harley21:

To the best of my knowledge there was no premium holiday taken this year (08-09) because the budget actually came up a little short this year (final numbers are still coming in). I am also relatively certain that if a premium holiday is taken, then no one has their health insurance premium share deducted from their paycheck. I believe that this provision is in all of the contracts.

Sincerely,
Bill Sodemann

rocksolid,
Did the administration and/or custodians receive a pay holiday this past year for their health premiums? If so will the teachers ever get this?

While I will not go into detailed arguements or do anything that appears to be negotiating here, I do want to point out one fact.
***
The district removed $3 MILLION from the insurance fund at the start of this year's cycle. Done some time last summer. If this $3 MILLION was returned to the insurance fund it would not be underfunded this year it would again be over funded.

Sincerely,
Jim Reif
JEA

samueladams:
First of all, I do take issue with phrases that you have used such as the district "overcharging" for health insurance or "incorrectly" setting the premiums. It implies that the district has intentionally done so and I have mounds of evidence to prove otherwise. This past year we "under estimated" the claims and will face a deficit. All of the consultants that we have talked to have confirmed that they would have recommended the same or even higher premiums than what was set.

The reason that my HRA plan is ideal is because it is very straightforward and does not add to the tax burden of the district nor the recepient. If we take your proposal - adding the surpluses to the salary schedule (rather than one- time to a debit HRA card), the taxpayers would be paying that bonus every year in addition to annual percentage increases. For example, if there were an extra $100.00 available per person as a result of claims being less than projected - under your proposal that same $100.00 dollars would end up costing the taxpayer about $3000.00 over a 20 year period!

The reason is that the $100.00 would be in the salary schedule for all 20 years, plus it would increase at the same percentage as future settlements. If we assume a 2% annual increase (historically it has been higher), that $100.00 would total $2430.00 after 20 years! (I finally get to use the math minor that I got in college!) When you also add the FICA tax 7.65% along with the WRS (retirement fund) of 12.3% (and rising) along with other taxes such as unemployment etc., you can see how the $3000.00 estimate is obtained.

Also under my proposal, we would never have to ask for any money back from JEA if claims were high because the HRA bonuses are paid out of a reserve fund that could never be in "the red".

Finally, on your prospective that you are getting a NEGATIVE increase because you would not get credited for the additional year worth of service, guess what - I do not know of any company that is automatically handing out raises just because someone has another year of experience. Your comments of "did I not teach this year", or "did I not grow this year" - wouldn't those comments apply to anyone in the work place?

Unfortunately my employees had to take actual pay cuts in addition to paying more for their health insurance and having other cuts such as fewer sick days. They were not insulted. As a matter of fact, they were grateful and even recommended larger cuts. In that light, I do not understand how you or JEA can be "insulted" by a freeze proposal that still allows increases for lane movement and a small increase in the second year.

Sincerely,
Bill Sodemann

JohnDoe, your arguement is to simplistic.

The issue comes that we bargain a total package. I'll use simple numbers as well.

Say I offer you $15,000 total package to do job, but since you have to stay out of town $5,000 of that will go for room and board. I get to set that amount, so now you get $10,000 and a room to stay in. Sounds fair, but it's NOT fair if I know it is only going to cost me $3,000 to take care of room and board and then I pocket the $2,000. You just got shorted $2,000 are you still okay with that?

Year after year after year, (9 of the last 10 years) the district has made millions off of our insurance by OVER CHARGING US from the start. This year they took $3 million out of the fund at the start of the year.

That's like me taking the $2,000 off the top before I even put you up in the room. Is that fair? If the district didn't over charge us every year and thus lower our salary every year, I would not be upset.

I feel the money should be put in a separate account that way when the district over charges and lowers my salary I have a chance to get it back. I don't think that having open honest accounting by putting the money in its own account is to much to ask.

I know this is a simplistic analogy...but I think it gets the point across.

Do the teachers bargain for the insurance benefit or the cost of the insurance benefit?
In most cases, it's the benefit that is bargained for.

