Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi Unified School District could lay off hundreds of teachers, classified staff at meeting Tuesday
By Jennifer Bonnett
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:43 AM PST
Some music classes could be eliminated, and physical education at the elementary level may be taught by a classroom teacher.
Buildings may not be maintained as well as in the past, class sizes will increase substantially and school staff will be held responsible for duties typically handled at the administrative office.
Students seeking help in the library or at the counseling office might not find it.
Those scenarios are likely if the Lodi Unified school board approves recommended budget cuts at a meeting next week.
Among the 500 proposed layoffs — 19 more than earlier this week — are 348 teachers, 25 librarians and their assistants, 24 clerical-type positions, 19 counselors, 15 vice principals, and more than two dozen custodians, grounds workers, maintenance staff, painters and carpenters.
The key meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday at McNair High School's theater at the corner of West and Morada lanes. The venue holds up to 720 people.
What's at stake
Proposed layoffs for the 2009-10 school year
Certificated staffTeachers in kindergarten through third grade — 174.40*
Grades 4 through 6 — 22.01
Grades 7 through 12 — 59.32
Others — 92.63
Assistant principal — 1
Vice principals — 7.5
Counselors — 19.16
Librarians — 4
Program specialist — 0.6
Psychologist — 1.09
Nurses — 2.95
Coordinators — 6
Classified staff
Account clerk — 1
Administration secretary — 9
Budget technician — 1
Bus driver — 1.62
Adviser — 1
Clerical — 12.38
Community liaison — 0.75
Construction specialist — 1
Custodians — 18.08
Grounds worker — 1
Library assistant — 21.28
Noon duty — 0.51
Paraeducators — 8
Personal computer technicians — 2
Personnel assistant — 1
Pool repair workers — 2
Principal secretary — 0.88
Typist clerks — 3.5
Transportation supervisor — 1
Carpenter — 1
Deferred maintenance workers — 9
Routine restricted maintenance workers — 14
Utility worker — 1
Total savings: $23 million (includes benefits)
* Fractions reflect a reduction in hours, not necessarily staff.
Source: Lodi Unified School District
Lodi Unified School District board members
Mailing address
District Office
James Areida Education Support Center
1305 E. Vine St.
Lodi, CA 95240
(209) 331-7000
(209) 953-8111
Board Member — Area 1
Donnie Cassel bcassel@lodiusd.net
Board Member — Area 2
Ken Davis kdavis@lodiusd.net
Board Member, President — Area 3
Richard Jones rjones@lodiusd.net
Board Member, Vice President — Area 4
Calvin Young
Board Member — Area 5
Jeff Thompson
Board Member, Clerk — Area 6
Harvey N. Bills Sr.
Board Member — Area 7
Joe Nava
The district still needs to cut $25 million from next school year's budget despite board decisions to close one school, approve an early teacher retirement plan and let go 45 employees from the administrative office, including six administrators.
Chief Business Official Doug Barge delivered the news to the Superintendent's Budget Advisory Committee on Wednesday. Previously presented information put the deficit figure closer to $21 million after the already-approved cuts.
Laying off 500 employees, or 16 percent of the district's employees, will save $23 million, according to district figures.
If the layoffs are approved, there will also be cuts in elective courses such as foreign languages and industrial arts, advanced placement courses, nursing services and athletic coaches.
Among the 348 proposed credentialed positions to be eliminated are 28 English and 11 music teachers.
The layoffs will likely first be based on seniority and then decided by what credentials and certifications teachers hold.
According to the Association of California School Administrators, the state's schools have lost 15,000 employees, including administrators, support staff and some teachers, since September due to budget shortfalls.
The group estimates that 25,000 more school employees could be laid off in the next two years due to deficits in both state and federal funding. California public schools and colleges could receive more than $10 billion from the federal government, but much of that money is part of the allocation already handed out to the state's school system.
How did we get here?
The district is suffering from a historic drop in enrollment — the state pays schools based on the number of students enrolled — and declining local property tax revenue.
California's districts have also operated without a budget from state representatives, who continue to discuss education cuts to balance the state's books. Lawmakers could vote on a budget today.
In addition to cuts taken in the last month, the board also approved delaying the Lockeford Elementary School expansion. While the work that is already done was paid for with bond money, matching funds must come from the state, which has put a freeze on all school construction money.
Why not cut other programs?
District funding comes from many different pots of restricted money. For example, the district cannot cut the free and reduced cost meal programs because those are federally funded, nor can it use the funding for anything else.
Bond money also can't be used for non-earmarked construction projects already approved by voters. That money is not part of the district's general fund, which pays for salaries.
How you can get involved
Attend Tuesday's meeting at McNair High School in north Stockton, where the recommendations will be discussed and likely voted upon.
You can also contact your elected school board members (see box), Superintendent Cathy Nichols-Washer at 331-7010 or Associate Superintendent Odie Douglas at 331-7003.
Read more about the district's budget situation by visiting www.lodiusd.net and clicking on "superintendent" along the left-hand side of the page.
Contact reporter Jennifer Bonnett at jenniferb@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Feb 21, 2009 11:59 AM:
http://www.lodiusd.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=76 "
Lodian wrote on Feb 21, 2009 11:58 AM:
" The Lodi News listed the Board member for area #1 as "Donnie Cassel". Is that any relation to Bonnie Cassel? "
That was a type-o. It should have read Bonnie Cassel. Look at the email address. "
Parent95240 wrote on Feb 20, 2009 3:27 PM:
Lodian wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:00 AM:
That's for sure. "
edumacation wrote on Feb 20, 2009 7:23 AM:
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 19, 2009 2:06 PM:
There are many sources of revenue, developer fees being a big one. This has, for all intents and purposes, vanished. Grants are another, however, these are normally targeted to specific programs or projects, and have been substantially reduced, as one would expect in this economy. The sources of revenue, nor, any longer, the conspiracy you claim regarding warrants, appear to be your main area of concern. To even the most untrained eye, it's pretty obvious that your intent is to create suspicion and mistrust, in an attempt to influence those easily swayed by "suede". Come on, Jerry, give us some facts instead of speculation. You have not offered one bit of evidence in any of your emails. If you have bullets, fire the darn things. So far you're just shooting blanks. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:48 PM:
Well, likewise. I really don't care whether you believe me or not. I sleep very well at night, and I WILL have a great day.....I'm retired ! Perhaps if you work VERY hard, you'll get there someday. "
Jerry wrote on Feb 19, 2009 12:07 PM:
So, where does the other $20,000,000 problem orginate? Could someone anyone help me with the District's fuzzy math?
These things said, the District has (or should have) piqued your interest in their priorities in spending money. They legislate a cut of 390 teaching jobs but are unwilling to examine the sky high wages paid to the fatcats.
The fact remains that the priorities and judgments of this Board should be closely scrutinized. No money for Science Camp; plenty of money for Senior Projects; no money for worthwhile education enhancements for students; plenty of money to fund supersized expense accounts, cell phone bills, car allowances, meals and entertainment. Well, gang, isn't this about the right shoe size for these folks. "There's a whole in the bucket dear Georgie"...look at the WARRANTS AND THE BUDGET. "
reading wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:54 AM:
This is the internet, so you may or may not be who you claim, and in your case it does not matter. Your comments here have helped back up what I have suspected for years: The LUSD Admin is overpaid and topheavy, operating in a huge castle (of sorts) and will protect itself over the concerns and needs of parents and taxpayers.
Having two children in the system, the layoffs and cuts instituted are in the worst possible "location" (classrooms-schools) and this is an outrage. There is no amount of typing debate or cover-up here that will whitewash stupidity.
Have a nice day. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:08 AM:
Sounds like the perfect segway to a stand down. Peace ! "
LodiToday wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:26 PM:
jerry wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:19 PM:
Full disclosure, isn't that the right shoe size. Come on get your handlers to come clean; this thing is not going away anytime soon.
The kleptocrats must go! "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:50 PM:
That's OK. It's not your fault. Your typo's are no doubt the fault of an administrator. "
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:21 PM:
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:19 PM:
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:17 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:52 PM:
Im having a little problem here with your credibility. On one hand you say that you have been unable to obtain a full list of warrants from LUSD, and then claim that if the warrants are published you would be happy to point out perceptions of kleptocracy (whatever the heck that is). If you havent been able to see the warrants, how the heck can you claim knowledge of malfeasance, misappropriation, or conspiracy? "
Jerry wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:46 PM:
It's your money. It's your right. "
Jerry wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:32 PM:
Over eight million dollars was spent out of that checkbook (they call warrants) last year and the district refuses to share who received the eight million and why. I find that curious.
