I'll provide a personal example: As a public school parent, I'm naturally protective about the resources that go toward the schools since they directly benefit me and my family. On the other hand, I acknowledge that the schools are in an untenable financial position. With the changing demographics in town, the school population continues to shrink every year. And yet the schools have numerous fixed costs and non-discretionary costs over which the Board has limited control. The School Board only has discretion to make cuts to about 30% of the school budget.
I am very interested in finding a way to make the schools cheaper to run without compromising the quality of education. I think that the tenure system is highly problematic and has lead to the difficult position we find ourselves in today in Teaneck. I believe that we can come up with "outside of the box" solutions, if we work together.
However, I get really defensive when people start bad mouthing the quality of the schools without trying to understand the complex issues behind the scores. I'm also tired of people who posit false or misleading information about the school or town budget to make a case for one side or the other. And I admit that I'm as much to blame as other people in this area. The fact is that, like the performance gap and and the difference between different school district, school budgets and municipal budgets are complex matters. In this very paragraph, I removed a statement that that was technically inaccurate and misleading.
So what I'm asking for here is for everyone to tone it down a notch and let's try to find some way to make the best of a bad economic situation.
As everyone knows, I'm a big advocate for broadening access to public school human resources and facilities. Since we can't cut salaries or fire as many teachers as would make economic sense, the best approach is to make sure more taxpayers in town have access to the resources that they pay for anyway. I'm very interested in hearing other people's ideas about ways that we can broaden access to school resources and facilities.
Let's have a productive conversation. This is where we live. This is where we are raising our children. For those who don't believe in reincarnation or life after death. This is it. Let's try to make the best of it.
53 comments:
Since I'm the lady in town who is furthest from the "us vs them" mentality, let me begin by saying that I disagree with your premise: "Since we can't cut salaries or fire as many teachers as would make economic sense, the best approach is to make sure more taxpayers in town have access to the resources that they pay for anyway."
Why can't we ever do anything in this town that makes economic sense?
Esther-
--Why couldn't the public schools open up the sports (track/football/baseball etc.) to private school kids or home schooled kids. From what some parents have said not all private schools have sports teams.
--When they (PS) offer SAT or ACT classes schedule them so private school kids can attend.
--The college placement is already open to private school kids to what extent I dont know perhaps someone can expand on this that knows more about it.
OORF - so move.
@OOR
"Why can't we ever do anything in this town that makes economic sense?"
The problem is, we all have different definitions of what "economic sense" means. That is what the whole discussion here is all about. We all have different priorities, some are shared. I assume that Esther, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, wants to focus on what priorities are shared and make those work for us as much as possible.
What my hope for TP to be about is positive and creative ideas to our problems, rather than talking points and unhelpful complaints that only serve to create more animosity without being informative.
you are right - there is an us vs them here and yes, in every town and city. it's just that here it is a mean and nasty us vs them - and it's gotten worse lately. discussions and debates are part of local political life - within the rules of civility. what i hear behind the scenes and sometimes out in the open - is a mean and nasty attitude. let's send all our key leaders to a small town in the midwest to learn about how to get along with their neighbors and how to do the business of civic life.
A small town in the midwest? How about Postville, Iowa. Seems like everybody got along there.
To change the subject completely - how many people out there are appealing their property tax assessment this year? I filed my appeal at the end of March and just got a letter from the Teaneck Assessor showing what their evidence will be, it seems they are basing their case mostly on the price per square foot of comparable houses based on the livable square footage. So if the house the town wants to compare me to has 2000sq ft and it sold for $500000, then they calculate a $250 per square foot rate, and apply that to the square footage of my house.
I haven't yet heard anything from the County regarding a date for my tax hearing, though I know the appeal must be decided before June 30th.
If the school board only has discretion to impact 30% of the budget than that has to change.
I see no reason why you cannot hold the salary scale constant in a year with zero (if not negative) inflation. Even in that situation, everyone (except the teachers already at the very top) still get a raise that exceeds increases in cost of living.
While I'm sure a smaller class is a better environment, I cannot believe the world will end if the sizes are slightly increased and everyone works a little harder. There are a lot of things I'd like the town to spend money on to make life better but you have to ask, can we afford it? Is the policy sustainable over time?
