what does that say? Actively encourage the students to go after a teacher/teachers that you want to oust (and what better role does the parent room have for that kind of activity!)and what signal is that to all the kids? The kids have their own awesome network and the word spreads fast and wide! (To other campuses) And then reward them for this with iPods, movie tickets, soccer balls and gift cards and say “Hey! aren’t we making some great changes!” Let’s mark the changes: next to no science or social studies, no electives (they were pre-empted and forced to teach eld) , the kids stuck in a room for 4 plus hours a day, no nutrition, a p.e that is also forced to teach LA despite the million dollar fitness rooms that were built with science monies. The biggest blow, in my opinion, is the loss of the excellence of all the teachers that were driven and forced out; more than two of them were teacher of the year for the fundamental schools where they landed! Not to mention an Administrator of the year in Cheryl Weaver who was booted by Bishop and is now Villa’s Principal. It wasn’t the fundamental’s fault: it was the district and those individuals who kept turning a blinds eye to whom they had placed at Willard. I hear it’s another school’s problem now! God help you all!
another newbie (#750) First off, they have been saying that medicare will be insolvent for the past 60 or 70 years…from the day it was implemented.
Second, you probably don’t know this little tidbit about your contract and the medical insurance promises. I’ll try and make this simple – the ONLY people that are guaranteed medical insurance until age 70 are those that retired before April 1, 2009.
That’s right, the only people, other than current, active employees, that the District has a legal obligation to provide medical insurance for are those that ARE retired, not those that will retire. Everyone else is betting on a promise.
And, in light of the reports that medicare is insolvent, it makes the argument for national single-payer healthcare all the more viable. If our members of Congress can have healthcare that doesn’t go bankrupt on the taxpayers dime, we should all demand the exact same level of benefits for every citizen of the United States.
If we had single-payer national healthcare, then the whole argument about current benefits and retiree benefits becomes moot, and we can all focus on the important thing – educating our students to compete and succeed.
FYI – while you know that there was one most of the negotiating team were pre-1999, did you there was ONE member of the negotiating team that was retiring this year, and SHE made sure that she was covered.
My reply was not to open up a discussion of Nationalized Health care or Socialized health care or single payer national healthcare. My reply was to bring attention to the fact that you keep saying that future retirees did not lose anything by the new contract vote, yet we did.-the tentative agreement did not say those that retired as of April 2009–what was lost was the five years we thought that we were vesting towards-until that was voted away retroactivly. Future retirees will now start having to save for those extra five years. It is just information. Thanks for your “tidbits” of information. As for the person who made sure she got her retirement benefits, she earned them, it was in her contract. Just like it was in mine and everyone elses until it got negotiated away. I am sure she had her ten years. Let’s not keep changing the rules mid-game. It’s over with anyway-just thought that information that was given to us at by SAEA reps about the Tentative agreement might need some revamping, in light of the front page news. Their stance has been Medicare takes care of you! Think again.
http://educationrevolution.stores.yahoo.net/iquit.html
I saw this article…very interesting. This is kind of a change of subject (commercial break). Now continue with whatever you people are doing.
The union needs to take care of the RIF process and helping our teachers keep their jobs. This process goes on for months and months. Uncertainty leads to a lot of family and personal stress ,it is difficult to be at our best to help our students compete and succeed, when we have to set up interviews, fill out applications and still come in with energy and a smile on our faces.
NTK- As for the rest of getting the same health care as congressional members, don’t hold your breath. Folks I know EU countries buy a private insurance policy since the waiting time for procedures take up to six months, ekgs etc. so let’s not count our congressional comparable health plan just yet.
Jill- nice source- thanks for keeping things fresh.
another newbie (#753) I obviously wasn’t clear enough. All PROSPECTIVE retiree benefits could have been negotiated away – PERIOD. That means, the people that retired this year, or next year, or any year in the future could have had their retirement benefits axed. 1999 was arbitrary number – if could have been 1996, or 1990. The IMPORTANT number isn’t, necessarily the year you were hired, it’s the year you retire. The fact is, the person that was on the bargaining committee made sure that it she was covered.
another newbie (#755) I’ve asked the question before, and no one ever seems to be able to answer me – what exactly does SAEA have to do with the RIF process?
