Pay Freeze Comments by M. Bollinger

The following comments were written by Commissioner Bollinger and published in the Leader Telegram. I will post my own thoughts on these ideas in the Comments section following.

Maria


"At the board meeting on June 4th, I displayed a spreadsheet on the boardroom overhead. It contained a numeric budgetary discussion of the salary and benefit projections of the total employee expense in our district. It was not directed at any specific union. I did this in a spirit of candid and open exchange with our tax paying public. I also said that I could not in good conscience support increases at a time when we were cutting programs.

I cited a potential $3.6 million savings that can be achieved by having our employee groups accept a ONE TIME pay freeze. I suggested this in a very unique year for the Eau Claire School District. A year in which benefit costs actually decreased. This means that I am asking all employees to voluntarily forgo a raise, only.

Typically, the QEO (qualified economic offer) is used as an assumption in the district budget model. It applies a 3.8% package to the budget increase as is mandated for teachers by state statue. If that amount is not offered we risk going to binding arbitration. Past practice has been to offer all employee groups the same amount as what is settled with the teachers (a sense of fairness I believe has created this tradition). Therefore I used the 3.8% projection in the budget model against the total Salary/Benefits amount to derive the $3.6 million savings number I mentioned in the meeting.

Keep in mind, the board must still cut $2.5 million from the budget over the next two years and class sizes have already increased. That was the thrust of my comments Monday night.

I tried to say very clearly at the board meeting - a freeze for ALL EMPLOYEES allows us to address this. I also said it had nothing to do with 'deserve' because every employee does great work. Teachers in particular do yeoman's work at a job they love for adequate but definitely not 'get rich' wages. I am quoting another, but I these words sum it up..."Teachers think that everyone works at Microsoft, and the community thinks Teachers are riding the gravy train...neither one is correct".

What bothers me about the trade off in increases in pay - is people losing their job. I went to the layoff session with Jo Burke for teachers...and it bothered me to no end with a deep sadness. Last year, over a dozen people LOST THEIR JOB. That has got to end, this board needs breathing room to do some real strategic planning and to hire our next leader.

When I worked in the Cheyenne Schools, we had a salary freeze (not benefits) for 2 years. We accepted that as the trade off for keeping jobs in the bargaining unit ranks - Wyoming is a right to work State. It was difficult but we accepted it knowing we could keep positions, retirement and benefits level.

I would not even float this idea of a freeze were it not for the zero impact to our hardworking employees in this unique of years. We may need to go to referendum again, and soon. Can anyone really gauge if our community will support one? The households in Eau Claire are crushed under the weight of increasing expenses as well. At a time when their resources are stretched, tax increases make voters angry. I know, I hear from them all the time.

I am heartened by the optimism in and of the community. I have had many offers of support, expertise and assistance. The goodwill generated by every employee (EVERY EMPLOYEE) taking a pay freeze will create the kind of environment where our voters feel like we are doing everything we can."