School talks break down
JANESVILLE — Talks between the Janesville School Board and three employee unions have broken down.
People on both sides seem disappointed over the outcome. They had been scheduled to meet Thursday, but the meeting was canceled with no indication they would resume.
Talks were held with hopes by the school board that the unions would agree to concessions to help the district balance its budget.
School board member Lori Stottler said she had hoped the unions would have been willing to start paying at least a portion of their pension contributions, but the unions were not willing to discuss that.
"We've hit a point where this is a waste of time," Stottler said. "We did our due diligence, and we move on."
Janesville Education Association President Dave Parr said the three unions offered a money-saving change to their health insurance in exchange for the school board approving a new employee handbook that would go into effect in July 2013.
The employee handbook outlines work rules and benefits.
July 2013 is when the unions' contracts run out and a new law takes effect. The law allows unions to bargain only over wages. The school board will be free to rewrite work rules and make changes in benefits. At a minimum, union members will be required to start paying about 5.9 percent of their salaries toward their pension plan.
Parr said the unions' offer was to start a point-of-service health plan that would have saved the district 7 to 12 percent on health insurance, a minimum of $1.4 million next year.
Parr said he got those figures from the district's health-insurance consultant, Boyd Consulting.
But in a letter to the unions, school board President Bill Sodemann wrote that consultant Bill Boyd called the claim of savings "very arbitrary" and that "to rush into a new plan now would be detrimental and possibly very costly to the membership."
Parr said a point-of-service plan would be cheaper. It would steer members to one health care provider. If they wanted to go to a different provider, they would have to pay a 20 percent co-pay.
Sodemann also questioned the idea of approving an employee handbook now, saying it would take much time to develop one, time that is not available.
The two sides met under the terms of Act 65, which allows bargaining to save the district money while preserving existing contracts, unless both sides agree to changes. Act 65 runs out Feb. 12, so approving a handbook and allowing time for all the union memberships to vote on the deal would be impossible, said school board member Peter D. Severson, who took part in the first meeting last week.
"It would not be prudent to agree to make commitments to rush through a new handbook in exchange for possible, unknown, one-year savings on an insurance plan," Sodemann wrote.
Parr noted that other districts around the state already are approving handbooks, and the vast majority of those are positive, from the unions' perspective, so he would expect that any handbook approved here would also be positive.
Parr said he understood that the district could change the handbook at any time.
"Our membership is very apprehensive about this," Parr said. "The only thing we want to know is what our future is going to hold. … If it saves the district a ton of money, good gravy, I don't see the down side for the district."
But the unions appeared to want the handbook to reflect current contracts, Stottler said, and it would be unfair to approve a handbook now, only to make significant changes later.
For example, a future board is likely to consider reducing the early-retirement benefit, Stottler said. The benefit allows a worker to retire and trade unused sick days for health insurance that carries the retiree up to the date when Medicare begins. A future board could reduce the number of years of health coverage after retirement and save a lot of money, Stottler said.
It wouldn't be fair to mislead teachers with a handbook now and make changes later, Stottler said.
"If you are willing to discuss any other options, we would still wish to meet," Sodemann wrote in his letter, dated Tuesday. "If the unions do not wish to discuss any other options, then meeting on (Thursday) may not serve any purpose. Please let us know how you would like to proceed from here."
Stottler said that in exchange for a concession on pension payments, Sodemann gave the unions assurances last week, that as one of the most conservative board members, he would push to cover more of the district's budget gap with its fund balance, something the unions have called for.
Sodemann couldn't promise on behalf of a future board, but he said he would make it a priority, Stottler said. The unions met separately and returned to the table and said they were not interested in talking about pensions, Stottler said.
Severson said he thinks something positive can come of the recent exchanges: "I think there was some reaching across the table (last week) that hadn't happened in negotiations, at least that I've been involved in. I look forward to working with the represented groups, and we'll keep pushing forward to make this a better district."
"We are disappointed that the school district was not willing to look at saving money for the district," Parr said in a prepared statement, "but we will continue to work with them to do our best to maintain our high standards with the reduced resources that are made available for our students."
Jan 1, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
RETAIN WALKER - CALL HIM AND LET HIM KNOW OF YOUR SUPPORT.
Jan 1, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
The union asked to participate in the development of the handbook and have an opportunity to see what the district intends to use after the end of the current contract. The assumptions made by many people posting and possibly the School Board indicate true failures. The teachers did not make any demands, just requested a chance to know what is ahead in exchange for financial concessions. The dysfunction factor is very high in this community.
Jan 1, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
RECALL WALKER!
Jan 1, 2012 at 2 a.m.
Suggest removal
The result is the same, right?
It's all about the kids,no?
Jan 1, 2012 at 1:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
The difference is when a teacher voluntarily retires as opposed to having thier job cut out from under them.
Jan 1, 2012 at 12:56 a.m.
Dec 31, 2011 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Again would someone please tell me the function of these "consultants and how many of our treasured tax dollars are being wasted on them? Wouldn't it be prudent to get insurance quotes from the INSURANCE company and do a little simple math? Why we need consultants to perform these duties is beyond me. Pay a few HS math teachers a few extra bucks and figure it out, heck of a lot more efficient and my bet would be INCREDIBLY cheaper than hiring a private consulting firm!!
Chelandlou- Actually the early retirement benefit and sicktime payout saves the district money.