A few thoughts
(1) I think the notion of broadening access is a nice gesture (at this point I would even settle for "community SAT intsruction" given at a time when private school students could attend), but won't move the needle much on support for the public schools. The reality is that despite this town's top of the charts spending levels, the majority of school budgets have passed. While the passage of the budget does not reflect widespread support for the budget, it reflects a willingness most years to tolerate the high spending level. Given Teaneck's spending level, I don't think this should be dismissed lightly and certainly should not be recharacterized as opposition to the public schools. As this election showed, the votes are there to defeat the budget when voters have had enough. You could have given the non-public school kids their own SAT tutors and I don't think it would have made a difference.
(2) With respect to school achievement, early in my blog participation I wrote about this a lot. Recently, I've given up. I have concluded that those that matter most, the parents of the public school students, have convinced themselves that the excellence of the school system cannot be measured in any conventional fashion. If they are satisfied with the quality of their kids education who am I to tell them otherwise.
(3) There is a complete disconnect between the teachers' contract and the quality of education. The current contract rewards only length of tenure and advanced degrees (as I have posted elsewhere, neither of which have strong correlations to student achievement), provides tenure early in a teacher's career, pays all specialties equally and rejects merit pay.
(4) The current pay scale has resulted in teacher layoffs resulting in increased class size - a fact that many believe does significantly impact the quality of education. Here again, I don't get the parents in the school system. Rather than protest against the teacher's union, they protested against the cuts. While they saved some positions this year (which may still be cut under the revised budget), the pay scale will only increase layoffs in coming years. The union did not even feel the need to offer some concessions like the firefighters. I really thought that the first teacher layoffs driven by the teachers' pay scale would serve as a wake-up call. I was wrong.
(5) Based on statements made by Town & BoE officials, one has to conclude that in the realm of education, government's powers to tax and spend have been reduced to the power to tax. The power to spend seems to have been outsourced to the teachers union.
(6) The one thing I don't get is that there seems to be an almost fear of getting into a contract dispute with the teachers. So what if we end up in arbitration. Yes, I know that arbitrators have generally been favorable to the unions. However, there cannot have been a better year in the last 60 to be in arbitration. Whose side would you like to be arguing:
Your owner, we the teachers deserve a 4% wage increase:
(a) although our salaries are in the top 5% statewide and significantly more than most of our neighbors;
(b) although our salaries have increased faster than inflation in almost every year in the last decade plus;
(c) although Teaneck has to lay off teachers to afford us; and
(d) although deflation is a .
As an attorney, I'd take Teaneck's case.
2008anony,
While we disagree on several points (the budget rejection is no more a mandate than a budget passage is a vote of confidence), I echo your sentiments on the "fear factor" of contract disputes. What, exactly, do you suppose everyone fears so much that they are unwilling to take on what I see as a broken teacher compensation process. Much to my dismay, the Board of Ed has as much said "we're afraid" publicly when responding to questions about getting tough in the collective bargaining process.
I firmly believe that the time is right to help the NJEA understand that the well is dry and we cannot continue the same sort of compensation packages. That doesn't mean paying teachers nothing and it also doesn't mean raises without justfication. I've never worked in a job in which a raise wasn't tied to good performance. Teachers are professionals: treat them accordingly and demand performance for compensation.
And yes, I am a public school parent who seels exellence and expects accountability. I do have "skin in the game."
Unfortunately, one of the main problems is religious fundamentalism. As the world has shown over the course of thousands of years, fundamentalist attitudes ultimately bring conflict. There becomes no room for compromise which leads to hostility and the us v them sentiment. I don't have an answer only stating the obvious!
2008anony- I agree with you (!). This would be an excellent time to take on the union. Aren't contracts up for renewal? Can someone who knows something speak to the status of the teacher contract negotiations?
The handwriting on the wall is clear. The public school population will continue to decline in the future ntot because people are "fleeing" but because the new folks moving to town hAve a preference for religious-based education. Unless we think creatively these rifts over school costs are only going to become wider over time.
I hope the final reckoning happens when I no longer have "skin in the game" because for a believed in public education in general and in the Teaneck Schools in particular, this strife is heartbreaking.
the Teaneck school budget passes most years because most parents in Teaneck (those that use the schools) really don't see the increase as being extraordinary.
If your property taxes are $15000, about $9000 come from the school. A 4% increase/year means $360 (tax-deductible) dollar increse in your 'tuition' per FAMILY!
I'd like to know when the last time the yeshivas kept their increse to such a low % (per family on a tax-deductible basis).
To Yeshiva parents (most of them, not all), this portion of their property taxes is wasted money. To public school parents, this is a modest tuition increase.
I'd love to see just ONE VOTE on a yeshiva budget (of course, I'd love to see one of the budgets too!) - and then you'll REALLY see an US vs THEM mentality!
To change the subject completely - how many people out there are appealing their property tax assessment this year?Waiting for next year
It will take me a while to deal with Esther agreeing with me :-)
However, here's the rub. I (non publics school parent)can't solve this problem, only you (public school parent) can. I speak out on this topic, I am instantly discredited as having no skin in the game.
No, this has to be an effort lead by public school teachers. Do you know what the impact would be of a parent rally in favor of a revised compensation system would be. My guess is that it would inspire similar rallies throughout the State and put the Union on the defensive. Right now the Teachers' Union views parental support as so automatic that they did not offer any cuts or concessions.
But you have to act fast, while the contract is open for negotiation. This is the perfect storm for meaningfully re-examining the teachers' contract. If done right, you will be able to retain the best teachers and maybe even pay them more, while reducing the overall spending on teachers' comp.
Combine the terms of the teacher's contract with the fact that teachers will not leave because of the economy (so more and more teacher's at the top of the scale) and the fact that there is a state cap and you will be firing more and more junior teachers each year as senior teachers crowd out all other spending.
Failure to act on this issue helps neither students or taxpayers. But it is the school parents that have to take the lead.
Esther,
Strife is what makes blogs interesting. People get to attack each other with the anonymity of the internet without any fear of reprecussions.
No one would read TP if there wasn't any entertaining arguments.
Small correction
At the start of my second para. it should say "This is an effort that has to be lead by public school parents." However, if the teachers want to lead, that would be great.
$15,000 per year in property taxes is probably well in excess of what the average public school parents pay. I live in what one would consider an average Teaneck house and my annual taxes are currently about $8,500 a year, so the "tuition" increase for me frankly amounts to bupkis.
Another economic factor that I believe plays into this contentiousness over the town budget and the community relations conflicts that arise and that maybe "secular" (for want of a better word) people are not aware of is that it's really expensive to be an orthodox Jew. In addition to tuition costs there are all sorts of other costs that people like me don't have to deal with. I'm not so knowledgeable of the specifics so I'll have to let someone else elaborate, but the upshot is that as bad as the stresses of the economic downturn are for everyone, they're worse for orthodox Jews.
2008anony - I'm not sure I can imagine anything like that happening unless things get really bad. As it is, the public school population is already a bit slow on the uptake in terms of advocating for their interests at the polls, hence their apathy about the last school budget election. It's only when scare tactics are used, do they rally in force. I can clearly envision continued community strife over these issues. For my own mental health, I need to disengage.
2008anony,
I completely hear your point on renegotiating with the unions and you make sense and have facts to support your argument....but if you've ever had to go INTO binding arbitration, you'd know that all of that doesn't mean squat.
Arbitrators are handpicked by the unions. They are paid for by the unions which gives them every reason to vote in their best interest.
There's a reason that arbitration agreements are being written into every agreement/contract that you will EVER come across. There is limited judicial review, no public records and even Congress is considering the Arbitration Fairness Act to curb the ill effects arbitration has had on the people of our Country.
I would encourage everyone to write to your Congressman and Senators to support the Act.
Here are some of the reasons for the 'fear' that is exhibited by going up against an arbitrator:
one study finds 99.8% of arbitration cases are decided in the corporation's favor
Then there are the ramifications:
Nursing home claims arbitration clause prevents you from suing them for allowing your father to freeze to death (by the way, this was one of the rare occasions that the Court allowed to arbitration provision to be struck.
