Right... and losing good teachers to other states/counties (and good upcoming teacher graduates to other professions) won't hurt our students at all.  Right.  Doesn't it make more sense to create the resources to support student programs enough to bring the payroll down to a more reasonable 70-75% of the budget line?

• reply

Mr. Mettler, explain how cutting the pay of the educators to fund JV football saves kids' education?  Taking away the financial incentive to do one's job, especially when that job is the EDUCATE children, not throw footballs with them or babysit them in "summer school," has got to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Of course, it did get your name in the paper, and maybe your constituents (whiny parents of football players who could pay for this themselves?) will now support some other equally destructive idea you have.  Are you really this incompetent?  Seriously?

• reply

Regarding Mr. Mettler's "points" from Monday, which are largely mere misdirection from the real issues.

There is no cut in teacher's salaries necessary, and I will tell you why...

I was present at the board meeting where they presented the budget, pre-July2nd modifications. Bryan Batey asked the EXACT SAME QUESTIONS Mettler parroted in his public statements the next day, and was told THREE times, twice by the accountants/lawyers who prepared the budget, and the third time by Assistant Superintendent Dennis Scott "You can't look at this budget the way you've looked at ANY previous budget. The rules have changed. That 85% does not suggest teachers are being paid more - it's a reflection of the fact that we're not spending anything on the other areas."
Mr. Mettler chooses to intentionally misrepresent that... either that, or he didn't understand it when it was said to him.

He also conveniently neglects mentioning that the "Rainy Day" fund is SEVEN TIMES what they are legally required to keep in reserve.

He also omits that the initial contract proposal asked us to take a reduction in any year of deficit, but provides NO LANGUAGE WHATSOEVER to recoup those reductions or realize advancements in years of surplus. When you put together all of Mr. Mettler’s statements, they amount to grandstanding that creates an environment of bad faith during contract negotiations, in the attempt to position the Teachers' Association into losing ground.

Most of the preceding addresses point number one, the 310 million dollar budget and the 85 percent teacher expense. The meeting I went to had the budget at 360 million, but that was before it was revised for May budget deficits, at the July 2nd meeting.

The 310 million number is probably correct... but Mr. Mettler and the other board members were expressly told several times that it would be unwise and incorrect to read the budget in the exact way Mr. Mettler is presenting.

2nd point: the 20 mil/30 mil cut... snide remark about the State Legislature aside (which is a blatant ploy which panders to his political base), there is plenty of money that could be cut, and again, plenty of money in reserve.

The district is FULL of wasteful spending that would easily be eliminated before teacher salaries need to be looked at, especially given the statistics on the importance of strong teachers in the classroom.

They just don't want to do the work to make those (potentially unpopular) cuts, not when the opportunity can be used to weaken the Teachers' Association in a time of contract negotiation. Again, bad faith.

"Many senior union leaders prefer..." point: Discounting the 'perhaps as the latter action' clause as obvious speculation and borderline libel, Association leaders are not responsible for, nor do they have the power to protect teachers in their first two years, before they have tenure.

This is why these teachers are called "Probationary employees." They are on one year contracts, re-elected at the judgment of administration, decisions which are based on the hiring formula dictated to them by available budget, as well as the qualifications of the probationary employee.

So when cuts have to be made, probationary teachers go first, not because the union doesn't PREFER to protect others, but rather because, according to contract, they don't HAVE THE POWER to protect those probationary teachers.

Knowing this should be a job qualification of a school board trustee, and as such, I can only infer he's lying about it. Either that, or he simply doesn't know how teacher contracts are structured - which should be an impeachable offense in his position... either way, his statement about Association “preference” is unconscionable.

"Class size is directly related" - this is true. Look at the logic of the point however... I hope you would agree that his point here is "If everyone took a pay cut, we could hire more teachers."

Sooooooo... we would be spending the same 85% on teachers, just on more of them?

I thought the REST of his argument was predicated on the idea that we were spending too much money (too large a piece of the pie) on teachers? Which is it?

“Our teachers have realized…” Yes, I make a little less than twice what I made my first year teaching, 8 years ago. In that time, I have also completed a master’s degree, racked up 40K in student loan debt doing it, completed enough units of study to put me on column 5 of the salary schedule, and earned 8 years of service improving my teaching and benefitting hundreds of students every year. You have enough information to know what I make. Mr. Mettler is implying that I am overpaid for the hours I put in and the responsibility I take on. This is just not so.

“ A reasonable 5 percent or more salary reduction to save fellow employees jobs…” This is not what Trustee Mettler is proposing. He’s proposing a pay cut of 5% over EACH of the NEXT THREE years to reduce the proportion of teacher salary in the budget. He has NEVER, before this letter, said that those cuts would be used to save other teachers’ jobs. More misdirections and half truths.

Incidentally, “income reduced by… 100 percent” is termination or volunteerism. It isn’t the “economic reality” of continued employment.

I’m glad Trustee Mettler doesn’t take his stipend from the Board. Score one.

Mr. Mettler must think this community is pretty stupid; how else would one explain having to “expose” something that had “been going on since 1983”? Nobody was hiding anything. Mr. Mettler is insinuating otherwise to try to paint the Teachers' Association as nefarious and diabolical. This is ridiculous.

The FACT is that the Kern High School District is the largest 9-12 District in the state (http://www.kernhigh.org/). A full time Association representative is not unreasonable, as had been previously concluded before Mr. Mettler decided he knew better than everyone who came before him. Mitch Olson isn’t hiding from anyone – he’s working hard to ensure KHSD runs smoothly.
Look at that last point about Association dues.

Now dissect the logic of it....

The amount teachers pay in Association dues has NOTHING TO DO with how many teachers that money could pay for. That's money out of OUR pocket, from OUR salary. If we weren't paying Association dues, that money would NOT be in the general fund to hire more teachers - it would be in OUR bank accounts.

Or look at it this way, using Mr. Mettler’s sentence as a template, with the subject changed: Bakersfield Californian President and CEO Richard Beene makes 1.6 million dollars per year. That could fund 30 teachers if he weren't making that money.

One has NOTHING to do with the other. The argument does not make ANY logical sense.

Mettler’s isn’t a “stance on fiscal responsibility,” especially given the shifting and inaccurate nature of his points. Matter of fact, it isn’t even an attack on unions, ultimately.

This is an attack on teachers.

Mr. Mettler, you get what you pay for. I’d suggest the “fiscally responsible” thing to do is to properly fund the people who educate the future citizens and future voters of this community, particularly given that a) there are other cuts that can be made, and b) you have reserve funds readily available that you seem to be hoarding. Are you of the opinion that I am overpaid for the responsibility I shoulder, like the approximately 1700 fellow teachers of the KHSD?

I hear those of your circle bemoaning higher taxes pushing businesses out of California. How is a climate of economic hostility pushing teachers to seek better paychecks in other districts, counties and states any different? You’re betraying your core principles.

Can you afford to lose good teachers?

Need I remind you, KHSD is a district in Program Improvement. And yet, when schools manage to pull OUT of Program Improvement, as Highland did, did those employees receive any kind of commendation or compensation for their monumental achievement? No. They got a pat on the head and a “good job”… and they went back to work.

Can you afford to lose good teachers?

How much would THAT cost, when Program Improvement puts KHSD into mandated reorganization?

Can you afford to lose the very people who can help you avoid that?

Work with us, Sir. The public has entrusted you to do so.

• reply