RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:51 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6420
Louisiana teacher arrested at board meeting after questioning superintendent's pay

A teacher in Louisiana was led away from a board of education meeting on Monday in handcuffs after speaking out on a new contract for the district's superintendent, KATC-TV reported.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/nati ... dent-s-pay


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7875
Location: miles from nowhere
Mrs. Bird saw this yesterday. Suffice it to say she was disgusted.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1041
I've been in those situations. From what I can see from the video, the Board acted appropriately. But again, having been in this situation, I would not have handled it this way. It appears that the officer did not. HIs role, is to defuse the situation, not inflame it. The harm this officer caused will take an awful long time to overcome. (But then, if the teacher is correct that they've had no raises in ten years, there's probably a lot more to overcome than just this.) I do have to say, there appeared to be an awful lot of people there for a Board of Education meeting. Don't know whether it was over the Super's salary issue, or some other issue, or it's just a community with an unusually high rate of participation.

By the way, it appears that she was "arrested" (actually, remanded then released, no charges) for allegedly disrupting...not questioning. Not quite sure why, though, this is getting such national attention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 16852
Location: The blue parts of the map
Because people are perceiving, accurately, that most if not all political power has shifted to the richest 0.5%. More of them are trying to raise their voices, only to discover that our much-revered freedom of public participation is no longer welcome when policy devised in closed sessions is being rammed through the open process. Therefore, they are considered disruptive if they try to articulate concerns outside the 2-minute public comment period that everyone ignores.

_________________
It's wrong, it's stupid, and it doesn't work. Aside from that, everything's good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7875
Location: miles from nowhere
The board acted “appropriately” and is getting their collective asses kicked with a pr disaster. There is acting appropriately and acting smartly. There is correct and right. The board and the cop screwed the pooch.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1041
Because people are perceiving, accurately, that most if not all political power has shifted to the richest 0.5%. More of them are trying to raise their voices, only to discover that our much-revered freedom of public participation is no longer welcome when policy devised in closed sessions is being rammed through the open process. Therefore, they are considered disruptive if they try to articulate concerns outside the 2-minute public comment period that everyone ignores.
Honestly, I doubt that either the board or the superintendent are part of the 0.5%. They are the elected representatives of the community. (though it appears that one had been recently appointed to fill a vacancy till the next election.).

These meetings are not, as the board pointed out, always for public vote on issues. The public elects the Board (who are also members of the public), the Board hires the superintendent and sets policy. The Board has the authority, though is not required, to solicit public input. They can also control the format of the discussion. (you and I don't vote on everything/anything that comes before congress or our city council either.)

I've been there. I know how I would have handled the situations....differently. Perhaps thats why I had the strong support of both the Union and the community. (All this said, I believe there is probably a lot more to this administration/board/union/community relationship. I get this from what she said, how she said it, the fact that she claimed they had no raises over the past ten years--which we don't know the accuracy of--we don't know what the Super is paid or how his/her scale is/has changed.)

Each state would be a bit different (especially law in Louisiana), however policy, generally, is not supposed to be discussed/decided in closed session. Employment negotiations, can be, though it was voted on in public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35982
Honestly, I doubt that either the board or the superintendent are part of the 0.5%. They are the elected representatives of the community. (though it appears that one had been recently appointed to fill a vacancy till the next election.).

These meetings are not, as the board pointed out, always for public vote on issues. The public elects the Board (who are also members of the public), the Board hires the superintendent and sets policy. The Board has the authority, though is not required, to solicit public input. They can also control the format of the discussion. (you and I don't vote on everything/anything that comes before congress or our city council either.)

I've been there. I know how I would have handled the situations....differently. Perhaps thats why I had the strong support of both the Union and the community. (All this said, I believe there is probably a lot more to this administration/board/union/community relationship. I get this from what she said, how she said it, the fact that she claimed they had no raises over the past ten years--which we don't know the accuracy of--we don't know what the Super is paid or how his/her scale is/has changed.)

Each state would be a bit different (especially law in Louisiana), however policy, generally, is not supposed to be discussed/decided in closed session. Employment negotiations, can be, though it was voted on in public.

Although you clarified it later, your first paragraph is kinda misleading. A superintendent is NOT an elected official. They are hired, and usually for pretty big bucks for a government employee. Just on a very quick google search -

CGCS superintendents earned $250,000 or more per year in 2014. The distribution of superintendent salaries since 20033 is displayed in Figure 7. salary for a CGCS superintendent with fewer than 50,000 students was $211,000. In a district with between 50,000 and 100,000 students, the average salary was $260,000.

That's a pretty hefty salary. School systems usually hire headhunters to find them, and it's quite competitive. At least, that's what I recall from back in the nineties in my home town. They paid some outrageous bucks to bring someone in, while cutting everywhere else.

It's the old CEO argument. Superintendents are supposed to be such superstars and important, it's fine to pay them huge, ballooning salaries while cutting the salaries of the people that actually do the work.

Oh, and there are no teacher unions in Louisiana.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35982
By the way, it appears that she was "arrested" (actually, remanded then released, no charges) for allegedly disrupting...not questioning. Not quite sure why, though, this is getting such national attention.

Facts. Via CNN:

Hargrave was booked into the nearby Abbeville jail, accused of one count of resisting an officer and one count of remaining after being prohibited. She bonded out soon afterward, Abbeville police said.

City attorney and prosecutor Ike Funderburk told KATC no charges will be pursued against the teacher.

Looks to me like she WAS charged.

More facts - I stand corrected. Eight parishes (Louisiana's equivalent of counties) allow for collective bargaining for teachers, and Vermillion Parish is one of them. More info here.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:49 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10069
Although you clarified it later, your first paragraph is kinda misleading. A superintendent is NOT an elected official. They are hired, and usually for pretty big bucks for a government employee. Just on a very quick google search -

CGCS superintendents earned $250,000 or more per year in 2014. The distribution of superintendent salaries since 20033 is displayed in Figure 7. salary for a CGCS superintendent with fewer than 50,000 students was $211,000. In a district with between 50,000 and 100,000 students, the average salary was $260,000.

That's a pretty hefty salary. School systems usually hire headhunters to find them, and it's quite competitive. At least, that's what I recall from back in the nineties in my home town. They paid some outrageous bucks to bring someone in, while cutting everywhere else.

It's the old CEO argument. Superintendents are supposed to be such superstars and important, it's fine to pay them huge, ballooning salaries while cutting the salaries of the people that actually do the work.

Oh, and there are no teacher unions in Louisiana.


It's not required, but generally a superintendent of schools will have a PHD. My local district doesn't pay even close to $200,000 to their superintendent of schools. I've been here ten years now and I haven't seen one stay on the job for more than two years, the wage here may explain that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:03 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12509

It's not required, but generally a superintendent of schools will have a PHD. My local district doesn't pay even close to $200,000 to their superintendent of schools. I've been here ten years now and I haven't seen one stay on the job for more than two years, the wage here may explain that.

Maybe the reason a superintendent doesn't stay long is because once they're hired the begin looking for a new job. They work in one district for two or three years and makes changes where the results won't be seen for years so if their changes fail it doesn't come back on them and gets them fired which would hurt their chances for a good position later.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:49 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1041
Facts. Via CNN:

Hargrave was booked into the nearby Abbeville jail, accused of one count of resisting an officer and one count of remaining after being prohibited. She bonded out soon afterward, Abbeville police said.

City attorney and prosecutor Ike Funderburk told KATC no charges will be pursued against the teacher.

Looks to me like she WAS charged.

More facts - I stand corrected. Eight parishes (Louisiana's equivalent of counties) allow for collective bargaining for teachers, and Vermillion Parish is one of them. More info here.

Technically, I guess you are correct, in that she was charged...but, it appears that they will not be pursued.

Re 6 or 8 parishes, I wasn't able to verify this....though you may be correct. The best I could do was find a 2012 study/report that said only six collective bargaining agreements in LA....which is incredibly low. That is different than allowing for collective bargaining. I'd suspect they'd be subject to the same collective bargaining laws as everywhere else in the US. (and these protections have been under attack especially since the 1980's) Either way, not sure how that's relevant to this specific case.

