Part #1
I have been reading these debates for weeks now and I am sorry to say that the BOE and most people (including you Bob) don’t have the ability to look and plan for the future. What I mean by this is yes we are facing huge payments down the road, but not today. If you look at the offer from the BOE, it is paying the teachers more money in year three when we will have larger bond payments. If you force the teachers to take a hard freeze now, what is going to happen three years from now when a new contract will be negotiated? If you look at what the teachers are asking for, it goes down every year. I don’t agree with what they are asking for entirely, but there are some things that should happen in order for Geneva to attract the good teachers in the future. One, give the teachers the step and lane movement this year. This will give those teachers that have an approved masters degree by the district their fair movement. Here is the reasoning for this. Under the current proposal, a teacher that just finished their 3rd year with the district and just got a masters degree would stay in the position with 2 years, and no masters. A new hire to the district this year with 3 years and a masters degree is being paid for 3 years and a masters degree. Why is it fair to the teacher that has been working in the district to not get the same pay? If you don’t believe me, just ask the district. Two, do not offer a percentage increase at all for three years.

Your proposal is realistic - it makes a lot of sense. My only comments would be to put out for bid to tax payers what other uses there could be for the surplus of funds, since the tax payers were the ones overcharged for the taxes...I don't believe that it would be a good idea to start the practice of overcharging on taxes, and then using that as a stratgy to build in salary increases for the future - that is just misleading tax payers and abusing the current system in place. When you suggest to look at the long run, and base decisions on that, I wonder, how will the salary increases be paid after the first year? Your suggestion seemed to say for the first year, you would have the increase come from the funds that are surplus. However, what happens after the first year is over - unless you are suggesting that every year it should come from the surplus - and then I would wonder what is the long run implication for that, as well? How does that impact other uses for those funds. Wouldn't it make more sense to refund excess surplus, but approve the increased costs through referendum and voter approved tax increases? I would believe that if the increases make sense, the voters will approve them.

Cody
The teachers will never accept a hard salary freeze so your plan is no better than the BOE. The union is pushing for the 6% spike prior to retirement because there are many teachers that will retire in 4 years. If the the 6% is given it will cost more in salaries over the next 4 years plus within 4 years, the local district will be responsible for pension payments. Those that want to retire should do so without the salary spikes. New teachers will be hired at a lower base salary and salary costs will be reduced. I would actually be in favor of raising the base salary but freeze it for the first 4 years. After they complete their 4th year they can be given a raise based on their own development as a teacher.
Another big issue is the fair share demand. Why should someone who does not want to be a union member be forced to pay the union a fee.
As to your Masters question, keep in mind that the teacher received at least partial reimbursement for taking classes. The entire Masters issue needs to be restructured because getting a Masters doesn't automatically make you a better teacher, especially if the degree is in something other than what you currently teach.
I find it odd that Jeff Ward can attack GenevaTaxFACTS and me personally but any comments I make to his "article" are blocked. I guess the Patch thinks the 1st Amendments rights are a one way street. Jeff, keep bashing GenevaTaxFACTS. Every time you bash the group, your true colors show through.

Here's a look at the long run - the taxes here are already so ridiculous that once my kids graduate GHS, I'm OUT and the district will get no more of my tax dollars. 'Course, they'll just get 'em from the next sucker, won't they? And let's be clear - I'm not staying till they graduate because the Geneva teachers are oh-so-wonderful - some are fabulous, some meh, not so much - but because I wouldn't force an unnecessary change like that on them at this time in their lives. Because I care about them, unlike the union bosses apparently.

First, let's make sure the facts are clear. If the BOE decides not to engage the teacher's union in contract talks there is no requirement to use them in the future. As long as the school district has 50% of its students attend classes, uses certified teachers and offers learning in math, history, science and language arts, school days count. Even with replacement teachers.

Here is my proposal starting with the eliminations. Eliminate the step and lane process altogether. Eliminate all subsidies for expanding education past a masters degree. Eliminate significant increases prior to retirement.

Raise the starting wage to $42,000 as a base. Even though the Geneva school district is already an attractive option for any teacher candidate this base will ensure top candidates apply. Use market pricing (not step and lane) to determine the pay for all teachers. Since there are less math and science teachers applying for jobs, raise the pay and let the market determine their prices.

Implement individual objectives for each teacher every year that they are evaluated against. If the teacher achieves the objectives, they receive an increase in pay (1 - 4%) and a cash bonus (% to be determinable). If a teacher doesn't achieve the objectives, no raise and potential removal.

Finally, implement school based performance objectives (ie. reduce costs by x %, raise student scores by x %) which allow all teachers in the school to receive an additional bonus.

I'd like to see the step increases phased out,m rather than rearing their head again in the 3rd year - but I'm not gong to 'armchair quarterback' the board.

