As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
Double Pay out of your pocket
Mendham:
Town Stuff:
SCHOOL ISSUES >>:
Double Pay out of your pocket
     By Voltaire on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
Where are all the nitwits who were crowing about the pay/salary contract dispute at mendham twp elementary school ?
Daily Wretched posted (if not months late as usual ...) the story on the interim superintendant AND the old one BOTH being paid while no reason was given for the departure of the first ...
http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/articles/news4-feh nout.htm
Another Brilliant Board Decision !
There has also been NO discussion of the fact that there are personnel changes afoot for the same board .. and a general lack of interest in anyone new joining (or even running). |
| By $148,000 BS on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
From where I was sitting, the most visible "nitwits" in the contract dispute discussion, were you and some 12 year old defending mommy's right to get over paid. Nobody in that discussion was defending the existence of a school board, it's silly off-season elections, or any individual serving on the school board. As with the contract dispute all parties directly involved in "this circumstance of incompetent administration" are guilty of "serving the public" by keeping them ignorant and confused.
The whole rotten edifice of corruption and graft that controls public education (the teachers' union) needs to be torn down. In my opinion the system is futile and incapable of serving our best interests as a community or as a nation.
Kind of related to this discussion (ie. property taxes) I have "voluntarily" accepted a request from "The Silver Brigade" to provide them with a website. I don't know if they will embrace the idea of on-line discussion, and if they do I suspect it will be more tightly moderated... but it might provide enhanced opportunity to discuss what needs to be changed, and how to change it.
related subject |
| By V on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
No surprise you once again failed to grasp the point.
For the Dim Witted:
The BOE made a foolish decision first by proposing paying new teachers MORE than some exisiting teachers. An objective 3rd party compensation consultant was engaged and pointed out the obvious, that the BOE was completely wrong and unfounded in proposing such a singular and nonsensical pay arrangement. After much ill will, and off topic jackasses like the admin chiming in with off subject remarks, the plan was scrapped and the BOE was sent back to their ignorant shame, having lost on all points. (at the expense of hiring a 3rd party to spell out the obvious)
Now, 2 salaries are being paid to Superintendants with no explanation.
So - regardless of Admin's continued off topic and losing remarks (see his asides in the Daily Record debate), the BOE has once again made a short sighted and expensive decision.
Surprisingly, no one wants to join the BOE at this time.
PS - because you cant often grasp the obvious - I will remind you that you and the bud cans sect lost the argument completly .. me and the youngster whipped you. You were wrong wrong wrong - but by now you are used to it, no doubt. |
| By TimeWillTell OnYou on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
| Everyone who supports paying dull, tired, unenthusiastic, uninspired, COMPUTER ILLITERATE artifacts who are for all practical purpose just experienced failures --twice or three times as much as an always more engaged and passionate "new and improved" teacher-- raise your hands. Seeing no hands-- but Voltaire's ugly claw -- let us agree that in a fast-changing world "teaching" is a young person's profession and "experience" really doesn't have much value. |
| By V on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
No one agrees just because you keep saying it. You may as well pout that you cant live on the moon.
Perhaps one day there will be some technology / internet type educational support and as I said numerous times before, a supplimental tool. As for now .. the only "tool" here is You !
hee hee .
go fish |
| By BetterTool ThanFool on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 10:48 pm: |
| So using technology as an efficient replacement for the expensive "archaic redundancy" built-in to the union controlled educational system is as impractical and unrealistic as living on moon? Is your head as flat as the earth you see? |
| By V on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 11:42 pm: |
#1 - you overstate (repeatedly & contrary to science & knowing) the "power" and role of any Teacher's Union.
#2 - off topic again |
| By It'sBroke SoBust it on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
quote:contrary to science & knowing?
Who did you steal that line from, George Bush or Dan Quayle? I bet it will persuadieate a lot of readers.
I think a fair reading of the post history demonstrates that it is you who drags the debate off topic with irrelevant personal attacks. In truth this subject was off topic as soon as you posted it, as it was built on the false premise, ie. that the BOE had some legally viable choices when confronted by the resignation of the superintendent. (Did they?) It is the fact that the kowtowing BOE doesn't individually contract with service providers (teachers and superintendents) but instead contracts with an extortionist collective (THE UNION) that they likely had little legal right to handle the situation any differently than they did. |
| By spelt owt on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
Once again, you make a judgement on your (false) assumptions.
AND you act as if the "Union" 1.) has anything to do with this (it doesnt) and 2.) as if the "Union" has imposed its will by some strong arm tactic (it hasn't).
The fact remains ... the point of this topic that I created is that the nitwits (you) who were so emphatically denouncing the "teachers" for not wanting more money as you typically overstated, but that they objected to the ridiculous new pay scheme (and of course, won) - These nitwits that denounced this are now silent as more considerable money is wasted on the separate paying of 2 superintendants. $100 an hour is INSANE. And somehow, certain simpletons will no doubt conclude that this figure was extorted by the (in this case bystanding) "Teachers Union" .....
Smart ... good planning. Smart. |
| By OneTwo EatYourShoe on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
As to the "are now silent" stuff : That may be, at least partially, my fault as around the time I had to change hosting companies (and unfortunately had to change message board software) I did post a link somewhere to this Observer Tribune article-- unfortunately I guess that post and any comment to it got lost in the transition. I also remember a post somewhere where someone pointed out that some other school district (Parsippany?) had more successfully negotiated a rebalancing of pay more favorable to new hires. ... Than there is also the problem of this websites unpopularity /invisibility...etc
Regarding my "(false) assumptions": Besides "science and knowing" can you prove my assumptions wrong with any evidence? have you seen the contract with the teachers' union? does it have any stipulations regarding what superintendents will be paid? In my opinion, public servants should not be hired, or be hiring, in an atmosphere of secrecy. Like you, I think paying a temporary superintendent $100 an hour is preposterous nonsense. I also think paying a permanent replacement $140,000 (to run a grammar school) will likewise be preposterous. I don't think there's any public constituency advocating for overpaid administrators-- this ludicrous pay scale has to be an engineered contrivance of some narrow constituency that has an interest in making the public pay too much for too little-- I "assume" that interested constituency is the overpaid deadwood of the teachers union. |
| By Done on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
And as usual .. in your silent isolation, where no one bothers to tell you anything at all, you would be and are wrong.
For the last time.
The BOE made ALL of these decisions. And for their "efforts", as I have maintained all along, they should be dismissed, for their continued display of gross incompetance.
No one becomes a teacher to get rich or be lazy and if you really think that, then, truly, too hell with you. BOE members become so because they have stupid selfish agendas, and that is that. |
|