Don't we have the right to know how, why and with whom our money is being spent? The problem being...they will not disclose the details surrounding those payments. Show us our own checkbook please.
When I have called L.U.S.D. they have been unable or unwilling to disclose the full list of warrants they issued last year, why?
You talk as if you are an insider. If so, publish the warrants online so we can get some tranparancy where now only black holes exist. Why in the world would they keep these sizable expenditures a closely held secret.
Publish the warrants on-line I will be happy to point out perceptions of kleptocracy. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:22 PM:
Actually, I was fortunate enough to have had mostly very good teachers. I use the standards set by those teachers as the bar for judging the performance of teachers today. For the record, it was not fair of me to package ALL teachers into the whiner category, and a public apology is herewith extended. I have found it to be true that the most effective teachers are usually the least vocal. Conversely, I have found the least effective are the first to raise their voice in opposition to change or adversity. I suppose this is true because they are at the most risk of being exposed for what they are. Whatever. Those who support the idea of seniority being the sole determining factor in retaining employment should truly be most worried, as they have self evaluated and found good cause. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:00 PM:
Not looking for your respect. I can only strive and hope for the respect of those I care about. You dont fall into that category. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 5:54 PM:
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I've been retired for several years. I have been a teamster, business owner, a manager, a teacher, served in the military during Vietnam, and yes, an administrator. My ethics and standards have remained the same no matter what position I have served in. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If the sign says Dont walk on the grass, I dont walk on the grass. I have jeopardized my own career in support of those who worked under my direction, because they deserved nothing less. Instead of being a sheep, look at ALL the facts, and decide for yourself, and not because of the hearsay and propaganda of others. If you think the decisions being made now are tough on you, I guarantee those who you work for have been suffering over this for a much longer period of time. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 5:39 PM:
I happen to be very familiar with public agency warrants. Contrary to the ominous object you portray it to be, it is simply the public agencies checkbook. A public agency has to pay bills somehow. Would you have them send cash in the mail? Every warrant is public record, and any member of the public is entitled to see the backup for every warrant issued. Truth be told, I think youre just on a crusade to overwhelm an already overloaded department. If you have a specific item that concerns you, why dont you just let everyone know what it is, and Im sure the District would be more than happy to provide the information you feel is lacking. It appears to me that all youre attempting to do is create a great deal of work by stirring the pot with no specifics. Whats the beef, Jerry? If you suspect something is amiss, lets get it out on the table. Youre just on a fishing expedition with no bait ! "
Vickster wrote on Feb 18, 2009 4:27 PM:
I got an answer about the Warrants and I am being sent the list of Warrants for the year; from July 1, 2008 to January 30, 2009. What should I look for in the list? "
LodiToday wrote on Feb 18, 2009 1:56 PM:
LodiToday wrote on Feb 18, 2009 1:51 PM:
Jerry wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:25 AM:
The question is who are the vendors? Are they real? Are they legit? In some cases are the people writing the checks and getting the checks one in the same?
Have you tried to get yourself a copy of the Warrant's yet? Answer: No. They (the District)keep who's paid and why they are paid a secret. The question is why?
Please call 331-7000 (Supes office) and tell them you'd like access to their Eight Million dollar package for pork; nobody will help you. "
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:19 AM:
Dirt Claude wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:17 AM:
reading wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:52 AM:
Here are some things we all can do in the future, unless Jerry can muster up a recall beforehand: 1. DON'T vote for any school board incumbants. 2. NEVER vote for another LUSD bond. 3. TELL all of your friends, neighbors about it when the time comes. "
Jerry wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:38 AM:
You should. The Warrants (checks paid to third parties for whatever reason)is the real cookie jar here. Lots of fat hands in that cookie jar. As time goes by I assume that an out of town newspaper will start asking the right questions. A lot of money is leaking out to a lot of people by way of Warrants.
