[billiefan2000]

idea:

how bout cutting the ops board from 12 members to 10 would be a good idea.

seriously, why not merge 2 school board areas of ops with 2 others. I mean the teachers and staff at the schools unlike the school board actually does work.


district 11 could be merged into the 12 and 10 districts (split evenly district 11 among both areas)


and districts 3 and 4 could be merged into one. I nominate district 3 take over district 4 since they are the smallest of the board districts besides district 11


Omaha Public Schools - Board of Education - Subdistricts


================================================== ======

Schools perched on funding cliff

Teachers, assistant principals and teacher trainers could be laid off for the first time in Omaha Public Schools history.

The layoffs could lead to more elementary classrooms with students of mixed grade levels and to elementary schools losing assistant principals or the trainers who help struggling teachers.

The Omaha school board Monday voted 12-0 to start the process to decide which and how many of its 8,224 employees might lose their jobs over the next two years.

In addition to teachers and assistant principals, teacher aides, bus drivers, food service workers and maintenance staff could be let go.


The district has laid off such workers, called noncertified staff, in tight economic times. But it has not laid off teachers. Instead, OPS has relied on retirements and attrition to eliminate teaching positions when needed.


more... Schools perched on funding cliff - Omaha.com

[mattpoulsen]

I'm not really sure that cutting 2 board members will save much money.

I know its popular to bash the school board but they don't do it for money. I think if you'd look at their effective pay per hour worked they make much less than teachers and staff.

Don't quote me on it but I think their salary is pretty low. I'm basing this more off of my experience in other communities, but I'd be surprised if Omaha was much different. I'm guessing they make less than 20K per year.

[billiefan2000]

mattpoulsen, you are right. they do it for power.


look how long Jensen and Kratky and Tyree and Huston and McGregor have been on the board. decades.


heck, didnt one of the ops board members died in office last year of old age


some ops board members are on there for too long and their needs to be term limits.

same goes for the other school districts boards too.

[mattpoulsen]

I generally think term limits are a bad thing. We already have term limits. They're called elections. Clearly their constituents think they're generally doing a pretty ok job, or at least better than any alternative.

I think term limits in the unicam has generally turned out to be a bad thing.

Doing things like running a large school district takes some experience. I don't think you gain anything by forcing someone out with 2 or 3 decades of experience and replacing him/her with someone with no experience when you're doing it just for term limits sake.

I think when you're talking about the presidency of the U.S its a different story as he/she has the ability to consolidate power and you run the risk of turning into a pseudo monarchy. That problem doesn't exist in the legislative branches as the power is distributed over a great number of people. Same goes for the school board. I don't see a risk of consolidation of power in this case. So term limits are basically a way to force someone out that you don't like, which to me is anti-democratic.

At any rate, I just don't think cutting the board down or instituting term limits would help the budget crisis.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I generally think term limits are a bad thing. We already have term limits. They're called elections. Clearly their constituents think they're generally doing a pretty ok job, or at least better than any alternative.

I think term limits in the unicam has generally turned out to be a bad thing.

I agree.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

I generally think term limits are a bad thing. We already have term limits. They're called elections. Clearly their constituents think they're generally doing a pretty ok job, or at least better than any alternative.

In theory, you're right. However, in practice, incumbency has a huge advantage. That said, term limits don't seem to work either. People jsut keep on running for different offices. Maybe there's another solution that no one has thought of yet.

Do the board members get paid?

[mattpoulsen]

The board members do get paid, but not very much as far as I know. I can't seem to find their salary info but based on what I know from other districts and the salaries of state legislators and etc., I'm guessing it's less than 20K.

[billiefan2000]

what do you bosco?

you want a anti-semite like Ernie Chambers back in the state legislature




term limits is good cause we have some people who seem it is their right to have a almost lifetime position for whatever they are elected to

seriously, thanks to term limits we get some new ideas and bright new faces in the unicameral.


if term limits work for the president, they are okay for other elected offices. that and do we want a Hugo Chavez like govt. were people can run non-stop or basically hold a office for life




the school boards (who most of the seats in ops) run unoppossed could use term limits


that or maybe in 2012 there become people who are comptent and good at running against

Jensen and Morrissey and Drickey and Borer and Gray and Huston


cause the folks who ran against Huston and Drickey and Jensen in 2008 were a joke when it came to their campaigns.



(no offense to Ryan Hinsley and Molly Hunt-Spisak and Greg Mahloch who maybe reading this. I was hoping you guys would have won but your campaigns were terrible.

I btw hope you plan to run again in 2012, you try to have a better campaign this time around

[billiefan2000]

OPS could cut 224 jobs

OPS could cut 224 jobs - Omaha.com

[mattpoulsen]

Billie,

You might not like Ernie Chambers but his constituents sure did! Why shouldn't they be allowed to elect who they want?

Term limits serve a different purpose in the case of the Presidency. There is no risk of a congressperson or state legislator of consolidating large amounts of power and basically taking over the government. That risk does exist for a perpetually elected President.

The only reason term limits is argued in the case of legislatures is as you put it "to bring in new faces and ideas." Well, I don't think that's a bad thing but when you're doing that you're taking someone else's right away to vote for the person that was already there. Let the voters decide.

To me, term limits simply creates a situation where you constantly have relatively junior members in place with little practical experience. To me its a recipe for a lot of bad legislation.