From a case on discrimination in the workplace:
Evidence and facts matter in a court of law, but I didn't have access to one. Tenet employment contracts include a binding mandatory arbitration clause which prevented me from having my case heard before a real judge in a legitimate court. Instead, my case was reviewed by an arbitrator Tenet hired, guaranteeing I would lose and they would be protected.
and even if you have the facts on your side and lose, it can cost you more than you would have lost in a standard Court case.
As Deborah Williams found out when she tried arbitration:
Coffee Beanery made us travel from our Maryland home to Michigan for the arbitration. We were forced to fly there four times in the 11 days of hearings, driving up our already hefty arbitration costs. In the proceedings, the company attributed our store's downfall to our own mismanagement, not its faulty sales concept.
The arbitrator unsurprisingly sided with Coffee Beanery, ordering us to pay $187,452 in legal fees and arbitration costs – including almost $17,000 for the arbitrator's services and $500 to cover the cost of Coffee Beanery lawyers' lunches. If you think that fairness or what is right matters in arbitration you are sorely mistaken.
Binding arbitration is used because it works in their favor.
Unfortunately, one of the main problems is religious fundamentalism. As the world has shown over the course of thousands of years, fundamentalist attitudes ultimately bring conflict. There becomes no room for compromise which leads to hostility and the us v them sentiment. I don't have an answer only stating the obvious!While I won't disagree that a fundamentalist attitude makes for a person that generally won't listen to reason, I disagree that there is rampant religious fundamentalism in Teaneck nor would it rank as one of the 'main' problems.
The problem is that the Board of Ed did a piss poor job of selling the budget to the town. I received fliers telling me to vote for it with no reasons why other than I'd be 'pro education' but I received fliers telling me why I should vote against it.
Their job isn't simply to make a budget, but to sell it to the town. The people vote on it for a reason...and they didn't sell it!
And before you go around calling "the people of the book" or anyone else religious fundamentalists that want to cut the public school budget, check out the premium that they put on education. How much effort do you think it would take to sell them on the merits of an education package?
With minimal effort the BoE could have gotten the budget to pass. It failed because they didn't do their job.
However, here's the rub. I (non publics school parent)can't solve this problem, only you (public school parent) can. I speak out on this topic, I am instantly discredited as having no skin in the game.
and for the record, I'm a product of the NJ public school system (grades k-8)
Another economic factor that I believe plays into this contentiousness over the town budget and the community relations conflicts that arise and that maybe "secular" (for want of a better word) people are not aware of is that it's really expensive to be an orthodox Jew. In addition to tuition costs there are all sorts of other costs that people like me don't have to deal with. I'm not so knowledgeable of the specifics so I'll have to let someone else elaborate, but the upshot is that as bad as the stresses of the economic downturn are for everyone, they're worse for orthodox Jews.Are we reduced to making excuses now? They decided to live in this town (buy homes etc.) property taxes have always been a tad high and the school budget has been over the top for a few years (this should not be news to anybody). It is there choice to send their kids to private day schools, if they rallied their numbers/forces i am sure that the BOE would be more than happy to accommodate them in the public schools as I think CFA & ZEV MO pointed out earlier (secular studies during school hours and private parent paid for religion classes after school). Why this option is unacceptable to so many I am hard pressed to understand. It would save people like OOR 15k a year in added expenses and get more bang for their buck from what I hear.
To refuse to even discuss this option and work towards a solution that would benefit so many is a problem and then Esther is right, all that is occurring is a them against us mentality which does not benefit anybody!
Enough of the silly claims that the Orthodox cumminity are only looking to slow down the runaway costs of the public school system and giving a pass to theit own private schools. It is blatanly false and race-baiting (ok, go ahead and debate whether Jews are a race). http://www.jstandard.com/index.php/content/item/continuing_the_conversation..._an_open_letter_on_day-school_tuition/8107
Karin,
Englowood parents "rallied their numbers/forces" and guess what - the BOE turned them down. And the main driver was that the larger public school community didn't want to water down their own kids education by now having to pay to educate the jewish kids whose parents are currently supporting the public school system but largely not utilizing it.
