A million here, a million there . . .

by SamCogar on Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:52 am

The school board should kill a cost-saver that inflates costs

SOME teachers look upon the "sick days" given to them by the Legislature as just another entitlement. This encouragement of absenteeism forced the Kanawha County school system to budget more than $4.9 million for substitutes this year.

Well, to paraphrase a onetime member of Congress: A million here, a million there . . . .Pretty soon ,you're talking real money.

So the board of education agreed last year to offer school employees financial incentives not to use all their sick leave. A teacher with zero absences can quality for an additional $1,050 a year.

School managers hoped that incentives would discourage absenteeism and cut costs.

Now here it is June 2008, and while final numbers for the year are not yet available, treasurer Harry Reustle projects that the incentives, when added to the cost of substitutes, could result in the spending of an additional $471,000 of the taxpayers' money.

And perhaps a great deal more - as much as $740,000 this year alone.

It appears that an incentive program instituted to cut taxpayers' costs will raise them instead.

Naturally, members of the Kanawha County Board of Education were asked whether the system should continue a cost-cutting program that raised costs.

Absolutely, voted board President Jim Crawford and members Bill Raglin, Barbara Welch and Becky Jordon.

Absolutely not, fumed board member Pete Thaw.

"I don't like it at all," he said. "I think this is an obscenity - to pay people to come to work. This is costing the taxpayers of Kanawha County."

Indeed it is.

It's worth keeping in mind that unhappy taxpayers are not in the school system's best interests.

Over 10 years, $5 million a year is $50 million.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/200806040214

by **ziggy** on Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:26 am

Employees who hadn't been taking time off still aren't taking time off- but are being paid more. And those who formerly took time off still do.

Well Duhh. Of course it is a net cost increase.

Where's Sasha today? I bet she can 'splain it so that even dumb ole' Ziggy can understand it.

by **Stephanie** on Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:53 pm

The costs may be less than you think. If employees cut back on unneccesary days off in order to receive the extra cash, there may very well be genuine savings to be had.

It depends on the formula used. Are teachers accumulating the sick time the district is giving the bonus for? What percentage of a day's wages are they receiving. There are too many factors to consider to determine from this little snippet if this a good or bad policy.

by Aaron on Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:21 pm

It's Kanawha County. I got $2 bucks that says it's bad.

by SamCogar on Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:41 am

Stephanie wrote:There are too many factors to consider to determine from this little snippet if this a good or bad policy.

Now the only factor that is not clear and might need some consideration is whether or not that reported "more than $4.9 million" that was budgeted for substitutes this year ........ was for teachers only ....... or for all school employees that require substitutes?

And if it includes all school employees that require substitutes, are they all entitled to said “financial incentives not to use all their sick leave”?

And, since EVERY school employee is entitled to “sick leave”, ….. then shouldn’t EVERY employee be entitled to said “financial incentives not to use all their sick leave” whether they require a substitute or not …… because said “financial incentive” has nothing to do with “being sick”, ……. but everything to do with “coming to work”?

By my calculations …. with the limited amount of data I could find, ….. me pretty damn sure the teachers are getting a “bad rap” concerning this stated “problem”.

But anyway, …. believe me, ..... its still a BAD POLICY.

Now let me explain how I determined the Teachers are getting a “bad rap”.

First of all I can’t believe that KCBOE has two (2) Budget line items for “substitutes”, one (1) for Teachers only and one (1) for Service Personnel and others.

And secondly, I can’t believe that, based on the number of KC’s Full-Time Teachers of 1,813, it doesn’t jive with said $4.9 million budgeted …. so it must include Service Personnel, etc. that require “substitutes”.

I say that because 1,813 teachers per $4.9M … equals an average of $2,703 per teacher per year.

And if the average teacher makes $40K, works 200 days, thus earns $200/day.

And said budgeted $2,703/year …. divided by $200/day ….. equals an average of 13.5 substitute days/teacher/year.

And that I believe is way too high and therefore Service Personnel “substitute” costs must be included in said $4.9M

.

A million here, a million there . . .

A million here, a million there . . .

Re: A million here, a million there . . .

Re: A million here, a million there . . .

Re: A million here, a million there . . .

Re: A million here, a million there . . .