On Two-sided story: Schools, parents debate twins’ placement

Posted on August 31 at 5:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Allow me to reiterate something that was said before: It is not the teachers who made this decision. It was administrative in nature. Teachers have very little input as to which kids are assigned to their classrooms - and teach all who are assigned. Please address your criticism toward administrators and not teachers.

On Charter to carry Big Ten Network

Posted on August 27 at 1:58 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I'm pretty happy about getting the Big 10 Network - although my wife may not be as pleased. Up until now when a game was on the network I would just listen on the radio and do some outside work. Now I can flop in front of the tube.

This network was far more important to me than the NFL network. Big10 carries lots of live events - not just recaps, reruns and talking heads. NFL has, what, 6 games per year???

My location has obstructions to the south, so satellite is not an option. This is great news for me.

On Edgerton High to drop block scheduling

Posted on August 26 at 7:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Once again quality education takes second place to the bottom line. How sad for Edgerton. Lowering the standards is not going to make the American system more competitive. What is really needed is a longer school year - 190 days instead of 180. But they can't do that, either, because (a) the State will not allow a start before September 1 and (b) they can't afford to pay teachers the extra 5.5% for the extra days.

On Proposed rule would disenfranchise voters, cause election chaos

Posted on August 26 at 1:01 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

The people who oppose voter ID are generally the ones benefitting from the voter fraud. They claim that producing and ID is a hardship. Even when those in favor of voter ID have offered to provide ID's free of charge - the process of having to go get the ID was somehow too burdensome. Yet these people who cannot go get a free ID are still able to get to the polls to vote!

On Is bike tunnel the best option?

Posted on August 22 at 2:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

BBB - the trail follows the greenbelt, so the design obviously followed that instead of roads.

---

Ride today took me through that intersection once again. I stopped and waited about 10 seconds. Cars stopped and waited (thanks!) and I went with no problem whatsoever.

On Milton teachers, district reach tentative contract

Posted on August 22 at 2:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Well, draxtrey, let's do the math...

----

Now when I hire a baby sitter it is about $5/hr for the first kid and $3/hr for each additional kid. Give them a class of 24 (a low example) and you'd be talking $77/hr. 8 hours per day that is $616 per day. 180 days per year comes to $110,880. Seems like pretty underpaid babysitters if you ask me.

----

I'm sure you are welcome to get the education and take the job if you think it is so great.

On Is bike tunnel the best option?

Posted on August 21 at 2:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

It was a waste of money the first time I heard about it and is a waste today. I crossed at that intersection yesterday (on my bicycle) and had (as usual) no problems at all. I waited about 15 seconds for traffic to clear and went slowly and easily.

----

The "safety" concern here is really a way of rewarding impatience. Joggers and bikers (I'm both) who cannot pause their workout for a few seconds to cross safely. Drivers who ignore flashing yellow lights because they don't want to have to slow down for a few seconds to allow people to cross.

----

Solution: Police enforcement. Ticket every biker who fails to stop. Ticket pedestrians who dart out into traffic. Ticket every car that runs the flashing yellow - failing to yield to a pedestrian. Do this for a few weeks and watch the problem go away - plus make money for the city. At least try it before spending hundreds of thousands on this so-called "solution".

On Fee plan takes root at Rotary Gardens

Posted on August 21 at 2:39 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Let's put this in context. We have a community that is experiencing a major economic downturn. That, combined with inflationary pressures from fuel and food prices has drastically reduced the amount of disposable income for most Janesville families. I understand that it takes money to keep the gardens looking so nice, but in an economy like this, something like a $5/adult fee is enough to keep people away in droves.

----

My family goes a couple times a year to visit the gardens and they are very nice, but at $18 per visit, I can honestly say that we'd avoid it. We usually drop a fiver in the bucket each time - but they'd lose that income as well.

---

Keep the gardens free.

On School district's insurance costs questioned

Posted on August 17 at 4:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Rock (Bill) - I said the DISTRICT is, in essence, stealing. Not you, personally. (Hey - I don't even live in the Janesville School District, nor do I or any of my family members work for the district, so I'm outside the situation all together). But if the word "stealing" bothers you so much, I'll change it to "failing to properly remunerate".

----

Clearly we just disagree on the interpretation of school funding law. That is the basis of this whole dispute. I wouldn't bet a nickel of my "way more than any teacher" (nice try) salary on any court decision (because that is what will eventually happen here) - even one that was deciding if water was wet or not.

----

The bottom line for me comes down to the fact that the teachers were promised "X" dollars in compensation. The district didn't deliver and pocketed the difference - to the tune of $8 million. Now, PROVIDED the teachers didn't sign away their rights to this in their contract (which you have claimed they did), then they'd be entitled to that money.

-----

A question: If expenses had exceeded revenues in those year, would you have increased premiums the following contract to make up the difference? Of course. Would that increase have had a dollar for dollar corresponding decrease in teacher pay raises? Of course - because the QEO School Finance law would have allowed it. So if costs went up- it would have come out of (future) teacher pay. Why when costs go down does it not work in reverse?

On School district's insurance costs questioned

Posted on August 17 at 2:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Rocksolid (Bill) - Sorry if you're taking it personally, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

----

Now, I can't address the specifics of the Janesville teacher's contract. If the teachers did indeed agree to a provision stating that all extra insurance savings would be returned to the district - then the discussion is over. The shouldn't be allowed to go back on that one.

-----

I'm still pretty sure, however, that your thoughts on the QEO & School Finance law and their application are incorrect, so sorry, but the "F" stands. Since the bargain was done using terms and costs according to the law, the entire contract is, therefore, under the law. When the district calculated the "cost" of the contract, the percentage was reported, according to the law, as a package that included wages and benefits. Because that package met or exceeded 3.8% (and the teachers agreed to it), it was legal. With the savings on health care, the package didn't actually pay out what was agreed upon. I'm not sure if it is now under a 3.8% deal or not, but it is less than agreed.

-----

Let's put this another way. I agree to pay you to mow my lawn, and feed you as part of the process. We agree on a total compensation of $30. $20 will be in cash, and the other $10 in food. For whatever reason, I do feed you, but only with $5 worth of food. We agreed on $30 worth of compensation, but I only gave you $25 worth. I claim that I don't owe you the other $5 because I was able to save on the lunch and that savings is mine. The agreement, however, was based on the total value of the package. I delivered the cheaper package and pocketed the difference. Is that OK?