Please call 331-7000 and ask how you can get a copy of the District's Warrants issued in 2008-2009; however, don't be surprised if you get nothing but hot air and excuses.
Be brave. Ask.
P.S. Did Nichols-Washer ever address the fatcat paychecks last night? Or, is it still teachers -347/Odie Douglas + $168,500 for a job with no real job description. Can you say recall. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:43 AM:
jerry wrote on Feb 17, 2009 10:03 PM:
I guess the administration (and the Board)are of the mistaken belief that if they don't bring up the subject of the 8.6 million "Warrants" nobody will notice. Warrants are checks paid "third parties" for "services rendered." Some real potiential for corruption here.
The question is who is pocketing these "Warrents"... is it possible that "some" of these monies are landing in the pockets of a certain Board members? In one case this is not just a question.
Call 331-7000 (the bashful Supes office)ask about Warrents...you will get nowhere. I believe the real curruption can be found in this $8,000,000 slush fund. Isn't it astounding that we could be this far into the Budget discussion without you knowing about
Warrants. Don't worry, it's not your fault. Heretofore, it's been a secret. Keep asking until you get an answer.
Good luck, "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 17, 2009 8:13 PM:
Once a sheep, always a sheep ! "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 17, 2009 8:10 PM:
Respect is earned, and I don't know you, so forget the respect. I would ask you to compare the respect teachers had 40 years ago to what you have today, and please tell me who you're going to blame for the decline? "
reading wrote on Feb 17, 2009 7:40 PM:
Plain and simple: We know the long, well (pork) fed history of LUSD Admin. Many of us have kids in your system. There is NO way people are going to accept having services reduced for their children instead of having that well known Admin "hog" reduced first.
Jerry made a great post about the board, fraud and corruption...I couldn't put it any better. Pull your head out of denial! "
LodiToday wrote on Feb 17, 2009 7:34 PM:
sam wrote on Feb 17, 2009 6:27 PM:
jerry wrote on Feb 17, 2009 5:58 PM:
What value does he bring to teachers, students or those other 6 figure administrators. Educate me. "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 17, 2009 5:28 PM:
Perhaps you should do a little more research before you start pointing accusatory fingers. I think you'll find the expenditures for Aspire Charter School are quite legitimate. Or, perhaps, you're just trying to stoke the fire? "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 17, 2009 5:05 PM:
GET A LIFE ! Teachers teach because they can't do anything else. I've never met a larger group of people who can't handle the little everyday inconveniences of life less adequately than teachers. You gripe about administrators because they make more money than you. Guess what? They make more because they're capable of dealing with YOUR issues. Who do you turn to when the problem becomes more than you can handle? DUH! Stop patting yourself on the back. Do the job you were hired to do, and quit blaming everyone else for your inadequacies. "
my belief wrote on Feb 17, 2009 4:12 PM:
takealook wrote on Feb 17, 2009 4:07 PM:
Jerry wrote on Feb 17, 2009 4:06 PM:
The "Union" should be raising hell over the fact that the District wants to can 350 of their members without clipping the fatcats wings. Could someone please explain why your local teacher's union has disappeared when needed most? "
Jason J wrote on Feb 17, 2009 4:01 PM:
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 17, 2009 2:47 PM:
LodiToday wrote on Feb 17, 2009 2:32 PM:
Jerry wrote on Feb 17, 2009 1:44 PM:
You cannot find anything in L.U.S.D.'s By-laws that speak of the need to preserve "fatcat" jobs. If the Board members make deep cuts to teaching and learning they are violating their own By-laws as well as the letter and spirit of their mission.
Budgets are about choice. Should the Board choose children's eduction or should they choose overpaid administrators without real job descriptions or even a remote connection to the welfare of a child? It's a simple question with a simple answer for "leaders" acting in good faith.