I'm not defending how she was treated...quite the opposite. 1) it wasn't over her what she said, though, it was that she (the officer felt) wouldn't stop. From my perspective, that officer shouldn't be back at future meetings. 2) I'm really not sure why this has taken on such a high profile....But I guess that's just the way things happen. But my gosh, all the improper arrests and police activity that goes on and this is what's been national news for days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12509

It wasn't the officer's job to make that determination. His job was to ensure the security of people at the meeting. The teacher was arrested while she was addressing the board and it was during the second time she was recognized to speak. She was behaving appropriately when the officer intervened for some unknown reason.

I agree with you that officer shouldn't be back at future meetings.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35982
Technically, I guess you are correct, in that she was charged...but, it appears that they will not be pursued.

Re 6 or 8 parishes, I wasn't able to verify this....though you may be correct. The best I could do was find a 2012 study/report that said only six collective bargaining agreements in LA....which is incredibly low. That is different than allowing for collective bargaining. I'd suspect they'd be subject to the same collective bargaining laws as everywhere else in the US. (and these protections have been under attack especially since the 1980's) Either way, not sure how that's relevant to this specific case.

I'm not defending how she was treated...quite the opposite. 1) it wasn't over her what she said, though, it was that she (the officer felt) wouldn't stop. From my perspective, that officer shouldn't be back at future meetings. 2) I'm really not sure why this has taken on such a high profile....But I guess that's just the way things happen. But my gosh, all the improper arrests and police activity that goes on and this is what's been national news for days.

Just one more point of information. Collective bargaining is NOT protected the same across our nation. Worker's bargaining rights are different across states and across types of work. It can vary wildly. Some workers are covered under the National Labor Relations Act, others under the National Railway Act, and some, such as agricultural workers, don't really have rights. Federal government workers have one set of rights, and states cover their own workers. Some states allow counties and cities decide if they want to let local government workers bargain at all. I know it's that way in Kansas. You can have a union and a contract, say in a city, and the city council can just have a vote to no longer allow you to have a union at all, and just eliminate your contract.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:33 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1041
Just one more point of information. Collective bargaining is NOT protected the same across our nation. Worker's bargaining rights are different across states and across types of work. It can vary wildly. Some workers are covered under the National Labor Relations Act, others under the National Railway Act, and some, such as agricultural workers, don't really have rights. Federal government workers have one set of rights, and states cover their own workers. Some states allow counties and cities decide if they want to let local government workers bargain at all. I know it's that way in Kansas. You can have a union and a contract, say in a city, and the city council can just have a vote to no longer allow you to have a union at all, and just eliminate your contract.
Your comment here is correct, of course, and I knew it when I wrote my earlier comment re collective bargaining protections. I was even thinking that my thought wasn't very well articulated. So I shouldn't have written it.

Anyway, I do have a question...it would be very unusual for different counties/parishes/municipalities/townships/etc. to have different laws regarding the ability of workers collectively bargain/unionize/organize/etc. ..is that correct? I'm not asking about states, and I'm not asking about union agreements, just the regulations dealing with workers ability organize.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35982
Your comment here is correct, of course, and I knew it when I wrote my earlier comment re collective bargaining protections. I was even thinking that my thought wasn't very well articulated. So I shouldn't have written it.

Anyway, I do have a question...it would be very unusual for different counties/parishes/municipalities/townships/etc. to have different laws regarding the ability of workers collectively bargain/unionize/organize/etc. ..is that correct? I'm not asking about states, and I'm not asking about union agreements, just the regulations dealing with workers ability organize.

Only for local public workers. For federal workers, or private workers the national laws prevail. The only difference is a state can decide whether or not to have Right to Work.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1041
Only for local public workers. For federal workers, or private workers the national laws prevail. The only difference is a state can decide whether or not to have Right to Work.
But what I'm asking is even more local...can a county/parish/municipality/township/school board/etc. impose particular laws regarding collective representation?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35982
But what I'm asking is even more local...can a county/parish/municipality/township/school board/etc. impose particular laws regarding collective representation?

Yes, only over local PUBLIC employees. Depending on state law, some local governments can allow or forbid unionization of their own employees. They can't do anything about private-sector employees.

In other words, if state law allows, they can decide if teachers and other city or county employees can unionize and collectively bargain. But no one else.

Does that clear it up?

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1041
yep...that's my question...thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carmenjonze, Google [Bot], Ike Bana, Sam Lefthand and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group