Rather than just delete the comments on the Facilities Thread relating to what the election results mean... I will be moving them here... so if you want to discuss the results post here... I will delete them from the other thread.
Keep the discussion civil! Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
I'm not ready to jump back into the planning process. I think I'm still in shock over the results last night. I truly believe that we had a better shot at passing a referendum with a more conservative BOE. The OASD has a $111MM dollar budget and there is a large voting group that will want to see the OASD work within. I feel this group will have a very difficult time supporting any referendum from this more liberal, spendy BOE.
Moved from facilites thread:
Posted by Anonymous at 12:57pm April 2
As far as your list. I think that lists like this got us in trouble last time. A list already exists and it should be referred to when looking at each school on a case by case basis.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 12:07:00 PM CDT
Originally posted on Facilities Thread: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 2:35:00 PM CDT
Anonymous 12:07, I don't understand your comments... what makes you think that the same 4100+ people who went out to vote for Tom McDermott won't also go out and vote for the referendum in Feb. 2009?
Most if not all the Monte/Schneider supporters said this election would be a referendum on the referendum (of course that was when they thought M/S would win). Now suddenly the results have nothing to do with what people think about the facilities plan. Could it just perhaps be that you are wrong in your assessment of our community, could it be that the majority of people who actually go out and VOTE, do support spending money on our schools and that you perception is off? Sure there are people who will not support a referendum, but what evidence do you have that those people make up a majority of the community or a majority of voters?
Originally posted on Facilities Thread: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:10:00 PM CDT
You may be correct, but I don't think so and I hope that the fab four don't think like you. If they do, this referendum and long rang facilities plan will make a turn for the worse.
The vote last night did not hit people directly in their pocket books. I blame the results on complacancy and a strong push by the teachers union.
We shall see.
Originally posted on Facilities Thread: powerful group! (beware)
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:45:00 PM CDT
cubfan said...
Now the results of the election are based on the push by the teachers union. I don't know what election you were watching but I did not see WEAC or any other organized group get behind and push any one particular candidate for BOE. The teachers themselves may have gone out and voted enmasse for a particular candidate but that does not mean the results are due to a candidates support from a union. The reality is that most of the voters such as myself agreed with the Northwesterns assessment that Ben Schneider is great at complaining but for 6 years has offered nothing but dissent and no solutions to the problems that any relatively intelligent person can notice. Michelle Monte made some valid points as well, but her history bemoans a "crackpot"...Since lemberger and McDermott were essentially on opposite sides as to the most recent plan, the only conclusions I draw from this election are: The voters had to vote for two people and McDermott and Lemberger were the lesser two evils; and, despite the claims of a strong coalition of a conservative base in the community, either the monte-schnieder base is not very solid, or they don't know how to vote...I would guess the former .
However, ignorant people often find others to blame for their losses, so go ahead and demonize the teacher's union...if your right, they are a very powerful group! (beware)
Originally posted on Facilities Thread: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:47:00 PM CDT
Regarding the voter turn out and comment about the teachers union, here is an excellent article i came across and wanted to share with you:
After reading Patricia Yana's letter (March 28) criticizing the current school funding system, I had to challenge her rationale. If not for the funding system as it is today, our property taxes would go through the roof, as far as school taxes are concerned.
The teachers' union would love to change things (especially the QEO) then they could go back to the eight percent and ten percent raises of years past. Under the QEO, the teachers receive a maximum of 3.8 percent raise. In today's times, based on their wages, I would love to receive such a raise. Ms. Yana states they need more money to put our children first. Taxpayers need to realize that 85 percent of the school tax goes into the pockets of faculty and staff via wages and benefits. That leaves five percent of the school tax dollar left. Not much to put our children first. It seems to me with the amount the union (faculty and staff) receives of each tax dollar, I too would love a tax increase if I were they. What private job today rewards service such as the teachers receive? Retirement at age 55 with continued health benefits to 65! Most teachers never seem to be satisfied with the compensation they receive compared to how hard they feel they are overworked (example, continually trying to reduce class sizes under the guise of benefiting the children).
My answer to the above dilemma is simple - increase class sizes back to where they were years ago; teach 180 full days of school; eliminate union "bright ideas" (short days, early out on Wednesday). Then we can reduce the amount of teachers needed. The money saved can be spent on the children, truly putting them first!
Anonymous 10:47
There are two factual errors in your post, first the QEO does NOT give teachers a 3.8% RAISE, it gives them salary AND benefits increase of 3.8%, with the majority of that increase eaten up by benefits, at times some teachers have actually had a pay cut because of the premium increase.
