Another CSD Furloughs Note From Dr. Edwards
Decatur Metro | July 30, 2009Asst. Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen forwards another note from the superintendent. This one seems to leave the door a bit more open for potential furlough days later in the school year.
We are reviewing the situation. While we do not wish to cut short the work of our teachers and staff, the serious nature of the economic picture may require that we take this step. We are exploring the options. At this time, should we consider the reduction of work calendars, as suggested by the Governor, we will plan forward so the days in question can take place the latter part of the year.
If state finance issues are so bad then why doesn’t the governor take a furlough month?
Yes! I’m so glad that someone has said this! In all seriousness, I think that would show leadership and a willingness to pitch in and share some of the sacrifices that he is asking of Georgia citizens! Whatever happened to leadership by example?
I’m as willing to criticize the Gov as the next person, but I’m not sure it’s feasible for the governor of a state to just take a month off. Now if it was something like unpaid vacation, which he was going to take anyway, or just forgo his salary, that would be doable.
Even if he did that, his salary is only $135,000, which doesn’t do much to close a $900 million deficit.
And if he just took 3 days without pay, I can see how some people would just see it as pandering.
I don’t know. It’s a sticky wicket.
Sonny has said he is taking a three day furlough, as are all members of the legislature.
Good, although I’d prefer a month. While neither 3 day nor a month of furloughs close the deficit gap, they give the decision makers a taste of what Georgia citizens are having to do and show some moral leadership.
I see where you’re coming from Snowflake, but is it really responsible for a governor to take a month off in the name of moral leadership?
The short answer is: of course not.
So exactly why can’t Sonny take a month off? Oh the insurance companies and construction companies or other corporations would miss all the fine work he does.
Great idea Snowflake. All state employees are now mandated to take 3 days with no pay. Given his tax breaks for Bidness, which contributes to our state budget crisis, he should take a month off with no pay.
It could be seen as pandering. Nearly everthing they do at the State capital is pandering.
This is worse for teacher morale than just telling them what they plan to do. The school board says all the time how important our teachers are so it’s time they put some money… How many times has the school board dipped into the general fund for construction overruns? Let them dip in for an instruction overrun this time. Instruction before construction.
I’m going to assume that, if CSD teachers are asked to take furloughs, that those at higher pay, i.e. senior educators and administrators, would take at least one more day of furlough. It’s the decent thing to do. In state agencies, staff at certain pay grades and higher have been taking furloughs. Lower grade clerical and support staff have not been asked to reduce their almost poverty level pay with furloughs. Even the directors of the departments under the governor have taken furloughs. A higher level of pay brings responsibilities and one is to take a bigger hit than those at lower levels of pay for whom the hit is harder. At under $40,000 per year, furloughs may mean choosing between keeping up with the rent or no Christmas presents for the kids. At over $75,000 per year, a furlough means putting into an IRA or putting off a vacation.
“A higher level of pay brings responsibilities and one is to take a bigger hit than those at lower levels of pay for whom the hit is harder. ”
This sounds dangerously close to “redistribution of wealth.” A higher salary is not necessarily an indicator of increased responsibility. It is usually a result of the amount of effort the earner puts in to get to a higher salary level (e.g. education, career choice, work ethic).
This is not to take anything away from the hardship that our great CSD employees may have to endure. And I know that people at a lower salary will suffer more. But I don’t understand why, just because someone makes more, they have to take a bigger hit if furloughs become reality.
Because that is the answer to so many challenges in our country today!
Legally enforce those who have earned those higher salaries through their education, efforts, initiative, and hard work pay for MORE than their fair share.
Where have you BEEN for the last almost seven months? Wealth re-distribution via the government is the light at the end of the tunnel! That’s the ticket…and the stamps,..and the voucher…and the rebate…and the refund…etc. etc.
HA!
Seriously, I think I agree with Hdog.
I don’t understand why, just because someone makes more, they have to take a bigger hit if furloughs become reality.
Simply because someone making $90k can withstand the hit more than someone making $40k. It’s not “wealth redistribution” it is simply economics.
You are assuming that the 90K person has more expendable income. How does one know what the financial responsibilities are of the 90K person…maybe he is supporting elderly family members, has a child with an expensvie disability, etc.
Just because you make “X” amount doesn’t mean you have MORE to give the government that someone making less.
That is just false.
Thanks, Jack. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Sounds like your overburdened $90,000 households could use more heavily subsidized healthcare to solve their problems.
I understand your argument, but at some point, say $250,000 :-), don’t we clearly get beyond the “everyone has to carry a different burden?”
And if taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is the reason for our problems, then why does wealth disparity continue to increase in this country?
How about if we tax everyone at the same income tax rate, but also jack the capital gains tax through the roof? That’s the fairness you’re looking for, correct?
I think we have (once again) gone beyond the bounds of the original discussion, but in for a penny…
Who said we are looking for fairness? I learned from an early age life isn’t fair, and that you have to work hard, save your pennies and strive for excellence if you want to make a good life for yourself. The great thing about America is it provides us the opportunity to do those things.
I know you threw out the $250,000 as a nod to the current political discussions about wealth. And to most of us, $250,00 is a lot of money. But to some, who have different financial burdens (such as small business expenses), that’s not a lot. So I think blanket assumptions about income, with little regard to expenses, leads to poor decision making.
Fairness in regards to income brackets or furlough days or whatever. That the only way that it would be fair is if everyone pays the same %. That’s why I proposed a higher capital gains tax.
Again, the wealth disparity seems to show that even the high tax rate isn’t stopping the rich from accumulating a larger and larger % of wealth in this country.
Good point regarding small businesses. Forgot that retort.
Agreed. America rocks.
DM…late in this response, but don’t ask me to defend/support a wonky tax system and healthcare delivery industry. If I had those answers, I would have world-wide acclaim and no doubt little time to view and comment on this blog.

My point is clear and is the same. The assumption of larger expendable income based simply on a higher salary is false.
Thanks for bringing this up, CSD Snowflake. Furloughs stink for EVERY employee, but they have a much greater effect on those who aren’t making very much to begin with.
Over the past 30 or so years, our governments have been creating massive infrastructure. Modern city halls, municipal centers, criminal justice halls, county gov’t buildings with glass walls, granite floors, tropical plants etc. Many of these looking more like corporate headquarters. What does the debt service on these cost, what is the cost of turning on the lights, maintenance and so on. That is to say what are the costs incurred before they are staffed?
I have always been amazed and angered that the first thing that comes up with budget cuts is ” Lets lay off or furlough teachers, police, fire and rescue” how about instead we start demanding that they start selling some real estate, furlough some administrators etc.
Government needs to be indexed to population.
The focus of government should be essential services. Police, Fire Rescue and Teachers
Legislators need to eliminate one old law before they pass a new law.
Of the 535, senators, congresspersons and legislators, most are trained as lawyers. Very few of them with MBA’s and leadership skills. Is it really surprising that we are over regulated and fiscally mismanaged?
I fear that the bloat has caught up with us, I do not see how we can have any kind of economic recovery with the cost of government sky rocketing and essential services being cut. Where is the money coming from?
There is no such thing as government money there is only taxpayer money
Music to my fiscally conservative ears…
City Hall is very nice, state of the art, well staffed. But CSD central office seems much more to run on a shoe string.
Hey, maybe we can make it to 50th in education. I know it’s a stretch from the low 40’s but obviously we’re game.
Swill,
Your comments seem to imply that the state isn’t supporting education. Furloughs are not the end of the world. Everybody has had to cut back and I expect the state/county/city to do the same. If that means we will have to supplement some school work at home, so be it. I read you post to indicate that the people of Georgia do not support education in this state. If you look at the stats from the Report Card on American Education, Georgia ranked 30th in Expenditures per Pupil, 23rd in Pupil to Teacher Ratio and 18th in Salary of Instructional Staff. Yet, we rank 41st in ACT scores and 48th in SAT scores. So I would argue that the short comings in our ACT/SAT performance are not due to money but rather how it is being spent, the demographics of the state, and the quality of instruction our children are receiving.