Wasnt she tossed from the planning board because she cant work with anyone??
Esther:
Sorry for all the argumants in the previous thread.
You are right about everything except the Board's ability to change salaries. At some point they have to negotiate with the unions.
However, I am sure that the Board (minus one) is not a very objective group when it comes to negotiating with the union.
Annonymous:
What you said about Englewood is 100% NOT TRUE.
The Jewish proposal was to create special classes that would only have Jewish kids. It was explained as being open to all kids who wanted to learn Hebrew... But in effect it was a segregated school within a school.
If you want to use the school system, you can't request that only Jewish kids be in your class.
Heard in Tuesday's meeting -- but can't vouch for its veracity.
The teachers supposedly offered to have no raises for next year and the Union forced them to take the raises in their contract.
Personally, I think this is bull. If they wanted, the school district could set up a non-profit and teachers could contribute 4% of their salaries to a tax deductible donation.
ANON said:
Karin,
Englowood parents "rallied their numbers/forces" and guess what - the BOE turned them down. And the main driver was that the larger public school community didn't want to water down their own kids education by now having to pay to educate the jewish kids whose parents are currently supporting the public school system but largely not utilizing it.
May 8, 2009 1:43 PMAnon I am not suggesting that the public schools change the curriculum or water it down. If the HS can offer Latin perhaps they can also offer Hebrew. The basics (math/reading/science) are in place so why change those? Outside of the language requirement the only other thing that would be required is use of a school room(s) before or after school at the parents expense (rent/teachers etc.) for religious education.
what is so flipping hard about this? It would seem it would be a win win for the orthodox families that struggle paying the day school tuitions and for the public school families.
Swiggle said:
"The problem is that the Board of Ed did a piss poor job of selling the budget to the town." I can't disagree with that. However, while I agree they should have tried harder to sell the budget, the board is legally barred from actually campaigning for voters to vote yes on the budget. Individual board members can campaign for the budget.
You also claimed that, "Arbitrators are handpicked by the unions." and it good to be back disagreeing with you. Do you have any actual evidence? Unless you can provide some I will assume it's just another random baseless statement.
I suspect one of the problems with your views on arbitration is the notion that arbitrators are going to make some sweeping change and allow Teaneck a contract that differs from those in the rest of NJ. My understanding of the rules for the arbitration is that the arbitrator cannot take into consideration any change that occurs after the time the last contract expired. Essentially meaning they have to look at economic conditions as of June of 2008.
If sweeping changes to the teachers compensation is to occur it is unlikely it would come from localities. A change to the tenure system or the way teachers are compensated based on merit, longevity and education would almost have to come from the state.
I was deeply offended by the way a council person opened the meeting on Tuesday night. I was at the meeting to hear about the budget, instead I got a monologue. And it case anyone missed the idea theat she wanted to separate herself from the rest of her collegues, she sat a little more off to the side for the rest of the night. In my opinion, her argument that she voted yes but wished she hadn't just makes her look foolish. What a classy way to welcome the new manager. I think it was shameful.
or what about voting no and then coming on this website and saying it should have been an abstention?
Another anonymous poster is "deeply offended" by having five minutes of his time wasted during the council meeting Tuesday.
The poster is not concerned that the process by which the council hired the manager may have been flawed. He doesn't care that members of the council may have chosen to hire one of the candidates before any interviews took place. Three minutes of his time were wasted!
Hiring a qualified manager is one of the most important things the council has to do and yet members of our council couldn't be bothered to even give the pretense of a fair process by attending interviews.
The poster apparently wasn't offended by the reactions of council member Gussen who ignored the content and instead claimed that council member Toffler was trying to change her vote - a clear attempt to deflect from the content of the statement.
For those who did not attend the meeting, a video should be available on the town's website soon. Do not expect this to be at the start of the video as this was not how the meeting opened. Judge for yourself whether the statement and the reactions were appropriate.
Mr No It All
Tom, Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it differs from yours!
It's easy to be a Monday morning quaterback.