My understanding is that SAUSD, without any consultation with SAEA, decides who will be RIFd. At the earliest, the morning that SAUSD sends out the RIF notices, via certified mail, they provide SAEA with a copy of the list.
Once that happens, SAEA sends out the RIF information packets, asking teachers that are members and wish to participate in the RIF hearings to return the packets.
The packets are then given to the CTA attorney, the RIF hearing date is set, and the day of the RIFs, all parties show up at the appointed place and time, where the administrative law judge holds the hearing, in accordance with his or her instructions.
If I am wrong, I hope someone corrects me. And if I’m right, what exactly should SAEA do differently?
As for the time, my understanding is that most of it is statutory. March 15 and May 15 are set by law. The hearings were scheduled, I think, within about 2 weeks – much quicker than the last year. As for the rescissions, I think it’s up to the District. So, again, if I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected, but I don’t think SAEA has very little input or control over the timing.
Yeah, I know people in the EU that do the same, but I also know people that don’t. Not all countries work the same and I’m sure some work better than other.
I wasn’t really trying to beat this one to death – I was just trying to point out that if we had some type of similar system, we’d be able to avoid the whole issue of healthcare benefits. At the most, all an employer would asked to pay for would be a supplemental plan, that would hopefully be far less expensive than what the currently pay.
The whole thing is wrong, in so many ways. I wish that the negotiations hadn’t turned out they way it did, but I have faith that both sides negotiated the best deal that was possible give the information and circumstances. Unfortunately, neither of us were there, so we’ll probably never know that answer.
Jill (#755) I agree with another newbie (#756) – great article. really made me think.
I don’t mean to be a downer, but I was just reading that Soc. Security and Medicare may be bankrupt anyways by the time some of us retire. Yes, we use CA Teacher’s Retirement System, but say I teach in (SalT Lake City) then I would be back into the Soc. Sec System and I cannot double dip. I say, we all need to marry a millionaire or punt.
NTK, if you want to know what SAEA should do differently with respect to the rif process, read my many previous posts. Also, I wonder if it was a Freudian slip when you said, “but I don’t think SAEA has very little input or control over the timing.” As somebody who seems to have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of SAEA, you would seem to be in a position to know. In fact, you need to know.
http://is.gd/znY1
18 Characteristics of Happy People
A little off topic…(I promise to not do this again)…but we are all under a lot of stress and I thought I would post this. I think I failed as a happy person, what about you? 🙂 Now, what to do about it? 1. Marry that millionaire 2. Have a child and name him Adobe Photoshop Tweets. 3. Exercise and eat a piece of lettuce daily without dressing (nope…won’t do it) Any other suggestions?
Millionaires ain’t what they used to be…so let’s all punt or buy foreclosed homes and hope for a re- bound so that we can afford gap health insurance. My best advice is to save, just think what the premiums will be for a 66 year old with a pre-existing condition…God forbid one might need a hip replacement or something more serious. I think we all need to keep our sense of humor, since we all will be out Medicare and Social Security, guess we really will be working past 70. Well at least most of the schools have wheel-chair ramps. Jill thanks for the much needed laugh!
So will Medrano pack it up and move to Sierra with Bishop?
SAHS teacher said: “RV, don’t hesitate to take a little firmer control of this blog when you believe there’s a need.”
Thanks. It’s like herding cats around here!
I see that KTN and Michele were keeping each other busy on another thread, so that was a bit of a break from all the hyper posting to this one.
😉
And if any of you guys see a problem that I don’t see, please post it or send me an email. rvixen@gmail.com
Sad Employee: Is there news that Jeff Bishop is leaving Willard and heading for Sierra. Or is that wishful thinking?
rif rif (#760) OK rif rif , I checked post #261
To Red Vixen,
At the present time, there are 764 messages in this blog ( Yes, I visited the other blog, why are there two different ones?) How many individuals are really participating in this discussions?
I believe there is hope, in any change of Status Quo, new leadership is necessary in SAEA, so do not forget to vote for Robert C. Chavez, a highly inclusive leader, someone that has been riffed (some people saw him in the news advocating for teachers being riffed)
several times, understand the feeling of uncertainty in our jobs.
