Leadership, Leadership, Leadership???? Where is it????

As a taxpayer, I am torqued! The school board and administration waited until the 24th hour to make an offer to the teachers for consideration. It is rejected by 70%. It will cost us $220,000!!!! Hello, ISD 112 is anyone awake? When there is a cost of $220,000 you do NOT wait until the 24th hour! To me, this is the icing on the cake and not in a good way.

You exteneded the terms of the board members, you allowed a football coach to be hired that should not have been (I have no one at Chaska High School and heard of his questionable character before he started! And, I didn't ask!!!!), you set high school boundaries that are a huge controversy with a huge socio-economic inbalance, and the list goes on.

How many in district administration are responsible for this? Will someone PLEASE explain why you waited until the 24th hour for this proposal? Dave Jennings, will you PLEASE lead this School District until your final paycheck? By taxpayer appearances, you are not working and will be leaving our district in a shambles.

All I can say in summary, is that the $220,000 deficit from the state should come out of administration staff reduction at the district level. It should not affect our schools or the staff that is working to make a difference with peanuts!

No I did not sit in on any negotiations. My voice is spoken only as I have heard comments over the past few months regarding the lack of meetings and reasonable settlement from the school board and administration.

In defense of the union, it doesn't make sense to bring it to a vote if it doesn't even stand a chance to be approved. The union did right (in my opinion) to continue to negotiate toward something reasonble. The union felt this was as good as it would get as their voice wasn't heard by the administration and school board, so they presented it to the teachers for a vote. Failing by 70%.

Will the administration and School Board now listen?

My real point is the $220,000 that it is costing us, the taxpayers. It should have NEVER come to that, ever! Think of how $220,000 could have been spent for the sake of the children?

Shame on everyone.

Poor communication is the cause.
In today's economic times, everyone needs to wake up and start by thinking about others, instead of themselves.
I am proud that the school board has taken a strong stance in these negotiations and stuck with their principles which are supportive of the residents in the district.

The Teachers union has been trying to place themselves before and above everyone else. They want raises when economic conditions are terrible. They file lawsuits trying to keep eletions in odd numbered when voter turnout is low. They want more, more and more and they try to use all the sympathy tricks in the book.

At the same time the entire school bureacracy is large and should be trimmed back.

Maybe we need a few replacement teachers!!

I cannot believe the teachers can reject this. Yes I understand it is ultimately a pay decrease, but it is a lesser pay decrease than it could have been. With so many people unemployed I cannot fathom the discussion that brought this vote to completion.

Do the teachers or the union have some inside scoop that there is some money somewhere? If so we should all be aware of that.

I would like to see the Chaska Herald report more details as to why this contract was voted down. What is the Union promising and where to they think the money is? I also want to know where the $220,000 is going to come from.

I see several other school districts in the surrounding areas have settled and recieved way less than what was offered to our teachers. What's up with that?

Yes, 4 businesses closed. Yes, our tax base is going down. Yes, yes, yes. But blaming teacher demands?

I do not know the logistics of the proposal. I had heard a concern about teachers who spent $20,000+ to earn their Masters.

I do not know why serious negotiations did not occur until the 11th hour.

I do know the school district was aware of the $220,000 fine by the state.

I do know this is an absolute waste of money.

The Whole Story about the District 112 Contract Dispute

We know of several people who are teachers in District 112, schools of eastern Carver County, and feel compelled to bring forth the untold parts of the entire situation regarding the contract dispute. These teachers love kids, work extremely hard, and do everything they can to become better educators for their students. Like so many others, they, too, have suffered through the economic downturn. Conversely, this past year the district spent millions over previous budgets to implement new programs, curriculum, schedules and open new high tech state-of-the-art buildings. To absorb this new spending, the district implemented a teacher pay freeze aligned with health insurance contribution increases. At community meetings, teachers, students, parents, and community members at large, including many from the business world, warned the superintendent and school board that this budget was poor planning, and not what the community desired nor needed. All were ignored, the new spending was approved and the untested changes went into effect, causing huge new challenges and time spent for principals and teachers in implementation. Though some challenges have been met and solved, several still exist and through intense negotiations the district’s plan of a “hard freeze” with the teachers softened only slightly. The recent contract vote by teachers did not turn down a raise in salary, as publicized. Under the offer, roughly 20% of teachers would receive a “raise” predicated upon finishing a graduate degree during the two- year contract period which typically would incur individual loans to be repaid from their “raise” proceeds. The remaining 80% of teachers not pursuing the advanced degree requirement would lose significantly under the proposed contract. They would receive a one-time payment of $440 the first year of the contract, no salary increase the second year but would have to absorb a 10% increase for their district-negotiated health insurance the first year of the contract, with no assistance from the district. In the second year teachers would then expect a 15% increase in their health insurance premiums with the district offering to pay for only up to 10% of this increase. In addition, teachers are currently paying back their half of FICA deduction penalty incurred by previous District 112 miscalculations. One teacher put this into numbers for clarification. If the new contract was ratified they would be down $170 per month over a two year period. In addition, no hope was given for pay increases in the next contract cycle, but to expect continued double-digit increases in out-of-pocket health insurance premiums. A no vote would result in a take-home reduction of $260 per month over the same period. What a dismal set of options to vote on. They had to reject this in an attempt to protect their own families’ future. The teachers of District 112 are being unfairly criticized in the media and public for being selfish at the expense of the district’s children, forgetting that they also have families and financial commitments they must weigh in any decision. They have the right to fight for their families as any of the rest of us would. The district’s financial situation was precipitated by a school board made up of either unelected members who were appointed to fill vacancies or who were elected to a term that was to end in November of 2009. This board chose to increase the district’s budget by millions in bad economic times for capital expenditures expecting those who do all of the front line work of teaching, to pick up the tab. Why are these board members still in control months after their terms are up and are now in the process of selecting a new Superintendent? Why does district 112 have a Superintendent with absolutely no teaching or school building experience; i.e. has never been a teacher or an administrator in any school, EVER prior to his Superintendent position in Chaska, but has a very high salary. He also supervises an Assistant Superintendent that has extensive educational training and experience. Shouldn’t those positions be combined into one with the person with the educational training and experience as the Superintendent? Why does the “lame-duck” school board elect to keep the highly trained educational expert as an Assistant Superintendent while it searches for another “non-traditional” (no educational experience) Superintendent to replace the current one. All good questions in a situation that is too complex to simply blame those that do the lions share of the work for the least money.