Tim Burke is back at it, trying to save Farmington School District taxpayers from rising costs associated with budget shortfalls. Yesterday he suggested, with backing by a similar suggestion made by Governor Tim Pawlenty, that all Farmington School District administrators making over $80,000 a year should agree to a voluntary pay and benefits freeze for the next two years:
RESOLUTION
A resolution calling on ISD 192 administrators to voluntarily agree
to a salary and benefits freeze for the 2009-2010 contract year.Whereas, ISD 192 is planning for no increase in state funding for district operations in the 2009-2011 biennium; and
Whereas, the district finance director estimates that the district will need to use more than $400,000 dollars of its General Fund Reserve in the second year of the next biennium; and
Whereas, the district is yet to negotiate contracts with several employee bargaining units that will affect the next two budget years; and
Whereas, the administrators of several Minnesota school districts have already agreed to forego salary and benefits increases or accept reduced salaries in the coming budget year; and
Whereas, the Governor of Minnesota, speaking in Farmington on March 9, 2009, called on public employees to accept frozen wages and benefits for the next two years; and
Whereas, the Farmington School District has the highest school property tax rates in the area; and
Whereas, the Farmington School Board has recently voted to raise property taxes still further to fund ongoing obligations to retired and future retired school district employees; and
Whereas, such a voluntary action as is urged by this resolution would be a demonstration on the part of the affected employees of their understanding of the difficult financial circumstances faced by many in our school district and by the district itself; and
Whereas, the Farmington School Board has agreed to freeze its own salary for 2009; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that School Board of ISD 192 urges and calls upon its administrative employees who are not represented by a bargaining unit and who will earn more than $80,000 per annum in base salary for the contract year that began in 2008 and ends in 2009, including, but not limited to, the superintendent, assistant superintendents and directors, to voluntarily agree to
1. Forego any base salary increase for their contract year that begins in 2009; and
2. Forego any increase in benefits increases for their contract year that begins in 2009; and
3. Forego the initiation of any new benefits for their contract year that begins in 2009.
There have been plenty of examples of other Minnesota school districts doing the same thing including recent news that Bloomington’s school district administrators agreed to save the district $15,000 by accepting a salary freeze, Moorhead’s school district is hoping to save some money by considering a soft-freeze, a salary freeze has been recommended in District 112–although they do have some unique issues themselves which have brought them to that point.
While I understand people’s frustrations in not wanting a pay freeze for any employee, especially when times are tough and taxes are higher, I think it’s at least something employees funded by public dollars should consider.
Do you think that the relatively small savings that come about because of admin salary freezes are worth it? Should administrators be willing to voluntarily take a salary freeze while their citizenry may be taking pay cuts or even be without jobs? Go ahead and comment on, I’d love to hear what you think.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
March 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am
While the cost savings may not be significant overall, I see it as a blatent marker of making a point. Its the fact that someone making a fair share of money realizes “Hey, I’m OK now, we need to fix our ‘system’ before I get another fat raise to spend on a new set of Ping clubs and Nike shoes for the course..
Acknowldegment of the issues at hand vs. greedily sitting behind a desk grabbing whatever perk comes your way is the first step in correcting our economic woes. If this concept was followed in our higher levels too, colleges, state congress, politics as a whole, it would be a monumentous step in the direction of morality and ethics, and considering others.
Having said that, I don’t make over 80 grand, nor do I work for the school system at a high-level. I’m an underpaid IT Professional who will grab any monetary scrap thrown my way!
Back to working for the Man.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
At this point, who isn’t funded by public dollars? With bailouts seeping out and “stimulus” packages flowing freely, aren’t we all publicly funded?
That said, with tongue in cheek, of course, salary freezes are a good idea in the current economic and political climate.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Um – . . . Bill – did you really say,
“While I understand people’s frustrations in not wanting a pay freeze for any employee, especially when times are tough and taxes are higher, I think it’s at least something employees funded by public dollars should consider. “???
So, if I interpret this correctly, then EVERYONE in the public sector should be ready and willing to bear the economic cross, for EVERYONE else – not in the public sector. Is that about it???
Now there’s a real load of Bullshit!
March 10th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
IW,
I worked for the state from 2002 until 2008 and I didn’t see why people were all up in arms over the fact that they were under wage/hiring freezes. You know going in that you’re funded by taxpayers and, in the loosest sense, they get to dictate what you do and how you get paid. If you don’t like it (and I didn’t like a lot of things regarding state employment) then you leave–I did.
*shrug*
March 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I think it’s a good idea, unless they’re overdue for an increase. Assuming they’re not, then I think the freeze is fine.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Bill, et al – I worked in the public sector, and one of the things that used to just drive me up a wall was when someone got pissed, and yelled, “I pay your wages! You’ll do what I say!!!!”
I’m betting that the people who are going to agree with your previous statement will NOT be in teh public sector, and those who disagree will.
BTW – The real way to balance the budget is to have everyone who works in the non-public sector to have their wages frozen. They have been making far more than the public employees for a long time – time to even up the score!
Cheers
Irving
March 10th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
IW,
Being that the private sector is currently being plagued with massive layoffs and/or large pay cuts (most people I know have a wage freeze this year and two have just taken substantial paycuts [8 and 10% respectively]).
You’re overreacting a bit to what I said and I’m willing to hear you out but from what I’ve seen already, it seems a little ridiculous to hear you spout the same old tired crap that always comes from the public sector.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Irving, the proposal is referring to people making over 80K a year, so these are well-paid administrators, not the people doing the grunt work. Not to mention that the private sector is doing a good job of imploding spectacularly on its own and doesn’t need anyone’s help. :)
March 10th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I have to agree that this is the type of proposal that makes sense. If you look to the private sector, many companies are laying people off, cutting bonuses and perks, freezing pay, and in some cases even stopping 401k plans or at least suspending employer matching on retirement plans. Pension plans are being underfunded or collapsing entirely.
To think that all this can happen in the public sector and none of it will spill over to the private sector is kinda short sighted.
A spinoff of this is the obvious point that as everyone (public and private sector) makes less money, there is less tax revenue. Less taxes mean less funding for the public sector. Something has to give.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Tim – That’s not what Bill said. He said, “. . . I think it’s at least something employees funded by public dollars should consider. ”
Maybe I’m a bit sensitive – . . . maybe.
Cheers,
Irving
March 10th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
IW,
You are.
As I said above, nearly everyone in the private sector is taking pay cuts or outright losing their jobs while unionized employees are under contract to receive wage increases.
At the Burnsville City Council special work session tonight they demanded that city staff go back and meet with the unions to get the unionized employees to go back to 2008 salary levels otherwise everyone else is going to suffer at the hands of the unions.
While I don’t agree with THAT statement, I do agree that everyone should realize how fortunate they are to even have a job these days.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:06 am
In general, the concept of a union to protect workers from being exploited at the hands of greedy capitalists is a good idea.
In practice however, I think at times like these the unions need to realize that if a company or community is in trouble, if they dont make concessions similar to what thier non union counterparts are making, it will cause huge problems. Its at least a contributing factor, if not the major factor in the current catastrophe that US automakers are facing.