Second, you correctly state that 85% of the budget is for salary and benefits of teachers and staff, but then you have two errors... all of the benefit amount does not go "into the pockets" of teachers and staff... a percentage of that goes to the government for the employers share of FICA and Medicare as well as unemployment compensation payments to the state (the district pays the government the same amount for FICA and Medicare as the employee does).
You also incorrectly state "That leaves five percent of the school tax dollar left. Not much to put our children first." Any way I do the Math... 100%- 85% = 15% not 5%.
Now let's get this thread back to discussing the election results.
I know for a fact the union was pushing pretty hard. I got emails and phone calls from people who identified themselves as union members and gave their names, familiar to me as union members. They didn't just stick to the usual vote for so-and-so. They included false comments about the opposing candidates to include that one did not have all fo their children in OASD and the other had NO children in OASD. There was also a comment about preserving union negotiations.
I think it is safe to infer that such comments had an effect on people who received them. No one can tell to what degree of course. My concern is that comments about the opposition were not necessary and contributes to the dispicable reputation unions have to endure by nonunion people. Since it seems clear that the former leaders of the pack did not have such a strong following, why resort to such abhorrent tactics. I would think we are better than that.
Surmise all anyone wants. The elction was what it was. Now it is time t o get something done.
Ms. Thill, I certainly understand you are bias, as I believe your husband is a teacher, but I’ve noticed many postings which seem to show a growing concern for salaries and fringe benefits for union employees, mostly on your site related to teachers. My thinking is the public’s perception is their reality, and coupled with the ability to actually look up specific teacher information on the Oshkosh Papers DataMine area; we (anyone) can fond out exactly who makes what and what there fringe benefits amount to. My feeling is that as more of this information becomes common public knowledge, there will be less sympathy and/or support for any increases to the teacher salaries. You can see with the announcement that Mercury Marine is laying off 50 employees, Neenah and Menasha may need to layoff teachers and Appleton did lay off teachers the economy and most of us everyday taxpayers are unable to support much in the way of increased property taxes to add to the already very attractive salaries provided to our teachers.
Many postings does not mean they're being made by many people. If you come out of your cocoon you'll find many people in the district who support the teachers and even feel in some cases teachers are underpaid. The reality is if salaries and benefits concern people, it's not to the point where they're speaking out at board meetings. Just like no one showed up at city council meetings over salaries and benefits at budget time. Tuesday's election tells the whole story. Schneider has been bitching about salaries and benefits for years, even though he feeds at the public dole trough because his wife is a teacher. But Bennie boy got ousted Tuesday. So much for the public's frustration over salaries and benefits.
As for these calls you claim came from unions. It is a fact that Monte doesn't have all of her children in the district. It's also a fact that at least at one time Schneider had one of his kids in private school. Maybe he still doesn't. But even if you are correct that these calls were made, you can't possibly be naive enough to think hundreds of people voted based on nothing more than a phone call. There were lots of opportunities where candidates presented themselves and the school enrollment issue was discussed. Stop looking for excuses as to why your choice of candidates lost and move on.
“But Bennie boy got ousted Tuesday”
Hummmmm.....
Looks like there may have been a significant effort by the unions to get out the vote. And with all that effort, they only won by a couple hundred votes in a low turn out election.
I wonder how the referendum will be viewed by the taxpayers?
Reading the threads above I have a few random ideas.
- The comment by the union supporter calling Mr. Schneider “Bennie Boy” is why many people have low regard distain for union tactics.
- There are other ways to communicate to both school board and council members that do not require you to show up at meetings. Some people work shifts and find other ways to discuss matters.
- There is concern about holding down salaries and benefits because the council took the unions to arbitration. That’s about all they can do other than fire employees.
- The polarization on union and non-union hurts everyone. The union people need to understand that its not some huge “Wal-Mart” greedy corporation that pays them, its common property taxpayers many of which are really hurting right now.
Anonymous said "There is concern about holding down salaries and benefits because the council took the unions to arbitration." Um, that didn't work out so well for the city now did it, at least one union WON in arbitration so the city has to pay them what they asked for... if it goes that way with the other unions, not only will the city have to pay what they asked, they also have to pick up the tab for the arbitration...
