Pittsburgh public schools (Penn Hills, Wilkinsburg, Fox Chapel: section 8, crime, income)

[Sideblinded]

She gave everyone substantial raises during an impossible time. The 141 equals one salary, not 3.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Sideblinded

She gave everyone substantial raises during an impossible time. The 141 equals one salary, not 3.

My reading is that the same amount of work is being accomplished and responsibilities shouldered by a department with three fewer employees and for 141k less in aggregate spending. Individuals are taking on additional responsibilities in a reconfigured department and being compensated to do so.

It strikes me that you're being too quick to criticize.

[Sideblinded]

It srikes me as a taxpayer that I am paying for overinflated salaries and layers of administration that is simply ridiculous for a school district with less than 26k kids in it.

I find it curious the 141 that is being saved was the about same "payout" to Mr. Bernick. (faux saving)

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur.../s_717252.html

"The check was one of three payments the district owed Berdnik as part of a $140,000 agreement paying him for accumulated paid leave, attorney fees and other claims"

I would rather my taxes went toward teachers & counselors.

With huge deficit looming, Pittsburgh schools look to cut back

"According to the acting finance officer, "We don't have money to pay salaries in September [2012] based on our current situation. By September 2012, we can't pay salaries, we can't turn the lights on, we can't pay the water bills or electric bills.
We can't pay the bus companies or buy books for students. We can't pay the bills."

You may call me quick to criticize, I consider myself a parent that keeps up with what is going on because I want to be able to send my child to a good public school.

[Lobick]

That's all well and good. Your statements clearly demonstrate why you're predisposed to rail against the school district, which is your right.

Being that there's reasonable disagreement with your position howerver, by more than one poster would seem dispositive that it's not the "most idiotic PR move ever", which was really my only point.

Feel free to keep wearing the tired mantle of aggrieved taxpayer.

[Sideblinded]

I am predisposed to be pro public schools! My parents taught public school their entire careers!

Can I wear I want my son to have a good public education shirt too?

By the way, it was a horrible PR move of epic proportions.

This is about educating children, not "talent management"

Is that you Derrik?

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Sideblinded

Can I wear I want my son to have a good public education shirt too?

I think we all want your son to have a good public education.

It seems to me that your obvious passion and commitment to his education will have vastly more to do with its quality than any decision made concerning the levels of staffing at the school district HQ or whether such a decision has any redeeming public relations value to you.

Your initial statement struck me as misplaced criticism when I first read it and continues to do so, but it's probably not worth the time we've both devoted to the discussion.

[Sideblinded]

I do care and I watch where money is spent and misspent.

I honestly want the best education possible for my child. I am a Mom.

We can stop discussing this, it is the same response I get when I call the district HQ.

[Sideblinded]

Deleted post, biting tongue, & punching a pillow.

Respecting YAC

[scrapp]

Originally Posted by Sideblinded

She gave everyone substantial raises during an impossible time. The 141 equals one salary, not 3.

It isn't unreasonable to compensate someone for doing extra work. But I don't know enough about the details of what those folks do to know if they have a reasonable workload and if their pay matches up to their output... so its hard for me to judge if Dr. Lane is being aggressive enough in cutting down what she inherited from Mark R.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by scrapp

It isn't unreasonable to compensate someone for doing extra work. But I don't know enough about the details of what those folks do to know if they have a reasonable workload and if their pay matches up to their output... so its hard for me to judge if Dr. Lane is being aggressive enough in cutting down what she inherited from Mark R.

I think what people are concerned about is that the employees that got raises will just allocate their time differently. Maybe, they are going to suddenly work an extra 1.5 hours a day. If so then they might deserve the raise. But if all of sudden they become more productive and can get something done in less time in order to fit in their additional responsibilities, then they haven't been working hard enough in the past and probably don't deserve the raise. The public just doesn't know which is true but they probably believe that latter is true.

Bascially, I think this was a bad p.r. move. The Superintendent should have just rearranged responsibilities without increasing salaries. Kind of tough to justify cuts when you are giving out raises to your buddies at the top.