Yet again Tom is there to deffend Barbra. Tom, how was the process flawed? Councilwoman Toeffler was a part of the process she called flawed. Not only was she a part of the process, but if memory serves me right she was on a subcomittee of some sort having to do with the manager selection. On top of that did she meet with the new manager outside of the process?
what is the difference between this (where she was part of the process and then tries to change her mind) and when she was at Arthur Anderson she did the same (overbill clients, but then right a book about it and apologize) Tom, stop deffending her. I think that she has forgotten that she has won the council seat and is part of the process. You cant be part of the process and then attack it. This is the same thing she did when she voted (and even made the motion) for the Glenpointe building while on the planning board and then tried to attack it and the process.
BLT wasn't the only disappointment at the council meeting last Tuesday. In my opinion, the meeting would have lots more meaning to it, if the council found someone to run the meeting.
Hey, I saw a post the other day on the blog "gussen for mayor" it seems to have been taken down. who censors this blog? or does tom only allow posts that attack gussen and then he deffends toeffler
head of ethics consulting for Arthur Anderson is not a resume item, it is the punch line of a joke. And we are now stuck with this joke in Teaneck
I say
GUSSEN FOR GOVERNOR
And Mustafa (I am not sure his full name) should run for a council seat in the next elections.
It wasn't taken down. Still there on "Show up and be heard."
I can't disagree with that. However, while I agree they should have tried harder to sell the budget, the board is legally barred from actually campaigning for voters to vote yes on the budget. Individual board members can campaign for the budget.
First Tom, it's sad that you can't simply say that you agree. "I can't disagree" just shows how much you want to be contrary.
Second, I understand that they can't campaign for you to vote on the budget in any particular way, but that doesn't stop them from explaining what is IN the budget and where the money is going in a neutral manner. Nor does it preclude them from 'selling' the salient points of the school system in general (class sizes, score increases, etc...) that may go a long way in mollifying a group that feels they are being taxed at a higher rate than would be necessary.
You also claimed that, "Arbitrators are handpicked by the unions." and it good to be back disagreeing with you. Do you have any actual evidence? Unless you can provide some I will assume it's just another random baseless statement.
It's statements like these that make me sure you are more interested in being contrary than in getting facts, but I'll try to start on conversation with you anyway on the chance that you were just trying to be 'clever'.
There are two scheme promulgated under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.#1: The Union picks one arbitrator and the Town picks another. Then they both choose a third. If they can't come to an agreement, the arbitration association will pick a third for them.
It's an inherent conflict of interest since the Union uses arbitration over and over again and will switch arbitrators as soon as they stop ruling in their favor. And by the way, you won't find any info as to how fair or balanced the proceedings are because the arbitration is closed and sealed to the public. Just the kind of thing you'd expect from a fair and balanced group, right?
#2 The parties either agree to a single arbitrator or in the event that they can't come to an agreement, the commission picks one of its own. This has the same conflicts as option #1.
Just to make sure the public (or at least the blog readership) has the facts straight:
1. In terms of the Glenpointe development on the employee parking lot --voted on when I was on the PB: I voted to support the spot rezoning re setbacks, etc. on the condition that the structure be built "wedding cake" style with setbacks every 3 (I believe) floors for light and space. Accuracy of this can be checked on tapes of the January 2, 2007 meeting and with Jennifer and Jeff of Birdsall. Unfortunately, when the PB passed the spot zoning, the condition under which I and others voted "yes" deleted from the motion. Again, check with Birdsall, and view the tape before making false claims.
2. This Arthur Andersen nonsense has been around for some time now. Let me explain the process that you are repeatedly attacking. But first, a question: When realtors put a house on the market, do they initially price it at what they believe to be the actual price (say $425,000). I think not. I believe they put the house on the market for what they think and hope the market will bear (say $530,000). If the buyer is willing to pay the price -- so be it. Everybody says that is smart, good business. At Arthur Andersen, it was the practice to send out a proposal and bid, not priced at the "actual" rate, but at a higher rate that was assumed to be what the market would bear.If the client was willing to pay the price on the bid, so be it. What is the difference between the realtor and Arthur Andersen ? (One reason I have never had a desire to go into real estate is precisely for that reason!) I don't like selling something for as high a price as the uninformed client is willing to pay, regardless of actual cost. As well, one of my biggest complaints at Andersen was that employees often sold things clients didn't need (I never did that). However, many people I know in the insurance business happily sell uninformed people all sorts of insurance products they don't need. I don't believe in doing business the way some realtors and insurance salespeoples do.(Though I do not attack my fellow Councilmembers who work in those occupations).Arthur Andersen, once a firm of the highest integrity, developed a destructive culture of greed (just like blogs tend to develop a culture of cowardly, secret nastiness). BTW, please spell my name correctly: Toffler. Thank you.
