This Budget Hawk SUPPORTS MMSD Staff - A Response to ACE

I spoke in support of teachers at Monday night's meeting (2/14). I spoke from my seat as a board member. I appear to have missed the instructions to do so as private citizens (from board counsel) because SB11 was not on the agenda.

First, I find it bizarre that board members are not supposed to respond to comments from the public during public appearances. That is a long-standing tradition in this district, and any board responses are construed as just that. Responses from individual board members, not a board vote or proposal for board policy or action.

Second, I get the anger over taxes, property taxes and school costs. I am a non-union state employee who is paying more for benefits (already), lost the pay raise I was promised, and took a 3% pay cut from what I was earning through the mandated furlough system that we work within. I am seeing a great deal of pain in both the public and the private sector as we ALL deal with job insecurity, shaky hours, and a range of nasty impacts from the bad economy.

In full disclosure, I am a former union member who was on strike for six weeks in 1980. I agree with MTI on some issues, and strongly disagree on others. I support the right to bargain collectively. Period.

I also believe that it is reasonable to assert that I typically am the most consistent critic of MMSD when it comes to budget decisions and fiscal policy. I do not always prevail, but I have fought long and hard for transparency and for decisions that minimize the impact on property taxes.

This budget hawk believes that SB11 is draconian, malicious, and counterproductive to the goals the governor claims that he wants to achieve. I do not believe that it is necessary to end the right to bargain anything but wages in order to close Wisconsin's budget gap. I also note that the gap is less than we were led to believe (unless we are now saying that the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau is a tool of union sympathizers.)

I do not believe that the proposal to recertify collective bargaining organizations each year will enhance productivity or come without significant costs in conducting and verifying certification results. And I am stumped as to how turning back federal funds for Title I (aid to schools with high levels of poverty) will in any way improve schools or close the budget gap.

Speaking on the 14th, I responded that I find it unfortunate that this is portrayed as solely a debate over benefits and pay. It is not. It is about the rights that were won through established and legal systems labor organization, union formation, and collective bargaining. It is about the attempt to de facto decertify public sector unions rather than go through a decertification vote. That this is being done in a one-week timeline is mind boggling in its exercise of unilateral power.

Simplistic rhetoric may be handy for people seeking to raise support for their cause, but it helps no one in addressing a fundamental and complex issue: should public employees have the right to unionize.

My answer is yes. The perverse claim that unionized public employees have refused to compromise on wages or benefits is simply untrue in my experience as a board member. Most of the unions that we work with have been willing to make changes to benefits and other conditions of work as we have responded to the biennial budget cuts in promised state aid. MTI has been the least willing to concede. However, its members have overwhelmingly voted to reduce health insurance costs by choosing GHC vs. the far more expensive WPS programs.

The non-economic protections afforded union members have been immeasurable in protecting staff who have spoken out in the interest of helping students, saving district funds and cutting expenses, and improving safety and well-being within our schools.This applies to the full range of staff, not just teachers: aides, nurses, nursing assistants, custodians, trades workers, social workers, psychologists, and clerical staff.

The structure of grievances and dispute resolution has been important to resolving conflicts within schools and between school staff and the district. Simply put, even when I disagree with our unions on important issues, I value the structures and processes that are in place. Unilaterally ending those structures and processes is not likely to improve much in our schools, and least of all for our students.

Worst of all, the rhetoric invoked by people supporting the governor and his trajectory, is shameful. Before any of us seek to trash the work done by public employees, it would be wise to think again about who will be out plowing your highways and streets when the next storm hits, or who is caring for your disabled neighbor or family member, or who is putting in extra time at school because their students need them.

And before trashing the board of education, I would encourage people to consider why it is that so few people are willing to run for that office when our schools so urgently need engagement and participation. We don't always agree with each other or with administration. But each one of us puts in long hours reading about the issues, consulting with the community and with staff, and working to find answers to confounding questions. If you do not like the way the board is running, there are elections every year. Run. And then do the job the way that you think it needs to be done.

In the meantime, this budget hawk will stand by our staff. Because the vast majority have stood by our children and our schools for the past 15+ years of cuts, teacher/school-bashing, and increasingly difficult challenges in and out of the classroom.

Posted by Lucy Mathiak at February 19, 2011 9:00 PM
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas