Gary, Thank you for your humble thoughts. I share them.
I don't agree with paying someone more money to keep them from leaving a job they were hired to do because they decided that things within the job "went awry (and under their auspices, mind you)" and the end result did not turn out the way they planned it. If things happen on our jobs (and it is a job we take knowing we are responsible for the outcome), and the outcome turns out not to be what we thought it should be, we don't tell our bosses that we are leaving, and be given a raise. At least, not in the world that I live in. And, one might argue that circumstances happened beyond anyone's control, and we can all agree that it does happen on occasion. However, I don't believe that applies here. The job was just not performed well enough to achieve the desired results. So then a new plan is drawn up, and you omit the mistakes you just learned from the new plan. But "mo money, mo money" is not the answer. Not with taxpayer money, anyway. And my feeling is that if the function that the new COO is supposed to perform was originally a duty of the Superintendent, than the Superintendent should subcontract with that person, and pay them from their own salary. It would be a win-win situation for everyone. If our children have to suffer the shortfalls educationally, so should everyone else. And since I am riding this school bus down the road, we are always talking about merit pay for teachers, what about for our Superintendent, MPSB members and the like? They have to be accountable, too. We taxpayers are beginning to wonder if this is the "Free Government Money" we always hear about on the TV commercials. If so, a lot more of us better start thinking about running for some offices. Pamela Taylor (Former Centralian, weighing in with her two cents on the scales of justice) --- Gary Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I realize the value of spending a little now if it > saves more later and the value of quality products > (in this case, a quality leader for Minneapolis > Public Schools). However, even with that > consideration, I must confess that I am immensely > hard-pressed to justify a $30,000 raise to $190,000 > in my mind. Let's keep in mind of an expected, what > is the amount, $30 million shortfall? How do we say > to parents that their children will have to settle > for less when a person who was already making more > than likely 95% of these parents is now getting a > $30,000 raise? > > Furthermore, when Minneapolis taxpayers voted YES > FOR SCHOOLS, I really don't think it was the intent > of the taxpayers to pay for administrative pay > raises (the article also mentions another > $125,000/year for a COO, adding insult to injury) > > In conclusion, it's these antics that leave many > people with the belief that money is being > misappropiated and tax increases are unjustified. > Gary Bowman > Ward 1, Precinct 1 > Questioning whether we voted YES for schools or YES > for pay raises > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