Let's say one bargains for a vehicle (insurance benefits) and a tank of gas (premium) per week as part of their contract. The BOE gives them a Cadillac with a 30 gallon gas tank. Gas costs $3.00 per gallon / $90.00 per tank. The vehicle gets 10 miles to the gallon and you drive 100 miles per week. Life is good.

Then you decide that since you are not taking full advantage of the 30 gallons per week you could be using...the BOE should give you an additional $60.00 on your check because of what you are "saving" them.
Is that fair?

Or perhaps the BOE discovers that they can get a good deal on a Malibu with a 10 gallon tank ($30.00 per week) that gets 30 mpg. But again, since the mileage is better, it is only costing $9.99 per 100 miles as opposed to $30.00 with the Cadillac.

Even though the terms of the contract are fulfilled, (vehicle and 1 tank of gas per week) do you feel the BOE "owes" you either $60.00, as in the first scenario...or $20.01, as in the second scenario because of what you are "saving" them?

Because that is what the JEA is trying to sell to the taxpayers. And, quite frankly, we aren't buying it.

If in fact, you are bargaining for the COST of the insurance benefit, rather than the benefit itself, then I would be all for giving you that dollar amount and let you buy your own insurance.

Mr. Sodemann,

I've read your proposal and personally think it is a decent starting point. I would prefer the Edgerton model. The way I understand it is that every January the board and Edgerton teachers sit down and determine if the fund is over or under funded. The salaries are then adjusted for the following year. The advantage to this is that teachers' retirement is based on their salary, giving the money to teachers in some form of a health account is better than the current formula, but not as fair as adjusting salaries. It is afterall the district that is incorrectly setting our premiums so by over estimating the premium and giving the money back to us not in salaries you are NOT negotiating a total package.

As to the negative salary offer, I'll admit that is based on prospective. I currently have 7 years in the district, by our current contract I would move to 8 years on the pay scale, by "freezing" me at 7 years, you take away the year of experience I put in this year. Did I not teach this year? Did I not grow as a teacher? By taking this year of advancement from me, you are costing me over $1,000 (I don't have my contract on me). To me not getting a raise I'm due by our current contract is a NEGATIVE salary offer.

I appreciate you asking for open meetings!

Speaking for myself, and what I hear from teachers, I think a zero percent offer with putting insurance money in a separate account (discussed above) REDUCING professional developement hours that have little value (I could choose to learn to put songs on my I-pod) and listening to the JEA's other concerns about working conditions would have passed.

Unfortunately, the majority of teachers in my building where so insulted by the district offer, that window may have closed. I'll have to see what report I get from the JEA team in September.

I personally am voting NO on any offer that does not put our insurance money in a separate account. I'm tired of the district making MILLIONS on our insurance.

Dear samueladams:
To respond to some of your statements.

1. As to how the district and JEA can share in the risk/reward of the health insurance premiums, I proposed a solution to this problem during the last negotiations and have done so again. I have given Dave Parr, Stan Milam and anyone else who was interested a copy of what I presented to the board. If you or anyone else would like a copy of the "Sodemann HRA Proposal", just send me your email address and I will provide you one.

2. I cannot comment on what was discussed in closed sessions but I can tell you that I was a proponent of having the negotiations "open".

3. It is NOT TRUE that JEA asked for "no raise". In JEA's offer, they requested that the "economic parts" of the negotiation be delayed until other issues were discussed. That is something very different than saying that they requested no increase.

4. You stated that the board offered a "negative salary offer". Not true, the offer was a freeze in the first year and a small increase during the second year.

5. You stated that "the JEA team was willing to take a zero percent raise". Again, if this is the case, they have never stated this nor was it in their proposal. Your comment was the first time that I have heard such a thing.

6. You stated that the JEA team was "ready to go in February". For negotiations to start, JEA has to file certain paperwork. That paperwork was not filed by JEA until April 15th and not received by the district until April 17th.

In some of your comments, you stated that people should "get their facts straight" and "do their homework". I fully agree!