A couple hundred votes or not, Schneider and Monte lost. Diss the numbers all you want. They couldn't rally enough people to get to the polls to support them. I don't beleive this BS about union phone calls either. If the union is so strong and powerful in motivating voters, what happened in February that the other 2 candidates lost? You're just jealous and making excuses. Sour grapes make a bitter whine.
i too received a live call from a teachers union member pushing the Mcdermott and Lemberger.
a small turnout coupled with a union push was in all likelihood the reason for the turnout.
i am a teacher and guess what- many teachers will vote for the candidates they think will benefit the teachers the most. but many will also balk at voting for referendums that will raise their own taxes.
Sorry but of all the calls received during the election not one came from a teachers union or any other group for any candidate. But so what if someone did make calls. There's no crime in that. It only means the winners' supporters took the election more seriously than those who lost. That's what elections are all about. The new board will not be as dysfunctional as it has been recently. Am happy to see Schneider and his stubborn negativity go.
I only have a minute here on my lunch hour but I just wanted to point out that the teachers union only contacted union members about the election (that may include members of the para's union as the two are connected). The call my husband received simply stated who the union had recommended and yhe date of the election.
I think if you looked at voter records (I have) you would be surprised at how many teachers and other staff do NOT vote in local elections.
I watched all of the BOE debates on TV. I found City Councilor Esslinger hosting a panel discussion for the benefit of his buddies, Shneider and Monte horribly inappropriate.
I voted for McDermott and Lemberger.
Yahoooo!
I agree the Esslinger forum was in poor taste and people saw it for the scam it was. Didn't help anyway. Guess Esslinger should stick to selling advertising and away from in front of the cameras.
I was reading about the Winneconne referendum and that it didn’t pass. I think that the voters in Winneconne might have approved it if it would have been like ours is in Oshkosh. Just used for repairing schools, no more money or benefits to teachers or staff. In Winneconne though it was to exceed the state cap and that some of the money would be used for higher wages and even more benefits. That’s what killed that referendum I think.
The article didn't say the money would be used for higher wages and more benefits. To quote the article it said "The funds would have covered ongoing labor, transportation and utility expenses. It also would have continued spending levels that previously had been approved by voters in a 2006 referendum to exceed the state revenue cap by $1.15 million per year."
"The funds would have covered ongoing labor..."
Sounds like it would partly be used for more wages to me!
Funny they didn't say..."It's for the kids" That line generally gets people to open their wallets...then the money ends up going into the teachers pockets and does nothing for the kids.
Might have got the thing passed though!
Ongoing labor doesn't equate to higher labor. People who put their own spin on things and make wrong assumptions are the reasons things are so misunderstood. Note: The other things all allow other monies to be used for programming. You also don't know what was included in the earlier referendum that would have been partially funded by this. Know your facts or call Winneconne and ask them before spreading gossip and innuendo.
Big deal. So you've got one rogue teacher in NYC. That has absolutely nothing to do with the election results here or any of the good things unions do. You union bashers will use any forum you can to spin your tales of woe.
Mrs. Thiel may need to start moderating again to keep this kind of thing from happening. Send the union haters the message that they need to stick to the topic or find some other blog to bellyache on.
Sounds like that school district should be more careful in its hiring practices.
Sounds like that school district should be more careful in its hiring practices. It also sounds like their a lot of weirdos applying for teaching positions there. Something else is causing their dysfunction, not the union. Speaking of dysfunction, you are also dysfunctional because you can't stay focused on the topic of school board election results. Go union bash somewhere else.
Well I'm disappointed that I have to turn Comment Moderation on but I told you I would.
This Thread was to discuss the School Board Election Results, not to post the same tired old comments about how unions are ruining the world. You want to go on ad naseum about that, start your own blog. Your arguements are the same time after time and I don't want to read them any more.
I find it interesting that presumably the same people who have been writing that Monte and Schneider would win the election, McDermott would be shown the door, the referendum will never pass etc. Keep coming back and are still soooo sure that the referendum will not pass. Well let's just say for one minute the candidates won because of the union effort (which I don't buy because the union has been far more active in other elections and were not successful) what makes you think the union won't put forth the same effort for the referendum?
I think the real message the election sent was that people are tired of the fighting and inertia on the board and saw Schneider as part of the problem and did not see Monte as part of the solution.
Will Mr. Lemberger bring forward a plan to keep all schools open?
I suppose Mr. Lemberger might very well bring forth a resolution to keep every school open, however, I think this first phase only replaces Oaklawn, while I guess you could technically call that a closing I can't believe Mr. Lemberger thinks "fixing" up Oaklawn is perferable to a new school.