In his flyer: Robert C. Chavez states
I Will:
protect new and veteran association members’ contractual rights
increase diversity at all levels within our association committees
hold the district accountable for fiscal spending and cuts.
Build strong alliances with Classified employees and our community.
hold CTA accountable for their expenditures in political campaigns.
And, it is obvious, that he has a global vision of the issues, because of his knowledge at National level. I already voted! I noticed that he is also running for State Council Representative AT Large, because in order to make changes such as in the legislature, for Ed. Code for example, this is the place to start, at State level.
Thank you for this opportunity to freely express our issues.
764 = Yes, it’s true. He told his dept. chairs yesterday morning.
Red Vixen (#764) I haven’t forgotten about this post…I just really had enjoyed watching michelle spin…
I apologize, in advance, for my next post – it’s really long, but rif rif told me to go look at his/her previous posts…so I did just that…
rif rif (#760) Ok, looking at post 261, you complain that “David Barton and SAEA do NOTHING!” – So what did you expect them to do?
You claim “They put on a show of concern at the beginning of the rif process by holding one meeting and introducing you to their do-nothing attorney.” So, anything resembling showing concern is suspect? Exactly what did you want them to do to convince you they are concerned? As for the “do-nothing attorney” – he doesn’t belong to SAEA, he belongs to CTA. If you have an issue with him and what he did or didn’t do, then why don’t you take it up with CTA?
If you wanted to contact the Attorney, then you should have demanded that from SAEA’s executive director, she’s a CTA employee and she’s the attorney’s ‘gatekeeper’. David Barton and SAEA have nothing to do with your ability to contact the attorney.
You said that you think you “would have a better chance of saving our jobs if we gave our 95 dollars a month to the district to help it with its budget.” Really? If you all gave your dues to SAUSD, you might be able to save 5 or 6 jobs – so, which one of you gets saved?
Post #268 – In some respects you are right, unfortunately, one of the big issues is who is more expensive to keep, experienced teachers or new teachers?
In times of economic hardship, if the District were like any other employer, they could simply fire at will, and from a purely economic position, why would they keep any employee that makes $70,000 when they can replace the employee with one that will do the job for $40,000?
Hopefully, the laws of supply and demand would keep the salaries relative similar to those of surrounding Districts, but what if the Districts acted like lots of other employers and agreed to fix wages at certain levels?
In a perfect world, employees would be judged on merit, but in a real world, they are judge on everything – dress code, perceived threat to management, merit, personality, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, religion, language skills, political ideology, etc.
The union’s position isn’t that all teachers are the same – it’s that all teachers should be judged the using the same criteria. You shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily fire someone just because you can save money or you don’t like him or her. And yes, a lot of people in the private sector loose their jobs because someone doesn’t like them – it’s not fair, but it is reality.
Yes, every school does have good and bad teachers. But, why should the district “have the flexibility to choose which teachers, senior or junior, young or old, to lay off in times of economic crisis.”
In times of economic crisis, they only smart play is to cut the most expensive teachers and keep the least expensive. Why? Because the district can then do things like 20:1, have more money for supplies, more money for administration, more money for programs, etc. The reasons sound pretty good – we all want those things for the kids and the schools – but at the expense of teachers?
What happens, after you’ve taught 15 years, and another economic crisis hits, and they decide that you’re too expensive to keep? Are you going to say at 40 or 45, “Oh well, that’s ok, I can find a new job doing something else or at another District making entry level salary.”?
And what if you got along great with your current principal, but the District transfers a new one in that you just don’t see eye-to-eye with, and he or she starts a campaign to discredit you and get rid of you?
Shouldn’t there be someone to fight for you? And, considering that the District has considerably more money that you do, how are you going to afford the fight?
I’m not sure what you mean bye “attorney triage”, but every teacher deserves to get proper representation – if you feel under represented, then I suggest that you contact CTA – they only way things can change is if you try and change them.
Post #269 – Membership is voluntary. Become an agency fee payer.
Post #274 – One of the major problems is the District’s (Principal’s) failure to properly document poor teacher performance. They just don’t do it.