Sincerely,
Bill Sodemann

Previous comments are correct the JEA team through Mr. Reif argued for open meetings. I was also at the first meeting as a JEA member. The teacher's proposal is open to the public, infact the JEA team emailed the Gazzette and WCLO a copy of their proposal. It asks for improved working conditions: less low value professional development hours, more access to on-line classes, respect for after hour work that teacher volunteer for (clubs etc) and mostly HONESTY with insurance money instead of the district making roughly $3 MILLION dollars a year average over the last 5 years. The JEA just wants that money put in its own account and if the district has extra it goes to salary and if the district is short it comes out of salaries. What is wrong with that Mr. Sodeman?

Mr. Reif JEA lead negotiator argued for 20 min to have the meetings open. Mr. Jelka (the districts high priced lawyer on your tax dollar) asked to close it at the school boards direction. Why is that Mr. Sodeman?

Mr. E. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT and read the JEA proposal, we asked for no raise, we asked for better working conditions, more control over our carriers, and simple honesty from the board.

We were offered a NEGATIVE salary offer, less control over our carries, less time with our OWN children. The district's offer was simply insulting to me and 90% of the teachers I have talked to.

Mr. E do your homework and ask Frank Shultz for a copy of both proposals before you cause a rucus. The JEA team was willing to take a zero percent raise, the DISTRICT insulted them by their rediculous offer and from the reports I hear, the district team is not willing to move off their insulting proposal.

BTW our team was ready to go in February, do your homework and figure out why the district wasn't ready until May 18th. Maybe Mr. Sodeman can tell you.

A JEA member who LOVES to teach but is tired of being insulted by the board. I won't give my name because I like my school and I don't want to be transfered. (sorry Bill I respect your honesty of putting your name but this is a honest as I can be and stay at my school)

John don't worry, his of-the-wall comments are always without basis.

I read with much interest the comments on the WE THE PEOPLE blog and THANK commentators for reading and writing! Sometimes I do respond to an individual commentator via the e-mail on the Gazette website.

The assertion by "darwin1" that I did NOT know what I was talking about left me with a sense that I did NEED to clarify my credentials. Here is my response:

I was surprised by your (darwin1) assertion that I do NOT know what I am talking about vis-a-vis K-12 public teacher/educators.

I taught for 29 years at Parker HS, Janesville, WI. I earned two (2) Master's degrees. I was at the TOP of the salary schedule for Janesville teachers with a Master's when I retired in June 2000. Yes, I paid the tuition for the credits for my Master's degrees!

I understand the process for continued professional development. What is the problem with that?! My friends who are physicians, attorneys and other professions also must take continuing professional development. Should teachers - who CLAIM to be REAL PROFESSIONALS - not do the same?!

QEO did NOT prevent teachers from getting compensation increases while it was in effect! The LAW was a GUARANTEED ANNUAL COMPENSATION INCREASE of at least 3.8%! If there were a factor which LIMITED increases in compensation for local school district employees it was the STATE REVENUE CAP. The School District of Janesville settled at 3.8% OR MORE (usually MORE) every single contract after QEO went into effect!!!!!

Let's keep the dialog going... we need to focus on ISSUES. Personal attacks are dysfunctional, as I see it, "darwin1."

Gratefully & Respectfully,

Mr. E.

BE SURE TO READ THE JANESVILLE GAZETTE'S feature article today, "School aid cuts frustrate officials" with the valuable information about the School District of Janesville as well as Edgerton and Milton. For direct access, the URL is: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/O....

GLAD for the continuing discussion of this very significant public policy issue. I have been surprised by the comments indicating that such a PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE should NOT be discussed by WE THE PEOPLE - voters and taxpayers. WHY?! I would advocate that the real dysfunction in our WI state government is the CLOSED - SECRET negotiations, including on the WI State Budget for 2009-2011, rather than OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

Here we go... Mr. E.

Darwin1, again you try to declare [failing, but you try] that others don’t know things because you disagree. You previously claimed to be a self-professed socialist, how do you not understand that one of the basic tenants of socialism is unfairly distributed wealth; you state “Paying those without an education the same as those with an education only subsidizes the uneducated.”--- Do you not understand the meaning of socialism that you have professed to be a party of?