If the Board goes forward with the proposed knowing fraud they must be recalled and we must start over. The Board needs to become aware of the simple fact that they are trustees to a trust. That trust is about children not bloated paychecks of the District's fatcats. Anything less is corruption of the most obvious sort. Board: Get your priorities sorted out or pack your bags. We've had it! "
colormestormey wrote on Feb 17, 2009 11:47 AM:
We need to be out in numbers and show our UNITED approach to all of this.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL! "
sven31 wrote on Feb 17, 2009 11:11 AM:
The teachers will still get credit for 1.00 years on their STRS statement, but the compensation will be reduced by 5 days. "
blossom wrote on Feb 17, 2009 10:39 AM:
Lodian wrote on Feb 17, 2009 9:24 AM:
LodiToday wrote on Feb 16, 2009 10:08 PM:
LodiToday wrote on Feb 16, 2009 10:00 PM:
reading wrote on Feb 16, 2009 12:04 PM:
Yes, it is a no brainer that we need an admin to support the teachers and schools....question is, how much? The problem is many of us taxpayers and bond supporters (with kids in the LUSD system) have long memories of the "Tajmahal"(sp) being built and we are well aware of the approximate number (a lot) of fat cats in that building.....much of this being paid for with our $ one way or another.
The fact that the board even considers cutting direct services (teachers) to our children before trimming the blatant and obvious fat in admin is a huge disservice to the taxpayers and our children in the system. They have forgotten why they were elected!
Delta College has been flushing some of their trouble and pork away....same thing needs to happen with LUSD and board. "
NOFXfan wrote on Feb 16, 2009 11:24 AM:
blossom wrote on Feb 16, 2009 11:17 AM:
Heck, for all we know he maybe on Payroll!
Thats the problem we have too many FAT CATS!
and Not enough kittens! "
commonsense wrote on Feb 16, 2009 9:26 AM:
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:47 AM:
First, we hire Bernie Madoff to get the Districts finances in order. Next, we resurrect Enron to control our energy costs. Donald Trump could handle personnel matters. NASA would provide transportation services, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Police Services. Textbook selection could be put in the capable hands of Congress, with curriculum contracted out to any third world county. Our schools could be maintained by out of work apartment building superintendents from New York City. These same folks could also handle District wide pest control issues, so the savings to the District should be huge. Goats could maintain lawns, and the entire Technology Dept. could be outsourced to the students themselves. There, I think Ive covered just about all the hurdles. Oh, stupid me, I DID forget one item. Well need someone to oversee each of the outsourced services so we dont get ripped off. Well need a FAT CAT !!!!! "
RUFKM wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:19 AM:
Why do we need the purchasing department to be staffed at its current level? Teachers cannot purchase anything. Everyone has been told to STOP spending. We should stop paying that department to make sure everyone stops their spending.
Pers. Department. After everyone is laid off, we should get rid of this department.
We should 'unwind' every created supervisor job, just like we are 'unwinding' all services and programs for our children. "
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 15, 2009 11:25 PM:
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 15, 2009 11:17 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:47 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:44 PM:
However, you are correct, Teacher286. This proposal IS from the superintendent. She needs to be directed to come up with something respectable, or she will be gone. Just look at what Manteca is dealing with now. "
Frank wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:16 PM:
teacher286 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:15 PM:
Gator wrote on Feb 15, 2009 3:05 PM:
Down to 90,000 a year and brings his company out of trouble, why is it the Head of LUSD
Cant do the same??? Why so many duplications of management in LUSD It would seem to me its time to weed out the non producers and as Trump said youre Fired.. Then
again maybe its just time to clean house, Factoid always start at the top!!! "
reading wrote on Feb 15, 2009 2:19 PM:
takealook wrote on Feb 15, 2009 1:22 PM:
blossom wrote on Feb 15, 2009 11:10 AM:
Why do we need 3 personel People?
1 Associate Sup of Personel 1 Director of Classifed and 1 of Certificated...
Why not just 1 for all??
Their is 2 cuts right there... What about Penningtons assistant and Her Secretary??
Their is another 2 cuts... Less students we dont need 2 for the k-8 schools and we are closing a school their is almost 500K in salaries not to mention benifets! "
parent95240 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 10:18 AM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 15, 2009 10:01 AM:
jerry wrote on Feb 15, 2009 9:32 AM:
There is one of two possible answers: These folks can't add or the whole thing has been nothing more than financial high theater.
In either event the Board's mangement style (loose and stupid)is unacceptable. They all must go and go now.
We have a 260 million dollar budget we must go through each and every line of that budget and find 10% that has nothing to do with teaching and learning.