What about the new manager???
At Arthur Andersen, it was the practice to send out a proposal and bid, not priced at the "actual" rate, but at a higher rate that was assumed to be what the market would bear.If the client was willing to pay the price on the bid, so be it. What is the difference between the realtor and Arthur Andersen ?Are you serious? The difference is that you understand that the realtor is trying to get the highest price for the house and it's common practice to offer a bid.
What's the point in having a "rate" if you are going to inflate it? Doesn't the inflated number just become the new rate?
Your comments wreak of someone trying to rationalize un-ethical treatment.
(One reason I have never had a desire to go into real estate is precisely for that reason!) I don't like selling something for as high a price as the uninformed client is willing to pay, regardless of actual cost.
That just goes to show how ridiculous your prior statement is. You won't go into one profession because it does the same thing as the profession you were in?
Do you think before you talk or is this actually what you were trying to say?
However, many people I know in the insurance business happily sell uninformed people all sorts of insurance products they don't need. I don't believe in doing business the way some realtors and insurance salespeoples do.(Though I do not attack my fellow Councilmembers who work in those occupations).Way to cast a little dispersion on your fellow council members. Is that how you win friends and influence constituents?
People said before the election that based on your previous involvement on the planning board, you didn't play well with others. Looks like they were understating it.
Stop ripping Barbara Toffler or she'll sic Peter Applebome on you.
Swiggle:
In the scenario with three arbitrators, the union and town each pick one and a third is chosen by agreement, if possible. If not, the third is picked by the NJ Public Employment Relations Commission (NJPERC). In the other scenario, a single arbitrator is picked by agreement, if possible, or else by the NJPERC.
This does nothing to support your contention that, "Arbitrators are handpicked by the unions." It does the exact opposite. The statue you cite, even specifically says, "The commission [NJPERC] shall take measures to assure the impartial selection of an arbitrator or arbitrators from its special panel of arbitrators."
The claim that, "It's an inherent conflict of interest since the Union ... will switch arbitrators as soon as they stop ruling in their favor," is not supportive of your statement but rather assumes your first premise is true. I left out the "[union] uses arbitration over and over again and," part of your quote as it was not relevant. Both the unions and the public bodies use professionals to deal with both the negotiations and arbitration. These professionals have all been through it "over and over again".
On the subject of statements without foundation, there is also, "They [arbitrators] are paid for by the unions which gives them every reason to vote in their best interest." I've done some limited research and it indicates that costs are split evenly by the union and the employer.
One more note, in regards to salary negotiations, the arbitrator route described only applies to police and fire fighters. For school employees, the process involves a super conciliator appointed by the NJPERC. The super conciliator may act as an arbitrator if all other methods fail.
The claim that, "It's an inherent conflict of interest since the Union ... will switch arbitrators as soon as they stop ruling in their favor," is not supportive of your statement but rather assumes your first premise is true.You aren't wrong, Tom. The costs are split between the parties and on paper, I agree that it seems like a neutral process. As someone that has seen the first hand goings-on inside arbitrations however, I can assure you that it doesn't work in practice like it does on paper.
There's a reason that they push so hard for arbitration provisions. There's a reason they insist that arbitration proceedings remain secret and prevent the public from knowing the details.
It's the same reason that neither one of us will find enough details to fully establish their point, so if it's all the same, I'd rather we just move on to another thread.
What was the point of the councilwoman's thread? It seems contradictory to me.
What kind of realtor would price a house at a 20% premium in today's market? Silly example.
IS SHE PROUD OF HERPAST OR EMBARESSED BY IT ?????
DEPENDS ON THE DAY
Can someone comment on the meeting last night? I had a conflict and didn't go.
Post a Comment