As an alumni (1980) of Mr. Eyster's classes, may I tell you of the man I know as a teacher, and of the world I know now. Mr. Eyster taught us many things within the world at the time we were living it. It seems that he is again doing so. Our family lives within the state guidelines, and are up for the furloughs. We are in the "family" of the Department of Corrections. The sanctions that are now against the state workers do not affect the educators in the Janesville School District. This is for your state workers. This is critical for all state residents to acknowledge. The very prison system that you all hold to keep you safe is at the same stranglehold that you are all afraid of for educators. If those same educators did the job that the educators prior to the WEAC and the JEA and all of the educators prior to 1980 did, would we have the over populations that our prisons now face? I do not know the answer to that, but I know that my grandmother as an educator would now be appalled at what the teachers (please note the differentiation) are conducting themselves. Even when I was in the Janesville School District as a student, I felt confident that my teachers were available to me. Can the students of the Janesville schools say the same today, or are the teachers too worried about what they can or cannot do according to their contract? Every segment of today's society must make concessions, why should teachers be any different than the single mother who is trying to feed her children, and has lost her job? At least they have jobs!
I was once a proud alumni of the Janesville Schools, and I'm sorry to say that with the attitude of the Janesville teachers and apparently some of the district residents, I'm, glad that I am not raising my children within that district's reach.

rocksolid: Why does the B.O.E. always want negotiations behind "closed doors?" What does the B.O.E. have to hide? After all, it's the taxpayers money you're playing with.

DKS - You are correct! That is exactly what teachers are asking for. Rocksolid could of cleared that up but always refuses to give the teachers some credit. Goodboy, you are also correct. The teachers wanted the negotations in public but the board said no. Why is that rocksolid?

darwin1 has no clue. Many people with degrees and continued education are currently layed off. Get a frickin clue. It is not just those who have no college degree. No raises for anyone. Until the economy is better and the school in not in a hole.

Everyone here is ASSUMING that the teachers asked for a big raise. Do we know what the teachers proposed? My understanding is that they are looking for improved working conditions IN PLACE OF salary increase. Maybe we shouldn't begin teacher-bashing until we actually know what they have requested.

yeah darwin - and everyone with a degree thinks they should make what an AIG exec should make... I didn't even catch your assumption - I have a degree

darwin1 - If you think the only people that are being laid off and losing their jobs are laborers with little education then you really need to do some research and educate yourself a little bit more.

Darwin - not in my gifts, wouldn't want to be a teacher who shouldn't be....too many of those already...

wjbecky, you don't wish for a job you get an education and get the job. A science degree usually helps. The problems is that every laborer thinks they should make the same as someone with a degree or a skill.

Since, you don't know what socialism is RAF. Your referring to communism Mr Military Welfare.

I have lots of teacher friends and I respect their work and believe they get good pay & benefits for the work they do. I also believe the knew when the started teaching that they would have to do continuing ed etc.. and what the pay scale was like. I would love to find a job with their pay & benefits and have to buy myself continuing ed credits....

Since when is a self confessed socialist worried about one level of society subsidizing another?

Mr Eyster really has no idea what he is talking about. First off, many teachers have advanced degrees that they have to pay for and are required to continue to go to school to maintain for licensing. Second, teachers are not allowed to go on strike. Third, the same QEO that gives them raises now prevents them from getting larger raises when economic times are good. Finally, many people are unemployed now because they were laborers with little education. Paying those without an education the same as those with an education only subsidizes the uneducated.

WE THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect Janesville and Wisconsin, think John Eyster should shut his mouth, pack his bags and leave this state for good. Oh yeah, right after he gives up his retirement that WE the taxpayers are paying for.

My CONCLUSION is that the GOVERNOR's recommendations put SCHOOL DISTRICTS and TEACHERS in a DIFFICULT position. Not only did the STATE back away from its TWO THIRDS commitment, but also removed the QEO. Perhaps the teachers union will RECOGNIZE local economic hardship and work with the SCHOOL DISTRICT to find common ground. For the RECORD John, you are a BLOW HARD when you weigh in and suggest no increase in the settlement. HONOR the process and let them find common ground and keep your NOSE out of NEGOTIATIONS.

The teachers actually requested that these negotiations be in public, but the school board side said no. The law says both parties have to agree, or it's closed to the public. Once there's an agreement, then the public has the right to know, according to state law.