Until a fair merit system is developed, the issue of holding teachers accountable for student’s test scores doesn’t seem to be fair. Even the best of teacher’s can’t always reach all students. Unfortunately, you can’t play musical chairs with the students in order to find the right mixes for the teachers – the teacher has to work with what they are given. And if little Johnny (or his right-wing/left-wing) parent KNOWS that they can get ride of a ‘notorious’ teacher by ‘throwing’ his tests scores, then what protects the teacher?
It’s sort of like discipline in the classroom – students, especially older ones – KNOW that the teacher can’t really do anything to them. They can’t yell, they can’t hit, and they can’t swear. The teacher can threaten to call home, but if the parents don’t care, then it’s an empty threat. If the teacher threatens expulsion or suspension, it only works if Administration is willing to back up the teacher.
I agree that lazy incompetent teachers shouldn’t be protected year after year, but why shouldn’t someone hold the District responsible for properly documenting performance deficiencies?
You seem to forget that all of these older teachers that you would like to see go, were just like you at one time – new, fresh, idealistic, teaching because the care, teaching because of the value they give to society and public service. Teachers have never gone into teaching because of the financial rewards, but longevity, experience, skill and knowledge are rewarded – thanks to the work of SAEA/CTA/NEA. And there is no ‘privilege’ that comes with being a union member.
I hope all of the RIFs are rescinded and you get your wish – to stay where you are.
Post #292 – I’m not sure where you got your information, but the union did not push the district to adjust the seniority list – this year or last – and the union isn’t in collusion with the district. The union gains nothing by helping the district.
If you are angry about what happened last year, think about all of the teachers on the opposite side of the argument – the district made promises to them and they worked under certain assumptions, and when they were told that it was all a lie, they went to CTA and, CTA having already fought this battle up and down the state, forced the district to do exactly what every other district in the state is required to do. CTA made sure that all districts treated all teachers the same when it comes to offers of employment. Why should teachers in OUSD be treated different than SAUSD?
SAEA didn’t and doesn’t take sides on the Bakersfield issue. Bakersfield stands on it’s own and it was CTA’s decision to pursue this course of action. SAEA doesn’t favor one group over another. In fact, it wouldn’t even make sense for SAEA leadership to do that – all of the members of SAEA leadership were hired just like you were – with permanent credentials – so by all rights they should have been inclined to favor teaches like yourself.
I understand your anger and frustration, but to hold your SAEA responsible for the strategy used by CTA or it’s attorney, doesn’t seem fair – SAEA didn’t have a say in any of it. Hold CTA accountable – share your frustrations, concerns and suggestions with them.
Post #298 – That the district doesn’t comply with its own policy or Ed. Code is an issue with the District. Again, SAEA had nothing to do with what criteria SAUSD used to determine RIFs.
Post #326 – First, you are only partially right – CTA’s attorney, Carlos Perez, had nothing to do with last year’s rescissions. But SAEA leadership worked with SAUSD to help them identify things that SAUSD could do, allowing SAUSD to rescind jobs. It wasn’t all SAEA’s doing, but without input from SAEA, it would have been business as usual for the District.
And, why are you blaming SAEA for the ‘ridiculous rule that incompetent teachers with seniority have to be retained over competent teachers with less seniority’? Neither SAEA, CTA nor NEA have never advocated that incompetent teachers, regardless of seniority, be protected. They advocate for the equal treatment and protection of all teachers and their rights. They demands that SAUSD document and prove the incompetence of the teachers that SAUSD wants to fire.
In spite of what you think, SAEA cares about every teacher – RIFd or not.
One final note, I’m not a union thug or employee. I get nothing out of advocating one way or another, I just think that while your frustrations and anger are real, they need to focused into positive action for change. Unfortunately, I think you cast your vote for the wrong candidate, but regardless of who wins, your issues and concerns are important and need to be addressed.
sojourner truth,
According to Google Analytics, this thread has had “10,064 unique visits” since January of this year.
And that same software reports that we had over one thousand unique visits to our site over each of the last two days.
Also, over 57% of the visitors to this blog are new readers. And over 30% of our readers read more than two pages per visit.
So yes, a lot of folks read this thread and this blog.
Remember that typically only ten percent of blog readers actually leave comments…
Anyone go to the board meeting on Tu? If der Bishop is going to Sierra, it must be as a teacher or AP, since I hear another name was approved as P of Sierra…and what about the RIFs? Did they vote on finalizing them? Anybody attend?