If he were to bring forth such a resolution, I'd be surprised if it received more than 2 votes.
Mrs. Thiel: Could you please explain how many phases the facilities plan will be done in? The resolution that was passed by the board talks about 2 phases. But Michelle Monte has a new posting on her blog that talks about at least 3. Have I missed something or is this more of Mrs. Luchsinger Monte not knowing what she's talking about and spreading misinformation about a district that doesn't seem to want her?
Anonymous 2:48
Contrary to what Monte has posted on her blog, no one knows at this point how many phases or what those phases would be. Right now the board has voted to direct administration to craft a plan to take to a referendum that would replace Oaklawn with a new North side school, change the school for the Sunset attendance area from Read to the new school once it is completed and close Lincoln and change that attendance area to Read. The rest of the plan that team 6 developed would be looked at in the future to determine what the districts needs are and what future boards think the community would support.
So, unless Monte is a fortune teller, she doesn't know how many more phases there will be, how much they will cost or what they might contain.
Just out of curiosity, what is the fascination with Monte's former name? Is using it supposed to mean something or is it just another way to throw stones.
On topic, I saw the meeting from home and gleaned from the BOE discussion that the resolution was broken into two phases and Mr. McDermott proposed a third phase that was really simply taking a couple of elements of the overall plan and making them an immediate priority. Nothing else, to inlcude the total, changed. So, by my count, the plan had 3 phases and totaled about $65 million (unless the ONW is also full of beans).
marg -- The point is, the board has never voted on anything other than McDermott's amendment. As I stated before, the rest of the recommendation is still "out there" no one knows what will or will not be included in any additional phases, as the board has NOT voted on them, or even really discussed them. To say it is a 3 phase $75M referendum is to jump the gun. Maybe after 15 years that is what we will have, but maybe not, no one can know what future boards will do.
I think it is inappropriate for people to be out there stating their opinion as if it were fact. The fact is, the board is looking at a 2 question referendum in Feb. 2009, which is to include a new North side school to replace Oaklawn, repairs/additions to Merrill (primarily the Elem.) and a qestion to exceed revenue caps for $1.3M per year for 5 years to be used for capital improvements to buildings only.
The rest of the original 2 phase plan is "out there" to be reviewed and prioritized, but no one knows what that will look like and probably won't know for a couple years or more.
It was my understanding that the board approved McDermott's ammendment and also approved the rest of the long-range plan conceptually with the understanding that it was open to modification and further consideration.
Yes, Anonymous 11:14 you are correct...
Here is a link to the OASD Home page, you can find the resolution that was approved at the last board meeting there.
http://www.oshkosh.k12.wi.us/
(you have to cut and paste--sorry)
Here is the last paragraph of that resolution which is what I stated before (it is all on the table for consideration) and is what you have explained (open to modification and further consideration.):
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education hereby adopts the remaining projects detailed under Phase I and Phase II in the March 19, 2008 Staff Report – Executive Summary attached to this resolution as continuing planning tenets for future projects.
Who is up for re-election next year?
My quick review of the cast as it sits in the new operating year:
Karen Bowen: Seems like an excellent person who sometimes lets her emotion for certain passions jade her overall goal. I like that she wants to create a plan and move it forward even though she'll have to compromise to do that.
Dennis Kavanaugh: Not an effervescent personality for board president but certainly a caring individual who wants to move a plan forward. I see him as so passionate about the special needs population that he excludes a lot of other populations.
Dan Becker: Kind. Listens to our concerns at firehouse meetings. Asks a LOT of questions to the point of holding up progress at the meetings.
Wayne Traska: Vested interest in his children's education. One of only 2 members with kids in the district (I'm not sure about Lemberger); provides important insight. Seems ready to compromise but also never states outright what he thinks therefore spends much time running around the proverbial bush.
Tom McDermott: Sneaky (not necessarily bad). Came out with the card from his sleeve to propose a plan. Evasive regarding his stance on some issues. Unusually good listening skills, and obviously a great negotiator since he has to deal with teacher's union. Although I frequently disagree with his vote, I respect the way he sits on the board. I think he, more than anyone, understands the job of the school board.
Amy Weinsheim: I have never personally spoke with her or had online conversation since she has no email. As such, note this is not a personal attack, just observations. I find her board persona rude and distasteful. Rarely has useful input. Has children in the district so I assume she has valuable input from that regard. Open enrolls her children.