There are basically 3 ways to retire:
1) at age 62 with less than 30 years of experience and recieve 36 months of health (not dental or prescription) coverage
2) from age 55 to 62 with 10+ years in the district and a total of 20+ years in Wisconsin... this grants you 48 months of the same health (not dental or prescription) coverage
3) from option 2 you can BUY up to 48 addtional months by turning in unused sick days
30 - 39 days = 12 months
40 - 97 days = 24 months
98 - 129 days = 36 months
130+ days = 48 months any days over 130 are surrendered each year on June 30th
So, Mr. Sodeman is correctly explaining the early retirement except that if a teacher earns the 4 years the district recoops at least $16,250 in unused sick days ($125 per day for sub x 130+ days).
The district also makes money by replacing the experienced teacher with a less expensive unexperienced teacher. That generally means the district SAVES MONEY on early retirement for the first six years breaks even year seven and loses money on year 8, but that year 8 money is what the $16,250 is for.
Thx to Jim Rief for those numbers.
Dec 31, 2011 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Consultants are the same idiots that "project" defecits like last years..." Really? I thought those idiots were called "Administration".
Dec 31, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
username - nice try, but unfortunately there is the leftie side and then the leftie side. To coin a phrase from Metalica - AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
Dec 31, 2011 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ok...there is enough shame to go around for each and every party envolved to have their fair share. What needs to be done now is that we all grow up and look at how we can work this out. Enough of us against them. We are all affected by no matter what is done. I propose we look at the fairness for one and all. We can no longer maintain the attitude of "getting all" I can from the "man". Why? Because we are the "man". The citizen the tax payer of Janesville. Please both sides come to your senses and look at the "big" picture for once. I believe if we all work at it we can get back to the era of civility for our fellow man. God bless our community. Janesville is a great place to call home.
Dec 31, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anyone who even had the faintest idea that the Unions were serious about this must have been hit in the head with a stupid stick. Just more deceiptful ploys attempting to get public sympathy.
Dec 31, 2011 at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
1. The school board should look at various health care plans whether it be an HMO or point of service plan.
2.Why are the unions so quick to push through a new employee handbook? I do think the school board should look at it, 2013 is a year away why leave it to the last minute?
3.Eliminate the early retirement benefit allowing a worker to "retire and trade unused sick days for health insurance that carries the retiree up to the date when Medicare begins." That alone would save a fortune.
4.Sounds to me like the unions, or at least Mr. Parr, is a bit close minded as to saving the district money.
Dec 31, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
"It would not be prudent to agree to make commitments to rush through a new handbook in exchange for possible, unknown, one-year savings on an insurance plan," Sodemann wrote.
.
This reasoning actually makes some sense. Where was this conservative reasoning when Walker was rushing through radical measures with unknown and potentially detrimental consequences for public education?
.
The Protesters of 2011 might have to share the Person of the Year award with the Hypocrites of 2011. Those who stand with Walker do NOT stand for quality public education.
.
So long, 2011. Good riddance. Recall Walker
Dec 30, 2011 at 10:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Looking back on the article it looks like Soda and Parr are arguing over what some consulting firm said about savings? LOL, looks like we need this "consulting firm" to tell us that changing service plans will save us money? WHat I wonder is how much money are we wasting on consultants? Maybe we should spend less money on consultants and have HS math teachers do the budget crunching.
Consultants are the same idiots that "project" defecits like last years and allowed 112 teachers to get layoff notices only to be called back, due to mistakes made in projections that resulted in over a million more dollars that resulted in less useage of the fund 10 balance!!
Note to Boyd Consulting, GO CONSULT SOMEWHERE ELSE, I want my tax dollars spent on educators. NOT overpaid under worked consultants. IMO many of these consultants are theives stealing money. Where is the outrage on the Right about wasted tax dollars on these unnecessary expenditures?
Dec 30, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
bill, did you say the unions insist on big layoffs? WHAT?!
Dec 30, 2011 at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
No layoffs plug the hole with fund 10 then "take it to em" next year when the contracts run out.
What I wonder is who is Bill Boyd and why is his testimony even relavant here? Has the district hired anyone in recent memory that has accurately projected anything? By moving to a preferred provider would absolutely save the district money, to that there is no question. Where Dave Parr gets his number would be a good question to ask. And if they are accurate , it just shows that the Soda pop gang , which now seems to include Lori Stottler , doesnt want to save AT LEAST 1.4 million dollars? Even if its only 500k wouldn't that be a savings? WHat is with this my way or the highway mentality? There was never going to be concessions like Bill S and others wanted, nor should there have been. There will be threatened layoffs just like last year and most if not all will be recalled. Hopefully the district doesn't lose those teachers to other districts as they did last year. Many teachers flat turned them down.
Time to cut the crap with the PR campaigns, and get down to doing what they should have done all along, use fund 10 , to pay back those who built the fund, and just scew em over next year when contracts come due. Then Scott Walker and his supporters can smile when Janesville teachers have to take a 10% pay cut to fill the budget gap.
Dec 30, 2011 at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Keep cutting, pretty soon students will be teaching themselves. Get ready for teachers and students to get out of Detroit. Sorry I mean Janesville.
Dec 30, 2011 at 9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is shocking! Who'd a thunk it!
Ok, so the unions insist on big layoffs next year. But then, the year after, the school board can make all the changes it needs to and the unions will suddenly find wisdom in being reasonable. And will they cry foul when the school board turns a deaf ear, like the unions are now. That is, unless the unions can pack the school board with toadies during the upcoming elections as they always try to do. They are counting on that to head of the day of reckoning that they so richly deserve, I'm sure.
Dec 30, 2011 at 9 p.m.
Suggest removal
The BOE missed the boat big time!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.