1.All association members today received some more bad news from SAUSD ( Re: Notice of Salary Reduction 2nd letter). Our Salaries will be reduced by 1.5 for 2009-2010 ( 3 staff development days). Ya Basta ( Enough is enough)
2. Our association has contacted CTA legal department to challenge this notice of salary and win fight it.
3. The district is going to send out letters confirming 497 plus RIF’d notices according to ED. Code by May 15, 2009. What happened to the Federal Stimulus money to bring back the RIF’d association members and save their jobs.
4. Intermediate schools eight period and this has created problems for our association members.
5. Intermediate school creation of new report card and more problems for our association members.
6. What happened to our District reserves and why is this money not being spend to save jobs.
7. Association members, Classified Association members and our community the time has come to stand up and protect your children and our students education. I know that our association is planning to oganize but we must do it now.
Shall we make signs and post them in windshields and protest after school. The time is now and hold our district responsible before they make further budget cuts that affect our association members (SAEA) and affect our students of SAUSD.
8. E-mail our school board members and let your voices be heard.
Robert C. Chavez ( Candidate for President SAEA)
Sorry for the mispelled word win instead of will.
First, our status changed here:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/layoff-employees-budget-2387926-state-year
California
Is school counseling mandated for grades K-8? No; (Yes for grades 7 & 8)
Is school counseling mandated for grades 9-12? Yes (Grades 7-12)
Mandated School Counselor-to-student ratio: None
Source of mandate: Education Code
Who funds mandate? State Budget Act
Other: The California State Budget Act of 2006 (AB 1802, Chapter 79) amended the California Education Code to ensure that students in grades seven through twelve receive counseling services
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/cg/re/documents/counselguidelines.pdf
source: http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=535
So, school counselors are not mandated in grades K-6 but will be using the stimulus money to retain their jobs. I understand that they need them (are mandated) in grades 7-12, but they shouldn’t be keeping them for grades K-6. Is the Union doing anything or saying anything about this?
Question: Are music teachers mandated in the state of California?
Can stimulus money be used to keep non-mandated programs?
Can someone please explain why we didn’t see the administrators who were RIF(ed) in the newspaper OCReg? What is going on with that? I saw one of them at the hearing, Matthew Cruz, an administrator, but his name is not on the RIF(ed) list for the newspaper. Does anyone know what they plan to do and why they are not included in the lay off process?
Does anyone know why those elementary teachers were rescinded? (referring to the list in the OCREG) (see teachers rescinded)
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/layoff-employees-budget-2387926-state-year
Just simple questions, not complaints. If anyone can answer, I would really appreciate it.
NTK — You obviously wear union blinders. That you don’t think you do does not make it less true for anybody who reads your posts. In my view, you lack credibility and your efforts to come across as objective fail because of your obvious pro-union bias. You seem to have way too much time for SAEA propaganda. You need to get out for another three mile run. From the SAEA offices, a couple of trips around Main Place and back should do it.
Though you deny it, it appears that you work at SAEA, or at least work very closely with people who do work there. I don’t have the time for this blogging that you do, and I lack confidence that I could change entrenched corruption and conflicts of interest at SAEA even if I did.
Conflicts of interest, you ask? Yes. There are some of us, believe it or not, who don’t want to protest the 1.5% pay cut because we want to save our jobs. We also realize that nothing meaningful was ever accomplished on those buy back days anyway. Let the district have that money. Will SAEA hear our voices? No. Another conflict is that SAEA had a role in forcing the district to produce a Bakersfield list. David Barton bragged about it in writing. Go back and look at his president’s letters from last year if you don’t believe me.
Additionally, you neglected to explain in your lengthy response to me why SAEA does not rally the community, inform parents and organize them to protest against rifs, advocate for riffed teachers at Board meetings, or adopt any of the successful stragegies used by the teachers’ unions in L.A. and Pomona to save so many jobs. You claim the leadership of SAEA cares. I don’t agree. In seven years of experiencing the rif process, I have never felt any empathy from SAEA. It was slightly better during Tom Harrison, but Barton, Mercer, Isensee, and the rest of the current leadership come across as insensitive, cold, and even hostile.