I have great respect for the teachers and they deserve a decent living wage. But like the rest of us non-teachers, they will have to bite the bullet and fore-go or receive a small increase. The only thing I would ask that if these negotiations are going to be played out in the media, both sides need to tell the complete and honest facts. It isn't fair for the public not to know the truth about the benefits received in addition to wages and the cost of those benefits. Put out the info in a simple and straight forth manner not in the usual way that leaves one not exactly sure what was said/printed. We, as property tax payers have the right to know the full and complete picture of how our property taxes are used in this case. Is that too much to ask of the teachers, the teachers unions and all other participants in this? I agree that teachers are a major and important part of any community and they do deserve a decent wages/benefits to keep them or hire new but there is only so much money to go around. What services or jobs do you want cut back on?

Rocky:

I don't mean to quibble, but most of the settlements were above 3.8%.

Sincerely,
Bill Sodemann

I'm fine with a freeze of teacher salaries now....but when the economy is ticking along again in a few years and people are getting 5% raises, will you support corresponding raises for the teachers?

--

All those years in the 90's and early 00's everyone else was making huge increases and teachers were limited to 3.8%.

---

BTW - the AUTHOR sure likes to SHOUT a LOT!

I think I'm inclined to agree with NVgrf. It looks like your argument depends entirely on which way the wind blows.

Sorry, I didn't proofread that!

My take: The designation of state employee, no matter if you are an educator or a janitor, means you will suffer monetarily more than non-state employees. It is much more complex, but local educators have not as been financially punished as fellow instructors with during this latest budget process. Is this too simplified?

John: You made some great points. I think there needs to be some clarification regarding QEO law however. It did not guarantee a minimum of a 3.8% overall increase. It said that the district can AVOID BINDING ARBITRATION if it offered a minimum of a 3.8%. It should be noted that the school board has never implemented the QEO here in Janesville although there have been some settlements that were at 3.8%, which was undoubtedly influenced by the presence of QEO law.

For our democratic governor and democratic legislature to also now say that "local economic conditions" should no longer have the same weight in determining settlements is beyond assinine.

I always disclose my name in these blogs and I think it is also only fair that people know that "tedmlewis" is the attorney for the JEA that is involved with negotiaions etc. I appreciate that he used his real name in the blog but identifying his role would have been better.

Sincerely,
William J. Sodemann
School Board Commissioner

THANK YOU for the comments! I want to share with those interested additional information - documentation re. K-12 public educators and UW system public educators. I URGE that everyone read the statement by UW-Stout Chancellor Charles W. Sorensen - URL: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases.... THE WHEELER REPORT is "The Bible" for all persons who follow WI State Government. Each of you ought to take a look at it to ascertain whether YOU want to read it more regularly - URL: www.thewheelerreport.com. As Legislative Liaison for the School District of Janesville, I developed the habit of reading THE WHEELER REPORT as regularly as I read The Bible.

TGIF? Here we go... Mr. E.

It appears John, that you worked under Q.E.O. Your union helped you get the best settlements to survive its effects. Then Q.E.O. actually lowered the amount of money you could have had to save for retirement! Fairness? Are you benefiting from Medicare?

I took a tour of the state capitol last Friday, and the kids' activity book had an exercise called "Stuff The Governor into WEAC's Pocket." It was pretty easy to do.

Your recommendations would harm Janesville's kids, community and economy. Especially given the current economic crisis, we need the best teachers. Many great teachers leave this District, and a pay freeze would only exacerbate the exodus. Among similarly sized school districts, Janesville has the lowest average local experience. Over the past ten years, the average local experience for Janesville teachers has declined by almost three years. Teachers go to other districts that pay better and have better working conditions. Janesville's kids deserve the best teachers. Additionally, businesses that evaluate where to relocate look first to the quality of education. If you want to escalate an already high teacher turnover rate, then a pay freeze will do the job. But if you want experienced teachers who will give our kids the best education, and want a good magnet to attract businesses, then you should reconsider your recommendations.

And they say a leopard can't change it's spots. You truly are a "politican" John.