Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (31)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (31)
ADVERTISEMENT
No budget decision for Lodi Unified School District board
Superintendent Cathy Nichols-Washer takes 6.63 percent pay cut
By Jennifer Bonnett
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:29 AM PDT
Trustees of the Lodi Unified School District are poised to close the remaining budget deficit for next year by keeping its reserves at the lowest legal level to save as many jobs as possible.
"This is in no way a final recommendation. It is a starting point," Superintendent Cathy Nichols-Washer said. "This is a point in time for us."
A vote was not anticipated at Tuesday's meeting, although staff sought direction to move forward with the latest budget recommendations, likely to be voted on next month.
Meanwhile, Nichols-Washer took a 6.63 percent pay cut during a closed session contract discussion with the board. When news of the $15,249-a-year reduction was announced at the beginning of the meeting, it was received with a round of audience applause.
Board President Richard Jones said Nichols-Washer came to him shortly after trustees approved their own 10 percent stipend reduction last month.
"She said, 'I want to give back also,'" he said before directing his comments to union members. "As Dr. Washer stepped forward ... we expect that to happen with all of our (bargaining) groups."
When presented with the three latest options in closing the now $16.5 million shortfall, the majority of board members favored keeping the district's reserves at 3 percent and to reduce the number of layoffs to 230. Other options increased the amount going into reserves, but decreased the number of items that could be funded, including jobs.
Lodi Unified School District meeting at a glance
In other action Tuesday, the Lodi Unified School District board of trustees:News-Sentinel staff
Trustee Calvin Young was the only one to favor saving more he said, given the state of the economy.
"To me, it doesn't make sense to lay off that many people to save money in reserves," Trustee Ken Davis said in disagreement. "The 3 percent has been sufficient.
"We can do more to help our schools. It gets (money) to the kids, to the classroom."
The board also gave Nichols-Washer direction in bringing back a final budget recommendation that includes retaining all of the library assistant positions and instrumental music in fourth through eighth grade, keeping as many employees working as possible and reducing class sizes at the high school level.
The district also may be able to use anticipated federal stimulus funds to save teacher jobs at its Title I campuses, but Chief Executive Officer Doug Barge recommended to wait to give approval until he has a figure of how much Lodi Unified stands to receive.
Separate reductions to classified staff are expected to be voted on at the next school board meeting, April 21.
In February, trustees approved eliminating 397 positions — including almost 240 at the elementary level — to close the then-$25 million budget deficit heading into next school year.
Although held in the same McNair High School theater location, Tuesday's meeting had a much different feel to the one two months ago. There were no homemade signs, only about a quarter of the theater's 700-plus seats were filled and many of those who attended left before 10 p.m., when public comment began.
Contact reporter Jennifer Bonnett at jenniferb@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Apr 15, 2009 11:22 PM:
Jerry: I think you're right. "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 15, 2009 12:09 PM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 15, 2009 5:47 AM:
I assume with over 40 law suits in-the-works, the number is in the millions.
Don't we have a right to know how much they're throwing over a cliff. I think we do.
I don't know weather or not to address this request to LNS, the District or the Teacher's union; maybe it doesn't matter, maybe just maybe you are working so closely together that you use one brain anyway.
LNS...after you do that start looking into what the Teacher's union reps are being paid. I hear their salaries and benefits are nearly as exotic as the District. Lastly, LNS look into what's going on with the Board. Does someone have their fat hand shoved down in the cookie jar? "
Jerry wrote on Apr 15, 2009 5:36 AM:
I know who you are now, you're one of the big butts in one of the big chairs down at crook-central; one of tuna fish shaped arrogant s.o.b's who's bodies have been swollen by time, entropy, gravity and too much rich food and fine wine purchased with our money. Tell me, am I close? You bet I am, you're the squid of the day, everytime you get scared you spit out ink all over these blogs. You write a lot but say nothing.
You are one of the kleptocrats who gets paid the big bucks to write meaningless memos and hold daily meetings in which nobody listens and nobody cares. You don't have any contact with students nor do you want any; you don't like children and don't care if they ever get educated.
Listen. I know you'd rather talk but listen. This District (and people who run it like you) are dinosaurs you will be gone very soon. So, enjoy your last few months at Oz; we are on to you.