All of this conversation would make more sense if CSD was a cash-strapped district. It is not. It is a rich district that taxes heavily, pays its superintendent $210,000 per year and is planning to spend millions of dollars on new construction. In CSD, not paying teachers should be a last resort, not a go-to solution.
Now, that last sentence, I’ll agree with wholeheartedly.
It’s not redistribution of wealth to ask those who are highly paid to do something more to earn their higher salaries. And just like they get bonuses when things go well, they should get whatever you want to call the opposite of bonuses when things don’t go well. Otherwise they should get average salaries and no bonuses like everyone else. Just like no one is entitled to a handout unless they are sick or handicapped or unable to find work, no one is entitled to huge salaries, bonuses, and lots of benefits and security just for showing up and doing a good job.
A more important issue is how do we maintain the trust, respect, and morale of good teachers if furloughs are imposed. Since my kids spend 7 hours a day in the classrooms of those teachers, I, as a taxpayer, care a lot more about their morale and well-being than I do the morale of highly paid school administrators and leaders. I think it would show some true leadership and grit on the part of those administrators and leaders to demonstrate their commitment to their schools by taking a larger hit in furloughs than do the rank and file. That’s just how I was brought up. You don’t ask anyone else to make a sacrifice you wouldn’t make yourself and more so. Isn’t that what good generals do? Am I just naive here? No one is asking leaders to give up their high salaries, just asking them to make larger sacrifices than the rank and file, which still leaves them pretty well off. And if they can’t make those sacrifices, maybe they aren’t true leaders.
I understand your comments in the second paragraph and agree with much of what you said (especially about teacher morale). But I still have concerns with statements in your first paragraph. You state we should ASK higher-salaried people to give more. I’m fine with that, but there is a difference between MANDATED sacrifices on the part of those with higher salaries and VOLUNTARY sacrifices (I’m not yelling with the CAPS, just wanted to make sure those words were emphasized).
Also, your opinion that “no one is entitled to huge salaries, bonuses, and lots of benefits and security just for showing up and doing a good job” is fallacious reasoning. People earn what the market will pay. For example, actors make millions for memorizing lines and delivering them in front of a camera. Are they more vaulable than the people teaching our children who make $40,000 a year? Nope. And yet, there is a huge difference in their salaries. Many find that unfair. But that’s what happens in a free-market economy.
I may sound a bit heartless, and I don’t mean to. Americans are the most charitable people on the planet, and I think it morally incumbent upon the more fortunate to give something toward the less fortunate. On the other hand, I balk at the concept of MAKING them give more.
I really don’t want mandated salaries or monolithic socialism either especially since I know nothing about economics, markets, or political theory and would hate to create a world-wide financial collapse because my naive social ideas aren’t practical.
But to me, government jobs, e.g. being a relatively highly paid administrator in City Schools of Decatur or elsewhere in government, are not the same as being in the free marketplace. The free marketplace often pays much better than government (e.g. movie star and sports players) but has much less security and benefits. And there’s less of a sense of altruism and contributing to the common good although some might argue this, especially regarding movie stars who are real hunks.
No one MAKES (italics, not shouting) folks go into education or other areas of government and no one MAKES them rise to the high paid administrative level. As a TAXPAYER, I would like the folks on top to take more furloughs or forgo their bonuses because they could CHOOSE to go into the free marketplace and see if they could get that high a salary, benefits, and bonuses with equally as much security.
Not that I think anyone is listening, but I would like my School Board Members who I ELECT to please ask the CSD Administration which is paid by my TAXES to please, if they have to do furloughs at all, give themselves at least one day more. I would prefer that they did this VOLUNTARILY without my having to ask it since that’s good leadership. But since leadership by example seems to be on the decline (and I’m talking both the ultra wealthy and the rest of us– as much as I respect Obama, I can’t believe he doesn’t have the moral fortitude as President to quit smoking as a good example), I’m pointing this out before CSD imposes furloughs on only the rank and file and makes me real mad.
Interesting discussion. I’d like to share some actual facts with you. First of all, I’m sure Dr. Edwards would like to be making $210,000 a year, but her salary is more like $160K – which is not as much as assistant superintendents make in all of our neighboring districts. She chose not to accept her bonus last year for meeting her goals – which was just under $15K. No one asked her to do it, she just volunteered to do it.
