Ann Arbor school district budget largely depends on outcome of negotiations with teachers union
Ann Arbor teachers union President Brit Satchwell says he remains optimistic his union and the Ann Arbor school district will be able to reach an agreement that will stave off teacher layoffs.
“We’ve been talking about concepts that guarantee solvency for the district,” he said during Wednesday night’s school board meeting. “(Teachers) will step up and take their share of the burden.”
What savings that agreement could generate for the district’s 2010-11 budget is just one of several variables still in play as the school board moves closer to a vote on its $183 million budget. That vote is expected next month.
Superintendent Todd Roberts discusses the projected layoffs at an earlier school board meeting.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
Other unknowns include the number of teachers and other staff members who will retire this year and the amount of state aid the district will receive.
The proposed budget crafted by the school district’s administration is set forth in two parts, depending on those variables.
The district is aiming to cut about $20 million from its budget.
The first part of the plan would cut 82.2 full-time equivalent positions, including 50.7 full-time teaching positions and 9.5 full-time administrator positions. That plan would generate about $16 million in savings.
The second part of the plan largely depends on negotiations with the teachers union, which are ongoing. If the two sides can’t come up with $4 million in savings, another 39 teaching positions and three administrative positions would be eliminated.
Because teaching positions would be eliminated under the plan, the district issued layoff notices to 191 teachers.
How many teachers would actually be laid off depends on the negotiations and also on retirements. A new state law gives school employees until June 11 to file for retirement and receive an incentive for doing so.
Superintendent Todd Roberts told the board the district has seen a steady trickle of employees expressing interest in retiring since the new law passed. He said the pace picked up a bit on Wednesday, and he expects more following the holiday weekend.
Teachers union President Brit Satchwell listens during a recent meeting.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
That same state law allows the district to issue about 30 special exemptions to employees who file for retirement by June 11 to qualify for the incentive, but don't leave the district until the end of the next school year.
Roberts told the board no exemption would be offered to anyone filling a position targeted for elimination under the budget proposal.
Still, the district’s next steps in the budget process largely rest on the negotiations with the teachers union.
“We’re putting our best people at the table and coming up with good ideas,” Satchwell said. “I remain committed to making sure that all of those teachers (who got layoff notices) are recalled by the start of next (school) year.”
David Jesse covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at davidjesse@annarbor.com or at 734-623-2534.
Comments
MsWebster
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.
State employees have been taking pay cuts through furloughs. No pay, no work. Reduce the number of days kids are in school - if the state can't afford it, and everyone seems to want to lump the education of children and the future of our society in with every other job done by state workers, then close the schools, get rid of professional development days and be done with it. *The 5% cut and pay freeze is on top of the 3% for retirement health benefits.
DonBee
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 5:22 p.m.
JACK - Thank you. sh1 - I stand corrected in most contracts it is 3 years. I did not have the AAPS contract on the road with me to look at. My apologies.
sh1
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 4:20 p.m.
Tenure is a four-year process in Ann Arbor, not three. An administrator has that many years to evaluate a new teacher. This is the most common time teachers who don't make the cut are let go, as it should be.
L'chaim
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 12:20 p.m.
@stunhsif Your YRC rant is off topic (more here: http://bit.ly/aPMbwn). I don't participate in the Teamsters Pension plans, and can't as a AAPS district employee. However, it's not worker compensation that created the deficit in funding our schools face; nor is it corporate or private executive excess as in the case of private firms that crash and burn. It's political short-changing of youth and education that is hurting our schools. It's the corporate methodology applied to the public sector, in part.
Jack Panitch
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
Let's try this again. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28rua0ixu5xdn34tu4fevb5s45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectName=2010-SJR-U
Jack Panitch
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 10:54 a.m.
aataxpayer and DonBee: The reference is SJR U. Senate joint Resolution U. Put the terms "Michigan SJR U" into Google, and you'll find it. It's a Constitutional amendment proposed 05/26/2010. I posted a link over an hour ago, but it hasn't made its way through AnnArbor.com's link gate yet.