Bye. Bye. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 14, 2009 2:49 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 14, 2009 12:54 PM:
Sorry, can't rest as long as there are ignorant people claiming to be knowledgable about subjects they don't actually have a clue about. You're just one of many. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 14, 2009 7:15 AM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 13, 2009 2:47 PM:
The prosecution rests!!! Thank you for providing all the supporting evidence necessary. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 13, 2009 6:56 AM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 12, 2009 5:35 PM:
Believe it or not, I am truly enjoying this Easter Sunday. There is nothing that gives me more pleasure than intellectual sparring with an unarmed man. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 12, 2009 11:44 AM:
For now, I'll just say: "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. You're wrong. Again! "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 12, 2009 10:06 AM:
Under the umbrella of your rather broad based conspiracy theory, anyone who doesn't wear a blue collar is a thief, liar, corrupt, incompetent, self serving, and otherwise lower than worm slime. Given the criteria spelled out by you in past postings, I'm wondering if you feel that the entire Supreme Court should be tossed out on their ears? After all, each of the courts members were appointed by a president who felt that the jurist's past decisions were in close agreement with their own agenda or beliefs. This is exactly what you claim the Board and Administration of Lodi Unified has done, so I'm thinking you should go after the top court next. I can't wait for you to expand the limits of your search for universal corruption to the terrestrial level. "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 12, 2009 9:30 AM:
The law that requires certificated staff be notified by March 15th, that you seem to be unable to find for yourself, is California Education Code, Section 44929.21. Would you also like assistance in finding their website? "
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:18 PM:
Otherwise, they are safe if they are willing to do what needs to be done...ethical, unlawful or illegal. No sir, this band of thieves knows way to much about where the bodies are buried and that's their security.
As far as the teacher's union is concerned I am not so sure who they represent anymore. Yeh, yeh, they are paid by their members (the teachers) but who do they really represent?
I don't know who's doin' what to whom...but they're in bed together. I am sure sooner or latter it will all hit the paper if only the paper will report it. But, then again, you'd know more about that than I would, Right? "
blossom wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:09 PM:
I really feel that if everyone has to take a ''piece of the pie"it should be done fairly.
When I say this I feel that we should have teired pay cuts.
Even though "if" we take pay cuts they will still need to lay people off?
So whats the purpose?
Everyone is important, and everything WE all do impacts the Students.
So where do you draw the line in the sand?
Furloughs would even be worse, they hire subs for us?
A) Their aren't enough subs and
B) Wouldn't save that much at all!
So I still say no to both ~Sorry~ "
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 8:02 PM:
Teachers who do not have tenure can be fired for cause or no cause at all. I bore witness to a young women (a good teacher) who had the potential to be a great teacher...she was on her way.
That is, until Odie Douglas decided he didn't like her politics and some invertebrate principal didn't have the chops to defend her teacher, it was sickening.
No sir, only those with tenure have a guaranteed job and its a damn good thing they do. The faculty needs the protection of the law and the union to ensure the safety and integrity of the educational process. The academic thugs from crook central (in this case the Board) have hired a lot of like minded thugs to push the Board's agenda.
The top administrators find academic hacks to carry out their agenda without much regard for wheather it is legal or ethical. The Board has adopted the Catholic Churches personnel management style. When a principal gets found out they arn't fired they're merely transfered to another school where there reputations has not proceeded them yet. "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 11, 2009 5:06 PM:
Glad to see you're still around. Obviously, you don't know state law, otherwise, you wouldn't make the ignorant statements that you make. The District is simply following state law which mandates that certificated staff be notified by March 15th whether or not they may be terminated. That doesn't mean they actually will be let go, it simply means the District is following the letter of the law, and is ensuring they have crossed their "T's" and dotted their "I's", as required by law. Seems to me that you would be proude that the people you hire are doing exactly what the law requires to protect your interest. Yes? No? If no, why would you not be? Perhaps you're one of those who recieved a notice? Imagine if you were an administrator who had no such protection, and served at the will of the Board, which all administrators do. No Union...No protection. Simply the hope that what you're doing meets with the approval of the Board. Now imagine finding out that you have no job while attending a Board meeting. Yeah, teachers have it really tough !!! "
Jerry wrote on Apr 11, 2009 1:41 PM:
No, there is enough money to keep everyone working. The artificial scarcity thing is an invention of the Board. All this other stuff is malarkey, misdirection and a red herrings.
Tell me, quick... How many teachers are being laid-off? Ya' don't know do ya? All LNS does is reprint the District's propaganda...the District has told us 200 teachers would be fired, then 300, then 394 and then the superintendent estimated that it would be about half of what she thought. Half of what?
Anyone who has been around the block will tell you that gross generalities are little more than dressed up fraud. I am not saying that LNS is involved in fraud I am saying they are not drilling down on these people and doing real investigative reporting.