Your school board also volunteered to forgo its pay for the year to show good faith to the staff because of the budget cutbacks, and they decided not to do any travel for professional development. They did it to no media fanfare, so most of the community probably doesn’t even know it. Granted, it’s only about $2K each, but that’s $10K total. (If your City Commissioners had elected to do the same thing, they could have saved the City $25,200 during this budget crunch.)
The central office staff did have their days cut last year much more than teachers. That was Dr. Edward’s recommendation and the board supported it. No one forced her to do it. As an administrator, I understood why and supported it – like many of my co-workers
I live in the city and am a taxpayer. I make approx. $85K and I have been in the educational field for almost 30 years – yes, I was a teacher. I have worked hard to get to where I am today and will not feel bad about that. I hope that any of you out there who have worked in your professional as long as I have are making at least that much if not WAY more!!
Having worked in other districts, you guys have no idea how lucky you are to have the leadership you do in this school system! I suggest that you to attend any of our neighboring systems board meetings or district meetings and you’ll see for yourselves first hand.
MUCH AGREED CSD ADMIN!
Actually, I know nurses with two master’s degrees and many years working in the public sector who earn much less than $85,000 per year. You can find physician salaries posted on the state job site that have a salary range of $62,923 – $86,467. So even a physician with 4 years of medical school beyond college, 3-4 years of residency, two-years of graduate school for an M.P.H., and years of experience would earn no more than you do if they received near the top of the range. And no one at the state is getting offered anything but the minimum of the salary range when they come on these days.
But that’s not the point. If the higher salaried positions in CSD take more furlough days than the front-line lower paid teaching positions and if no salary increases occur retroactively (as happened in at least one instance last year) or prospectively that don’t equally apply to teachers, I’m happy. I’m not trying to reduce anyone’s base salary, just make sure that there’s good leadership when it comes to sacrifices over the next year. Hopefully, that’s what we’ll see. Salary levels in other school districts don’t concern me a whole lot because those with higher salaries are mostly much bigger than CSD and they are much less pleasant places to work. I was impressed that the School Board didn’t accept their stipends this past year and it would be wise for them to continue that in this economy in which many of their constituents have had a recent job loss (10% by both reported data and by my hand counting among friends). I had actually hear that the stipend was something like $12,500, not $2,000 which impressed me even more.
It seems this discussion has switched to a debate on whether a higher paid person should give up more than a lower paid person in times of hardship. Being that a furlough day is basically just a salary withholding, isn’t a higher salaried person giving up more (per furlough day) than a lower salaried person anyway? I know this is oversimplified, but a person making $80,000 is going to be giving up twice that of a person making $40,000 in financial terms!
Yes, in absolute amount. But proportionately it’s the same. And the same proportionate cut hurts lower incomes more because there’s a limit to how low you can go to meet the rent or mortgage, buy food, medications, and get child care for the average family. That’s why I say that 3 days of furlough may make a paraprofessional (entry salary around $17,000; I think most CSD parapros earn ~$20,000 per year) have to decide between food vs. rent vs. kid’s Xmas presents. The same 3 days of furlough for someone who earns $85,000 per year may be four times as much but won’t come as close to affecting that employee’s ability to pay for the basics unless they overcommitted themselves financially; it’s more likely that they have to forgo a vacation or upgrading their car.
It’s not unethical for higher paid folks to make less of a sacrifice than lower paid folks, It’s just distasteful and not good for morale for those folks who spend 7 hours a day in the classroom with our kids and more hours later preparing lessons, materials, and grading and communicating or meeting with families. It’s those people who are most in touch with our children; I want their morale and commitment to CSD to be high.
I AM glad that its furloughs being discussed in CSD, not simple salary cuts or laying folks off (although I understand a little of that may have happened with teacher contracts were offered last spring). If one has to receive a smaller salary check, it helps to at least have a holiday, albeit unpaid.