Got the letter from Barton and Russo (conveniently on the same day). I am ok with leaving this district, but I just wanted to say a few things.
1. SAUSD is making a HUGE mistake cutting CSR trained reading teachers.
2. I will have the last laugh when the state takes over. If you think scores are bad now, just wait.
3. I have noticed a lot of corruption and I will be doing an extensive investigation for my next blog about it (stay tuned). Consultants, contractors, administration, hidden costs, and the lawsuits that they have been spending the money on.
I do want to say that I have met a lot of wonderful, hard-working people in this district. It was great working with those people.
The board members continue to vote on waste, hidden expenses *yes, EVERY board member and this will all come out when I do the investigation. Stay tuned!
I have nothing to lose by being let go from this district, but I have everything to gain! 🙂 I mean that honestly.
Rif Rif, I’m with you. David Barton can kiss my a**. Good riddens. Just a suggestion if you can do it: I don’t even read the posts that are trying to convince us that our feelings are unjust and immature when we are the only ones who know how we feel, if that makes sense. They don’t know what or how we are feeling, so just ignore those posts. 🙂 Feel free to keep on venting (I’m listening you you and most likely feeling something similar). I do feel your pain. Just let them vent as well, whatever they are venting about *maybe too many stuffed envelopes with RIF notices. (Grin) Have a good evening! Consider it a blessing to get out of this district if you can…good things await you.
Appointments at last night’s board mtg
Bishop to Sierra as Principal
Dennis Cole to Willard as Principal
What about Spurgeon? I hear the lunch lady they appointed as temporary Principal is a complete disaster…Kids getting mugged, legs broken, police supervising lunches…can this be true?
779- Welcome your new principal the lunch lady, sorry to say.
Well, lunch hour at any of the SAUSD is a fiasco. I know at our school we have 3 classified helpers walking around with a rag while the kids are running around bopping each other and throwing food. Maybe the school district will need to be hit with lawsuits before they wake up. If any parents are out there reading this, please visit any school in the SAUSD at lunch and witness the biggest fiasco around…kids hitting and acting like they were raised by zoo animals.
mom and dad gave them a cell phone, an ipod, and psp, but forgot to teach manners and respect. I think we should invite the parents to lunch
Not happening at my school I have to say. I was being facetious regarding the lunch lady principal. The temp to replace the last principal at Spurgeon has been named the new principal, in case that wasn’t clear.
So who is the new principal at Spurgeon?
People, I am so upset tonight… I couldn’t sleep so here I am communicating, or at least trying to. I just had a thought we need to publish the names of the people that were bargaining for us and approved leaving us out of supplemental retirement benefits!!! Can you imagine what we could have done with the money we will have to contribute to ensure we can cover the possible hip replacement, etc… Good bye to traveling! What eats me up is knowing that the back stabbers who work less than we do (after all they are constantly out of the classroom entertaining their little lives with their own personal SAEA agendas) will have the money to travel when they retire. No, we will have to use our money to supplement our medical insurance because the bankrupt Medicare will cover but generic treatment and medication IF at all. I hope each and every one of you that approved the CBA loose as much sleep as I do, but you probably can’t. Yo don’t have a heart. I have a hereditary condition and know that I will not be able to pay for my medication for 13 years! I had the same coverage as you, but you signed my benefits away. I told everyone to look at the fact that we were being lied to; they didn’t get anything in return for my sacrifice. Isn’t it true that the District is now annoucing that they are going to cut our salary? How ridiculous is that tacky Power Point presentation you did SAEA? Didn’t I tell you? They left the Wages Article open to negotiation! I want us to post the names of the traitors. I hope we distribute the names and underline that we should not vote for any of these traitors again. Back Stabbers!
For tmare 740,
tmare you make me sick! how dare you say that we should not be talking about our benefits and what we are about to loose! You keep trying to deviate our focus on the problem and possibly finding a solution to the backstabbing by SAEA. Namely, cleaning house and voting all new people to represent us! Yes, we need to put attention on our problem and finding a solution to the abandonment SAEA has exhibeted. We could possibly begin to look into asking a new Union to come and represent us! You instead propose to have us talk about how books are being sent to the library early this year! WHO CARES!!! Have a heart! And have some shame. At least PRETEND to have some solidarity with your fellow teachers!!!