So, it is now April 11, 2009, the next budget is due in 4 months and we still do not know "exactly" how many teachers are going to be fired pursuant to the last budget; the 2009 budget. What are we waiting for more smoke to be blown up our skirts?
"WHAT SCHOOL YOU WENT" "
Lodian wrote on Apr 11, 2009 1:03 PM:
" With all this budget talk does anyone know if LUSD ever entertained the idea of parents providing the supplies for their kids?
Rhodie: I think it's a great idea for parents to help with supplies. Personally, we already do this every year, but if most parents were to do so it would make a huge difference. It's something we need to do now. "
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 11, 2009 5:50 AM:
Fortunately, I was educated on the East Coast, and long before the term "fuzzy" math, (the kind all union activists use) was coined. The only handheld calculators we had were totally mechanical and used a little steel pencil which fit into a chain drive to add up your numbers. Kinda forced you to use your head, 'cause it was much faster. Today, everyone uses electronic calculators, and no one has to think, which explains why you can't get your math straight. "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 10, 2009 7:11 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Apr 10, 2009 5:45 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Apr 10, 2009 2:08 PM:
I know it wouldn't be popular with the parents but it could save a lot for the district.
Where we moved from the schools got out teh lists a month before classes and we shopped our own supplies (school scholarships were available for finanicailly challenged and drop boxes placed for donation). It usually cost us about $20 per kid for the supplies. Most of that was paper, crayons and markers. The most expensive thing we ever were asked to buy was a $5 calculator for the fifth grade.
Anyway, it's just an option to save the district some money and a few jobs. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 10, 2009 10:50 AM:
Idiotic palavers wedded to the notion of popular noise and communism want you to think that our budget of $275,000,000 should be shared equally among the kleptocrats and the teachers. That's absurd. At best it's an improbable fiction perpetuated and pushed by stupidity and greed and the opportunity to fill yet another silk-lined pocket at crook-central.
For the last time, there is enough money to pay each and every teacher, period. Don't be hoodwinked by the superintendent who will drag this phantom budget deficit out until the next budget is due. Then the artificial scarity thing starts all over again.
There is enough money to pay each and every teacher, period. There is absolutely no reason that the teachers need to be convinced to cannibilize each other.
My friends, it comes down to choice. Do we choose to fully fund the kleptocrats or do we fully fund teachers (therefore students)? Sounds like an easy one to me.
Don't be bamboozled by the teacher cannibal committee. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" said "the great Oz." "
Jerry wrote on Apr 9, 2009 8:41 AM:
Money is finite and it is fungible, meaning there is only so much of it and it doesn't really matter where it goes...it has to be directed, channeled and allocated.
As JBHIKER notes, too much of the money; in this case $275,000,000 is being allocated to kleptocrat administrators who have "NEVER" taught a child anything. Let me take that back, I told my nephew the other day, forget being a Governor, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the Vice President of the United States as they all make less than our superintendent.
Put another way, let's say we had a company that sold things door-to-door and lets say we only sold things as a percentage of people we talked to and converted to a sale...we would want a lot of shoe leather on the street, yes.
However, what we wouldn't want is 20 managers "managing" 100 salespeople would we; that would be a top-heavy mis-allocation of our resources, yes?
That's what we have here. Too many chiefs making exotic salaries with exotic perks with exotic support systems and not enough indians. We need teachers not managers. "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 8, 2009 9:33 PM:
shockedinlodi wrote on Apr 8, 2009 9:21 PM:
blossom wrote on Apr 8, 2009 7:37 PM:
They are just going to have to lay people off.
They say our medical is going up 53%.
I dont know what people pay in the "real world". Maybe someone can chime in?
I pay 850.00 per month for 3 people and it is an HMO NOT a PPO!We have 25.00 copays for Dr. Visits, 20, 40 for prescriptions.
and 100.00 fpr the E.R.
I think even in the "Real world" That is pretty expensive!
this does NOT include dental and optical.
I hear Starbucks has a great medical plan? "
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Apr 8, 2009 7:11 PM:
Hiker- well, isnt' that exactly what Jerry is talking about in his original post early this AM?
BTW, I'm under 50, have 3 kids in the LUSD, and have family and many friends in the education profession.