John Lemberger: ? Wild card. Seriouisly nice man. Seriously disturbed ideas regarding neighborhood schools. Really rather elusive: we have no idea if he is married or has children in OASD and he hasn't answered those questions.
This is shaping up to be an interesting year. I'll miss Ben Schneider on the board since he often had important fiscal insights, and no one else can claim the same.
I predict that this board may have a bit of frustration in their future. If they vote to push a ref. and it doesn't pass, there will be turnover in the next election. If they sit on it and don't get the ref. voted on before the next election then there will be turnover. If they vote and the ref. passes, there will still be turnover. It's a damned if you do year.
Just my ramblings,
M
Lemberger has answered questions about his family though you maybe didn't catch those discussions. At the end of the day, does it matter if he is married or has children in the district (they graduated from here, BTW, like the children of others on the school board). What is more disturbing to me is a school board member or wannabe who chooses to send their children elsewhere unless there is a very good reason (and I haven't heard one yet).
Here go the personnal attacks again... we all know who 3:14 is talking about. BTW I have heard the reasons and they seem quite justified to me.
As for kids in the district... there are THREE. Traska, Weinshiem and Becker.
We need to keep our facts straight folks.
My apologies to Mr. Becker. I did forget that he has kids in the district. I'm also glad to know the answer regarding Prof. Lemberger's children. Thank you to the poster who brought my attention to those faux pas.
I do believe that it does matter if we are electing members who enroll their children here. I also think it does matter if they have children currently in the district. It's about balancing the board to represent many groups in our community. We need some with grown children, some with school age children.
I do not begrudge anyone who feels that her child's needs are not being met by this district, and for that reason chooses to remove that child. I think it's good parenting. Since she is no longer running, we really need to move past this.
:)M
Sick and tired, you can call it personal attacks if you want but stating of the facts is not an attack of any kind - personal or otherwise. Also, you need to read more carefully. The poster clearly wrote: "What is more disturbing to me is a school board member or wannabe who chooses to send their children elsewhere unless there is a very good reason (and I haven't heard one yet)." A good reason is sbjective, depending on one's point of view. What may be a good reason to you does not appear to be one to the poster. A difference of opinion. It is a shame that instead of seeing that and accepting other people's opinions who are different from your own, you'd choose to come off as sanctimonious and call another's opinions and the stating of facts as "personal attacks." Might I suggest that it is that kind of thin-skinned, defensive posturing of Mrs. Monte or Mr. Schneider and their supporters that cost them the election, or at the least helped bring it about.
Since we are on the topic of BOE members:
I am the spouse of an educator in this district and heard various rumors about a candidate. Most were that she had NO children in the district. I chose to call her and find out for myself.
She has four children. One at Traeger Middle in the Autism Program and one at Traeger Elementary. She pulled one that was failing her classes and passed to the next grade anyway. She stated that her daughter wass struggling and needed extra help and opted to enroll her in an Appleton Charter to get caught up. She states their goal is to have their daughter ready for OASD high school after next year.
Her youngest is Gifted and we all know there is no real GT program here until Alps at 3rd grade, he's in first. She stated that due to behavior problems from boredom, they pulled him and put him in Appleton's charter which is self-paced. She says their intention is to get him to a level where he is not bored and return him to OASD in the next couple of years. Until last year all four of their children were in OASD.
Since I know one OASD principal who enrolls his children at Lourdes and we enrolled one of ours in private school because of a lack of GT program, I think those were good reasons. I would expect a BOE member to be a good parent first and her passion for our schools, whether you agree with her positions or not, is admirable too. Judging by my phone call with her, she is very articulate and very nice. She answered my questions and listened to my concerns.
I know Mrs. Weinsheim just moved to TOA, so I imagine she open enrolls to keep her kids in the school where they were previous to their move. Another reasonable choice. In past conversations with her, she has always been nice if not distracted (by what, I don't know, just an impression). Lately, she does not seem to want to be there. Also, my impression.
I hope Mrs. Bowen can settle down now that Schneider is gone. Her attitude has become rude and I do not think frustration with someone who doesn't think like you is a good reason.
I imagine, like someone else stated, that there will be turnover next year, but why dwell on that so soon. A lot can change in a year.
I think Mrs. Weinsheim's dress at the Oshkosh West graduation was inappropriate. She did not present the image of a dignified school board representative. She seemed to want to look like some of the young adults that were receiving their diplomas, rather than a professional elected official handing them out.
Post a Comment