It would be nice if more people could at least pretend to care about something other than their benefits, let’s see, something like, the students, maybe? While I understand you have a beef and it is something you care deeply about, I guess you make me sick a little also because you fail to realize that there are many other issues out there.
#778 District Employee,
Bishop being moved laterally – not up -but sideways seems to indicate something positive for teachers at Willard and something a bit more ominous for Bishop.
From the very beginning of these SAUSD threads, there were 3 sites with terrible principals – Willard, Saddleback and Valley. Two of the three schools have since gotten rid of those principals and now Willard.
Does anyone know how stable the staff is over at Sierra? If they have an experienced group of employees, then Bishop should have a hell of a time trying shit on them. But if the staff has had a lot of turnover and turmoil, then Bishop will be able to undo that site, too.
Willard folks owe it to Sierra to warn them. Once Bishop is gone and you can relax a bit, make sure you post his misdeeds so that Sierra will know his tricks and downtown will have a good idea of what his bad patterns look like.
No one is going to give power to you. You have to take back your power every day.
If you would like to remain completely anonymous, please consider making up a throw-away account, send me or Art an email with your observations and we’ll repost for you. rvixen@gmail.com
As always, anything written on OJ may or may not be true, but some of the most persistent problems have been revealed and born out here.
BTW: I sent an invitation to CSEA to repost their printed information materials for their members to our website and have received NO reply.
Though there seemed to be some behind the scenes discussion on if they should do it or not. How about a “sure” or a “no thanks” instead of scurrying around like a bunch of chickens and rats?
It’s been pointed out that probably the real reasons both unions don’t want any dialogue is that people will find out that non-representation of members is a chronic problem. That, and litigation that is pending.
Union Members = S C R E W E D
KTN,
In your opinion, do you think that SAEA board members really want to create a functioning dialogue between members, reps and their board? Could you give examples?
Also, do you think the current elections could have been run better?
Thanks for your consideration.
Red Vixen (#790) In your opinion, do you think that SAEA board members really want to create a functioning dialogue between members, reps and their board? Absolutely YES!
But your question asked ‘want’ – not have they or what have they done, so I can’t necessarily give examples of what they ‘want’. I will think about some examples of (1) things they have done to try and improve, and (2) some thoughts on what they could do in the future – and I’ll post later on today.
Also, do you think the current elections could have been run better? Absolutely YES! I think things like this can always be improved upon. I think that once the dust settles, and all of the issue have been aired, I think you’ll see some simple, easy, fundamental changes – or at least I would hope so.
What experience does Dennis Cole have? Has he ever been an AP? Is he going right from the classroom to the Principal’s office? Which with 3 major overhauls is mighty nice at Willard compared to when Bishop started there! The writing was on the wall when he wanted to take over a section of the nurses area to make a “Teacher Discipline” area! That says it all.
Oh, and Willard had a fairly stable faculty when he started as well! Goog luck, Sierra. Stand together and communicate because the first move will to be to restrict your ablitity to compare notes and then to go after the first teacher he wants to get rid of. With no nutrition and 3 separate lunches at Willard it is tough to stand and support each other. Add that almost half of the teachers aren’t tenured and there you have the lambs and the slaughter. Only the blood was on the backs of the kid’s education. There’s a whole block of kids I doubt will ever complete high school.
Mr.Dennis Cole is currently an Assistant Ptincipal at Villa Fundamental. He brings a wealth of experience with him from what I’ve heard.