DonBee
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.
Sh1 and A Voice of Reason - Yes, you can get rid of bad teachers, in the first 3 years before tenure it is easier than after the 3 year time period and tenure kicks in. With Tenure the process is longer and more complex, requires documentation of issues and a whole process. It is not "You are sleeping in your classes, please don't come back next year" but a process designed to make it difficult to remove teachers. Typically from the first documentation of an issue to the final termination is a year or longer. It costs money to do this and creates issues in a building when it starts, as well as a union reaction. Even when a teacher committed assault on another teacher on school property, the union got involved to keep the teacher in question on the job (this is well documented in various Ann Arbor News stories from the time period). Unlike the private world where management can tell someone they are terminated and they are gone, most school employees have legal and contractual protection that keeps them employed (even if they have to sit at home) until the whole process is worked out. In a number of reported situations (not at AAPS, but in Michigan) a settlement is reached with the teacher for them to resign. So you are both 1/2 right. A Voice of Reason because it is hard and rarely done and sh1 because it can be done. As to pay and benefits, there is a spreadsheet in an old thread that shows building by building what the total cost of a teacher is (pay, benefits and retirement). As has been stated previously comparing this number to the pay of an employee at a private company is not fair. Also as has been stated previously the benefits are pretty good as a teacher and few if any private jobs have these kinds of benefits anymore. I have not seen the 5 percent cut requirement anywhere, so please provide a reference to this "amendment" "initiative" or "petition".
sh1
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 6:36 a.m.
To A Voice of Reason: I'm not sure why you continue to make the same false claims on every story that has anything to do with teachers, even after you are corrected. Bad teachers can be fired as described in the teacher contract. It happens all the time. For health insurance, the district pays for the less expensive plan; teachers who want MESSA pay the difference out-of-pocket. And do we need to go over the "62% employment" again?
sh1
Fri, May 28, 2010 : 6:31 a.m.
Re: It's either a 5% pay cut or pay higher taxes. What you're saying is either everyone gets a tax hike to pay for schools, or just teachers get one. I think it's hard to argue fairness there.
A Voice of Reason
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:18 p.m.
I am not sure why we are negotiating any more. Here is what we can afford to pay--take it or leave it! Teachers receive free classes from Rec & Ed =value $200-300 2 more vacation days: Total days off 12 out of 184 Full healthcare benefits value : $12,000 (pick a less expensive plan and you keep the difference!!!) Average salary plus benefits of teachers: $100,000 (please correct me--no one knows this for sure) for 62% employment (172/260=66% employment--sounds good to me! In summary, you cannot fire poor teachers and there is no accountability for children learning. We will see how far, and whether our teacher's union truly is planning to lead this district in merit pay, accountability, etc. Brit has a chance to lead Ann Arbor and this state in reform. The new law is pretty vague so we will see if he has the courage to really remove bad teachers.
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 4:12 p.m.
Yay, lets demonstrate in favor of massive compensation for teachers because they're SO underpaid. I can see demonstrating for the homeless, or the environment, or any other legitimate issue but demonstrating to pay teachers more without any increase in school quality is ridiculous. What are you people thinking? Wish I could get people to demonstrate for me every time I want unreasonable compensation. Maybe I should start a rally in favor of paying myself an unreasonable amount at taxpayer expense. You'll all show up right? DUDE, WHERE'S MY STUFF?!?!? I guess we'll see if the teachers and their union care more about the kids or more about their own wallets.
aaatl
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 3:18 p.m.
Saving $16,000,000 by cutting 82 positions means on average $195,000 per position. No wonder...
stunhsif
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.