BoE proposal is more than fair - and while it won't solve our fiscal woes, it may staunch the bleeding a bit

Why is there a polling on this when us taxpayers have no say in the negotation process? What is the point? What is concerning is the legal corruption associated with the IEA who collects 135 MILLION annually in teachers dues to fund and buy politicians so they can continue to get their unions demands passed. This union is corrupt. This needs to be disclosed and stopped. If the teachers feel this is ethical practice then we have a larger problem.

"FAIR", is it? And which "Fair" are we talking here -- complexion or carnival? Surely we are not attempting to use the word to describe an employer/union contract negotiation?

Away from the elementary school play-ground there is no more "fair" -- there's only what you can take, what you must give up, and that which the referee doesn't call. And in the union lexicon, "fair" means, "We win, you lose."

Mr. Nagle, it's time to stop talking down to your audience.

The Board's offer is the lesser of two evils. I think if the GEA was smart they would jump at it before it's pulled off the table. Hold fast School Board.

Once again people you are failing to look at the future. I hope you all realize that at some point a contract has to be settled. The question is at what cost? If you truly want to cut back on teachers pay and restructure the compensation structure, the time do start is not 2 weeks before a strike. This board needs to come up with a package the will get the teachers to sign now, with concessions on both sides. Somehow get wording in this contract that step and lane movement may end in future contracts. We need to be planning for those larger bond payments, and increasing the pay in the future is not the way to do it.

I understand that this is the first time during negotiations that a state union rep has been part of the negotiations. Kind of curious that this is also the first time we have been in a strike situation. Wonder why the sudden interest?

I am concerned about union manipulation of the community and teachers. If I understand the system correctly the teachers must pay. The state collects and the union uses these dues for policital purposes. I found one site that said the teachers pay a little over $1,000.00 a year. Hmmm sounds like money better spent by the teachers than the unions.

Interesting article about unions:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/teachers-unions-not-just-chicagos-problem/article/2507652

I just got the adjustment to my mortgage because of property taxes. I just saw my PERFORMANCE BASED increase sucked away. No increase for the teachers just because they have put in their time.

Furthermore, any degree they earn or work toward a degree should also be relevant to their current line of work and should only be approved if they have demonstrated good performance as an effective teacher. I guarantee you no corporation that provides education assistance toward advanced degrees would do different.

The most recent story on the KCC, if you read between the lines, appears to make it sound as if the school board and administration have no contingency plans if a strike were to occur on November 12. If this is the case (and it appears so with the lack of a communication from them), I'm very dissappointed in the BOE to not have a fallback plan other than to keep the students at home.

BOE, ask for help if you need it. We are willing to help to keep the students in school.

In light of the BOE press release today, I say we take the salary increases being requested by the teachers and give it to the board members. The board members VOLUNTEER their time and clearly the union has no respect for that time!

Very hard for me too take this. I work very hard in my life and have not taken any raises over the last four years. I lived on very little for years to try and make things work. Today I am lucky with what I did early to even be here. However, I write a check to Kane county for over 22,000 in taxes for what I say, are our kids better off yes, are the parks good yes, are the roads good so so, are police and fire good, yes. But are we as a community being fiscally responsible to all tax entities? No! Are we looking for ways to reduce spending so we can provide the backbone to the future more? No! So I ask, are you willing to pay more in taxes for better teachers and education to support the backbone of the future, and continue to let other government agency have fiscal irresponsibility?

Now that the record is public, it is clear that GEA/IEA throughout these so-called negotiations have intended, purposely and maliciously, to drive the process straight into a strike. The history of the process shows clearly that from Day-One a strike was the union's intention.

Geneva is being used as an example. Geneva, a community that has historically fawned over teachers at every turn, eagerly acquiesced to GEA demands and treated educators as totems of perfection, but has suddenly realized it cannot continue -- not that we would prefer not, but that we can not -- has been targeted.

I think it is most unwise of the union to take this approach, because they have picked an unnecessary fight. Geneva would willingly have returned to lavishing teachers with a generous, and to the average voter relatively obscure, system of compensation once the economy regained its stability and the District's debt problem was solved. As it is, the teachers have fouled their own nest, and things may never again be as they were.

The metaphor of the Snake in the Garden fits perfectly here: GEA listened to the voice of the IEA/NEA tempter, and began to question unalterable Truth out of the notion that GEA could be a law unto itself. Like Adam and Eve, GEA will in the future find only struggle and pain where there should have been ease and contentment.

Most unfortunate of all is fact that there are now two factions in our community which will forever be in opposition to one another.

I feel bad for the BOE - not just the Geneva board, but all of them across Illinois. The teacher unions are better organized and hold all the cards in the negotiations - they generally get what they want when they strike. I wish the state government of Illinois was more like Wisconsin and take control of the public unions at the state level. But with our democrats accepting millions in campaign contributions from the unions, it will never happen. Instead, the state will be forced to claim bankruptcy when they can't meet the unfunded pension liablity. Maybe then the unions will recognize reality.