The cost for benefits after 65 will be easily over $600-700 a month probably that is without dental or vision. That is by today’s standard. Just research it. Some states have a concierge style medical plan for retirees where most everything is covered that starts at 11,000 grand a year some states do not even offer a comprehensive plan. The current state of Medicare is changing though and will be gone. I don’t want to count on the “state” to take care of me, so I am starting an account now for twenty years from now, just for insurance, it may well be over 1000 month, who can accurately project. It is a tremendous concern. We all carefully look at the brochures during open enrollment, don’t we, now we are told that something we had needed to be given back, that’s why it is called a give back. So yes the SAUSD and the SAEA did take away future benefits (secondary). I think we could have all pulled together and voted NO–but fear has a way of making people do uncharacteristic behaviors. I laugh and cringe at the same time when the union folks say “but you didn’t lose anything, really, medicare covers this or that. Well we all know that except for one person on the negotiating team, that they will get THEIR benefits when it comes time for their retirement. 1440 are affected, if they had all vote no–this would not have passed. Like I said before it is over, time to move on but I too, spent a couple of sleepless nights, MEGA you are not alone. What I don’t understand is why did they not update us on negotiations. Where were are SAEA leaders during the process.?? We go one update during the negotiations about this issue was mentioned briefly in very unspecific terms. We should all have been marching down at that union office and in front of the district. I agree with the tone of the SAEA they seem to get upset when you ask questions about things they agree with but you don’t. They act like the members don’t or can’t get the information, so they will just take care of it for us. Well thanks a lot for the lack of medical benefits. ” We will fight against long term solutions to short term problems” that was SAEA’s spiel–well we know where that got us…up the proverbial creek. Start saving ,you post May 1999 contract signers.
Has any other riffed teacher noticed how Need to Know fell uncharecteristically silent when asked tough questions about SAEA’s apathy about the rifs. Need to Know was all too eager to spin a bunch of issues regarding the patheticness of SAEA in SAEA’s favor, and then answer those questions in a lengthy, confusing, and defensive response. But why can’t the following question be answered by Need to Know or somebody else in power at SAEA:
Why doesn’t SAEA rally the community, inform parents about what is happening, organize parents to protest against rifs, advocate for riffed teachers at Board meetings, challenge the massive reserves carried by the district, or adopt any of the successful stragegies used by the teachers’ unions in L.A. and Pomona to save so many jobs?
rif- have you noticed anyone having much success rallying the community and organizing parents?
http://snipurl.com/jobsearchjill
I made a job search site for those who will be laid off. I will be adding to it. Let me know if a link isn’t working. Good luck! We need to have a plan B and a plan C… ALWAYS!
#796 — Yes, like I’ve said repeatedly, L.A. and Pomona, where all but the jobs of the probationary teachers in L.A. were saved. And it’s never been tried in Santa Ana. Maybe it would work here. Your question sounds like an attempt to justify apathy. Do you work for SAEA also?
I have another question for anybody who can answer it. On the SAEA web site, David Barton states that SAEA will be challenging the 1.5% pay reduction associated with the elimination of the buy back days. I for one never thought much of anything worthwhile for students was accomplished on those days. Also, as a riffed teacher, I would like to see the union let the district use the money that it would otherwise spend on the buy back days to hire back some of the riffed teachers. I am sure many riffed teachers, and even many non-riffed teachers who care about students and their colleagues, would agree with me. My question then, is how is it not a conflict of interest on the part of SAEA to challenge that reduction when the reduction is in the interest of a substantial number of the members?
Mr. Cole is currently an AP at Villa. A fundamental school. Now I also know he was a dept head at Sierra. He has no clue what he is stepping into at Willard and frankly I feel bad for him! Detentions for dress code versas suspension for drugs and weapons are two different things. Notice I said suspension as expulsions for such “minor” infractions no longer count. You can assault a teacher and be back in the classroom in a week!
Of course on the flip side there are two teachers there who assaulted students and still have a job!!
I would have to agree that IF the money for the staff development days can be used to save some teachers jobs, then by all means, do it. These days have been worthless. However, on the other side, it now appears that without these days, we have 1 day to prepare for the school year (and we all know that most of that day will be spent in meetings). Where did the other prep days that we used to have go? If we end up with only one day, I think it is essential that the teachers send out the message that we are NOT going to come in and work for free in order to prepare our classrooms (teachers have already expressed that they would do this and it is hard to resist the temptation). It is definitely the wrong message to send that preparing for an entire school year with brand new students only takes part of one day. Again, I do not have a problem giving up the 3 days and using that money to provide for teachers (and consequently, students and our class sizes). Has anyone stopped to figure out what the class sizes would be if anywhere near the number of RIF’d teachers are actually not returning in August. Even with the 20:1 cuts and the return of BRT’s and district people, we are talking about an incredible increase in class sizes, something that is completely out of our contractual limits (which of course, many of us are experiencing already during the last few years). Get ready guys, this is going to get very ugly.