@skfina2, Less than 1/100 of 1% of private employees are professional athletes or highly paid auto executives, most of us are just like me. Regular guys who have taken massive hits to pay,increases to healthcare etc. And very few of us have pensions or healthcare after we retire. Our pensions got rolled over to 401k's 10 plus years ago. @Chai, a teamster eh? Good luck, good thing you are not working for YRC!!! their stock price two years ago was $40.00 dollars a share. It is down 2.91% today and sitting at 35 cents. You are looking at 20,000 teamsters that are going to lose their jobs very soon most likely. That will destroy the central states teamster pension fund which is already underfunded by many millions of dollars. Kinda like most public pension funds across this country.
a2huron
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.
Let's get it done. Time is wasting.
Patti Smith
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
From Mr. M's ghost: So, again, this saves the state not a single penny. It does, however, punish school employees for having the temerity to be school employees. ---- I agree with you, and thanks for saying that. I have the "temerity" to be a middle school special education teacher in Detroit Public Schools and I'm already at one of the lowest paid districts (way lower than A2, Saline, etc), took a 10% pay cut this year already, have another 3% from the state retirement incentive, and possibly another 5% referenced in the first comment. And it ain't over yet. And before someone tells me to "get another job" because there are "hundreds who would take it"--first, I like my job and second, find me a teaching job anywhere in the state of MI and I'll consider.
skfina2
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.
I find it disgusting that the people who are asked to take a hit to their paychecks are the very people who work for the public good: teachers, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers, etc., while people who make a lot of money, like professional athletes or auto executives, are not asked to sacrifice one red cent. That is abhorrent. The same people who recoil at the idea of a graduated income tax or a 2% tax on services have no problem asking public servants to "take one for the team." And consider this: all those public employees will now have less disposable income to spend, which makes it even less likely that Michigan will see an increase in consumer spending and the increase in sales tax revenue that goes along with it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:33 p.m.
blah: Let me explain it to you. This measure does not cut state funding to schools. It cuts salaries and wages at those schools.. The projection for next year is that school funding will remain stable and might even increase. So, again, this saves the state not a single penny. It does, however, punish school employees for having the temerity to be school employees. Which is, of course, its purpose. Good Night and Good Luck
blahblahblah
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 12:08 p.m.
Ghost wrote: "It will effect the state budget not at all as every one of the employees covered by the proposed amendment receive their paychecks from entities other than the state". This statement makes absolutely no sense. First, the new law was enacted in an attempt to save the State money. Secondly, let's not split hairs here, the state helps fund the entities (Ann Arbor public schools, etc.) that cut those employee paychecks. AAPS lost something like $7 million during the mid-year state funding cuts which added to the district's budget crisis. Ghost also wrote: " This measure, then, is about punishing school employees, little more." Why on earth would our elected officials (some even Democrats), in an election year, want to do "little more" then punish school employees? This statement also makes no sense to me.
Lokalisierung
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.
"I anticipate we are not far from that day...." I think we are very, very far from that day. If anyone wants to leave their job to prove a point with unemployment the way it is, see ya later!
braggslaw
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 11:25 a.m.
If public employees are dissatisfied with their jobs, they should find new jobs. There are many unemployed people who would happily take those jobs.
L'chaim
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.
@ huronbob: I went to a teachers rally in Detroit earlier in the school year (I don't remember when, but it was warm out). My picket sign said "Strike down PERA for the right right to strike." I got comments in agreement with that (!). I don't know that the day is near, because while workers loathe the limitations in PERA that ban our right to strike, it does play nicely into the hands of sellout union leaderships who see themselves as junior partners in state administration. 99% of all union leaders, I reckon, fall neatly into this category, and they certainly don't want to compromise their positions. So, walking off the job *en mass* is a two sided offense and when you have to disobey your own leadership to do act, you're less likely to act. But, it can be done, must be done eventually, and of course has been done (many times). Have you read the book Detroit, I Do Mind Dying? It's an excellent study of the "wild cat," revolutionary strike movement in the late 60's early 70's that took teh Auto industry and UAW bureaucrats by storm. The state (and employers) are pushing now, harder than ever. Workers are pissed, and we should be. Let's hope we can take matters into our own hands sooner, rather than later. By the way, I'm a Teamster. And, I fight in my union for democracy --like rank and file elections and control, and for militant policies --like the right to strike and smashing PERA. @E.R. MURROW: Cheers!
bs
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.