What I'd like to know is...where in the hell is our Union in all of this? Shouldn't "they" be answering these questions? Teachers in L.U.S.D. pay 100 bucks a month for their "aggressive representation" are we getting our money's worth. "
NOFXfan wrote on Feb 15, 2009 9:16 AM:
sven31 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:58 AM:
247365: There are minimum minutes per year of instructional time. The number varies elementary up to high school and I'm not sure of the amounts for each level. High school requires 64,800 minutes per year.
There is also a minimum number of days which I believe is 163 per year, so a four day week wouldn't be allowed, at least for the whole year.
If you wanted to meet minimum minutes and days would require an extraordinarily long school day (in high school) because the increase in minutes per period would be cummulative because your not just adding 6-8 minutes per day, but 6-8 minutes per period so the school day would be like 40-60 minutes longer when you include passing periods.
This is all codified, but I don't recall which code it might be in. Probably EC but it could also be in GC.
Most of my work was done at the high school level so I'm most familiar with their req. You can count passing periods as part of your minutes, but there are limits to those.
Hope this helped. "
park2008 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:44 AM:
park2008 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:24 AM:
jerry wrote on Feb 15, 2009 2:45 AM:
A petition for recall should be circulated immediately. The Board is corrupt and the administrators do not offer teachers or students anything of value.
Who's with me? "
park2008 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 11:38 PM:
park2008 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 11:37 PM:
RUFKM wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:01 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:55 PM:
concerned parent wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:43 PM:
fawn lebowitz wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:00 PM:
citizen wrote on Feb 14, 2009 6:41 PM:
blossom wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:34 PM:
blossom wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:32 PM:
Seniority or not we must DEMAND they get rid of the excess fat at the District level.
They can get rid of half of them The remainder all take a pay cut, then we take a paycut and we should be about fair.
Laying off noon duty aids and crossing guards is silly they are making like 12.00 a dy!
They are NOT the ones breaking the bank!!
Anyone who works for the District knows who I am talking about... "
marleyo wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:16 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:15 PM:
marleyo wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:14 PM:
fawn lebowitz wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:10 PM:
park2008 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 5:04 PM:
concerned parent wrote on Feb 14, 2009 4:41 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 4:22 PM:
teacher286 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 3:50 PM:
blossom wrote on Feb 14, 2009 3:40 PM:
blossom wrote on Feb 14, 2009 3:16 PM:
I feel like they should take it from Administration and the Top Brass get rid of some of the assistants to assistants etc....
We already do too much for free and dont even get ANY appreciation for it!
There is MORE FAT to cut! "
park2008 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 2:23 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:50 PM:
jbhiker wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:46 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:45 PM:
park2008 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:45 PM:
park2008 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:41 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:39 PM:
*There is some debate as to whether the requirement is in minutes or days. I will need to do some research on it. One of the suggestions has been made to go to a 4 day week, but this could only be done if the requirement is minutes. "
LodiToday wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:13 PM:
concerned parent wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:08 PM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 12:14 PM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 14, 2009 10:36 AM:
concerned parent wrote on Feb 14, 2009 10:35 AM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 14, 2009 10:27 AM:
Jennifer Bonnett wrote on Feb 14, 2009 10:00 AM:
Looking back, I probably should have published an updated number. Thanks! :) "
kidsalami wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:49 AM:
concerned parent wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:40 AM:
gadzooks wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:25 AM:
gadzooks wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:18 AM:
gadzooks wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:17 AM:
Observer wrote on Feb 14, 2009 9:05 AM:
What is the anticipated drop in enrollment? I haven't seen any figures in any of the articles. "
WCpatty wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:28 AM:
larprez2009 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:17 AM:
Lodi has always looked out for Lodi. Our own County has a budget surplus and yet Stockton has to lay off police officers, Lodi PD has to get concessions from our officers in order to keep them on the job. Our own County has many other interests and people pulling at the budget strings. Yet where does Lodi stand in line? Lodi needs to take care of Lodi and ensure that the dollars generated here STAY here. Lodi PD, Fire and Schools will all get money directly from where it was generated. The State and the County will not help us with our infrastructure - let's take control of what is ours. " "
BCD wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:06 AM:
john95632 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 6:48 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.