It's the "entitlement" attitude of a few that gives all of the teachers a black eye. "
Whoa Nellie wrote on Apr 8, 2009 7:07 PM:
I really laugh at all the talk about how hard the teachers have it. Well, put in your time, take your continuing education classes, and poof, 20yrs later you're making a nice fat paycheck. Throw in that outstanding STRS retirement plan and everything should be great. But, NO. They want to bitch because now they have to actually pay out of their pocket for health insurance, just like the rest of us in "the real world" have been doing forever. "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 8, 2009 5:59 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Apr 8, 2009 5:42 PM:
I really laugh at all the talk about how hard the teachers have it. Well, put in your time, take your continuing education classes, and poof, 20yrs later you're making a nice fat paycheck. Throw in that outstanding STRS retirement plan and everything should be great. But, NO. They want to bitch because now they have to actually pay out of their pocket for health insurance, just like the rest of us in "the real world" have been doing forever. "
Jerry wrote on Apr 8, 2009 5:28 PM:
No teacher need be fired. No quality program need be discontinued if only the administration would stop wasting money on cell phones, needless travel, free cars, free Blackberries, free lunches and endless lawsuits filed against the District because the District Administrators are arrogant, dismissive and at all times negligent.
I'd estimate the District could save 5 million a year in defense and indemnity if only they could figure out how to follow the law. This District is so inept that they have become a plaintiff's bar wet-dream. The District is big, dumb and have deep pockets; that's a bad combo Bob. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Apr 8, 2009 4:47 PM:
Yes or no Jerry? "
ruserious wrote on Apr 8, 2009 4:28 PM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 8, 2009 4:12 PM:
Divide and conquer, pit one teacher against another, one parent against another...and when you need to, one student against another. This is straight out of the L.U.S.D. playbook. We've got it!
The administration reminds me of my nephew (about twenty years ago) when he was about 3-years of age. He thought that if he covered his eyes with his own hands that he became invisible because he couldn't see you.
I think the Board, "the so-called top
Administrators"...and I fear our own union are of the same mind. For all those folks reading this blog I want you to know we are waiting, watching and want you to know you are not invisible. The vast majority of tenured teachers will react with considerable anger to deceitful negotiation practices.
As for the superintendent's "noble gesture" of giving up $15,000 and still pulling down $214,000 plus $30,000 perks will not produce the veil of tears they're expecting. We are on to you Bob, this is another red herring another attempt at bait, switch, obfuscate and hide the ball.
Remove your hands from your eyes, we see you. "
beekayy wrote on Apr 8, 2009 4:11 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Apr 8, 2009 2:57 PM:
Tokaymom wrote on Apr 8, 2009 2:32 PM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 8, 2009 11:39 AM:
Am I jealous the superintendent makes more money than I do? Is that a serious question?
Of course I am jealous. But then again, so is every member of Congress,
Senate,every Governor in the Country. Least we forget the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court; they're jealous too.
All these leaders make less, and in some cases far less, than does the Superintendent of Lodi Unified School District. Anytime you can make $230,000 with another $30,000 in perks for providing "that kind of leadership" you should call yourself a magician not superintendent. I never thought I would pine for "the good old Huyett years"... but at least he smiled.
Bob, I think you are missing the point here. It's not that everyone is so jealous about what these kleptocrats are paid; we are just angry about what they do for what they are paid. Nobody seems to know what value they bring to our children's educations or support they offer teachers or parents.
Besides you and the Board, who's happy with these academic thugs? What value do they bring to our District? "
ruserious wrote on Apr 8, 2009 10:19 AM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Apr 8, 2009 8:22 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 8, 2009 7:38 AM:
Just got an e-mail from a colleague who told me that our insurance may be going up $200 to $300 per month (per teacher) next year. Again, why are we paying CTA? Are they representing us or them?
If CTA recommends we take a cut in pay I say we should seriously examine our relationship with them. Can anyone say, Teamster? "
jbhiker wrote on Apr 8, 2009 6:11 AM:
Jerry wrote on Apr 8, 2009 5:52 AM:
Translation: Our bargaining group ("CTA")is going to ask "all the teachers" to give back 6% of their salary in the name of giving back to the kids and the classrooms. The problem being after we take 6% cut in pay we will not still receive $214,000 like Nichol-Washer plus a 750 per month car allowance, plus a free phone, plus free lunches and travel expense money, plus a free Blackberry.
The question that is going to need to be asked and answered unless our union states loud and clear &^%* *%$... we must ask our union who do you work for the District or the Teachers? CTA pulls down about $1,500,000 per year in teacher "contributions" calculated at 1,500 teachers paying their union $100 bucks each every *&%^&*% month. Does our union have a conflict of interest here?
As for the Superintendent's grand and noble gesture I say: "Don't open your shirt, your heart will fall out." "
Comments on this story are now closed.