I wait patiently for public employees to say "enough" and just walk off the job. Police, Firefighters, Teachers, DNR employees, Secretary of State, the list goes on and on.... I anticipate we are not far from that day....
jns131
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 9:08 a.m.
Wasn't it Texas teachers who took a what? 8 or 10% pay cut to save the jobs of the lesser unfortunate? The custodians have taken a double whammy hit just to keep their jobs. Bus drivers and monitors are still waiting to see what WISD will do them next. I really hope teachers realize their necks are on the block ready to be chopped if they don't jump like the custodians did. But I really don't think so in Ann Arbor. Teachers here are more wait and see. Good luck. Gotta stand tough when it comes to cuts.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.
blah wrote: "The MI state government had to make a hard decision and I am suprised they mustered up the political courage to do so." This is not courage, it is pandering. It will effect the state budget not at all as every one of the employees covered by the proposed amendment receive their paychecks from entities other than the state. Even worse, it is re-writing of the state constitution to punish public employees. The University of Michigan is sitting on a $6 Billion endowment but, under the proposed constitutional amendment, it will be required to cut every employee's pay by 5% and to freeze it for three years. Don't think of the impact of this on MS Coleman or on highly paid hospital administrators. Think impact on the lowest paid of the U's employees. They are being punished for what? For working for a public entity that is financially sound? And, as with many state schools across the country, the U (and other universities in Michigan) has a very hard time competing with private schools for the top talent in their field. Not only will this make it more difficult, but it almost assures that there will be a brain drain from the state's universities--just what the state needs to move from an industrial economy to an information-based and knowledge-based economy. The U of M and its employees are not alone in being punished for being financially stable. There are other colleges and universities, community colleges, and public school systems that are on sound financial ground that do not need this "help." Most of the others, even with their financial difficulties, do not want this "help, either. They want to deal with their budgetary issues on their own. They don't need the state tying them down, limiting their power. For example, what happens in a school district where the 5% pay cut that the constitutional amendment mandates is not enough? If the state has undertaken to nullify existing contracts where pay is concerned, no bargaining unit in its right mind will negotiate even deeper cuts. If a school district is financially unstable, the state can step in and take it over, as it has done in Detroit and in other school districts. The state, then, already has the tools to deal with school districts that are consistently financially unstable. This measure, then, is about punishing school employees, little more. Good Night and Good Luck
Moose
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.
If we deem it necessary to cut teacher pay by 5% then we should openly embrace a 5% increase in taxes as well. Could it be that the solution is a little bit of both?
blahblahblah
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.
The MI state government had to make a hard decision and I am suprised they mustered up the political courage to do so. Other states such as New York, who fear the kind of union picketing we are now experiencing here, keep putting off their day of budget reckoning or are at least waiting until after the fall elections to make the hard choices.
DagnyJ
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:23 a.m.
Seems a little stupid to keep open six high schools and layoff teachers.
Ram
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
I think the answer to that is obvious. If the Union does not negotiate a pay cut, then the district will have to cut teachers to remain solvent.
flyingpatricio
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
It's either a 5% pay cut or pay higher taxes. The shortfall has to be made up somewhere, otherwise risk losing or cheapening services. Would people rather give up 5% of their pay or see handfuls of coleagues get the axe?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, May 27, 2010 : 6:34 a.m.
Given that it appears very likely that all school employees across the state at all levels (public schools, community colleges, and colleges and universities) are going to take a mandatory 5% pay cut this fall and have that pay frozen for three years, why should any union negotiate on this issue? After all, the state apparently can just swoop in and nullify valid contracts, legally negotiated. And watch out, other public employees. You're next. No reason to budge an inch given what the state is doing. Good Night and Good Luck