“The same 3 days of furlough for someone who earns $85,000 per year may be four times as much but won’t come as close to affecting that employee’s ability to pay for the basics unless they overcommitted themselves financially; it’s more likely that they have to forgo a vacation or upgrading their car. ”
Besides the last part of the comment being just downright insulting, once again, you are making assumptions based upon only one side of the equation (income). You are ignoring the other side, that of expenses. I personally know someone who makes close to $100,000 per year. Nice salary, agreed? That’s until you see that his only child, a 12 year old son, has been severely handicapped since birth. The direct and indirect expenses associated with that handicap are very burdensome (and please let’s not take that example into a discussion of health care).
I realize that may be an extreme example, but it does show the assumption that a higher salary equals a higher ability to sacrifice is unsound reasoning. We can’t know, just by seeing someone’s paycheck, what their true financial position is.
Right, but think of how much harder it is for someone earning much less to take care of that same child.
But really I’m not trying to say that any particular person shouldn’t get any particular salary; the market structure for salaries is beyond my expertise and this thread. I just think that good leaders who want to maintain trust, respect, and morale among their followers during furloughs would be to show that they can sacrifice even more. Since I’m a taxpayer, that’s what I’d like my school system leaders to do, even if they are the most competent school administrators in Georgia.
More important than my opinion is that of classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in CSD. How do they feel about furloughs and what would make their morale highest if they have to go through them?
Quote From CSD Administrator: “Interesting discussion. I’d like to share some actual facts with you. First of all, I’m sure Dr. Edwards would like to be making $210,000 a year, but her salary is more like $160K – which is not as much as assistant superintendents make in all of our neighboring districts.”
To CSD Administrator: My point was that CSD is a rich district; however, I am disturbed by your incorrect information.
I don’t know where you found $160,000 (you can cite it if you like) but I found the salaries at the .gov site. The superintendent’s salary was the 12th highest out of 200 in 2008. http://www.open.georgia.gov/sta/viewMain.aud.
I’ve also listed the superindents’ salaries (not assistant superintendents’) for neighboring districts that are much larger than CSD -but have left off the mega districts like Gwinnett which are so much larger than CSD.
EDWARDS,PHYLLIS A SUPERINTENDENT $209,125.28 CITY OF DECATUR
PETRUZIELO,FRANK R SUPERINTENDENT $208,273.15 CHEROKEE COUNTY
SANDERSON,FREDERICK C SUPERINTENDENT $206,012.25 COBB COUNTY
LEMBECK,EMILY J SUPERINTENDENT $202,553.52 CITY OF MARIETTA
KING,SAMUEL T SUPERINTENDENT $197,245.60 ROCKDALE COUNTY
PARISH JR,WALKER J SUPERINTENDENT $189,999.96 HENRY COUNTY
EVANS,L C BUSTER SUPERINTENDENT $162,149.94 FORSYTH COUNTY
Foodie, just so we’re clear, those figures include all benefits, which is about 30% on top of your salary, but her salary is in the $160’s. (Sups do get perks that other employees don’t like a car allowance, and that’s included in this figure.) This 30% on top of your salary is true for the cost of benefits for all staff, including teachers. And remember, administrators work 12 months a year, teachers work ten months a year. As an administrator, I must admit that I miss having my summers off!!
Debating other people’s salaries displays either envy or judgement, neither of which is particularly attractive.
The question is value. Assuming Dr. Edwards’ salary falls within market range (denoting a reasonable use of tax dollars), I don’t care what the figure is so long as we’re getting results.
If we’re going to evaluate something, make it that. Then, if those who feel we’re not getting our money’s worth constitute the majority, she can be replaced with someone who operates differently. But even that person should be compensated fairly.
Anyone who thinks a good chunk of money makes life’s problems go away has never been blessed with a good chunk of money.
To me, the debate isn’t about salaries. It is about 1) the posting of incorrect information and 2) whether Decatur should furlough teachers.
Geez … where’s the love around here?
Well, for the level of responsibility that she has I think that even the $210,000 is low. I know lots of people who have far less responsibility than Dr. E that make a good bit more than she. Also, I think that she is getting better results and is certainly is more available than supers in most of the districts that Foodie listed, so she should be paid more than most of them. Just because a district has more kids does not mean that it has a proportionate increase in work load. In fact, my guess is that the larger districts actually rely on their superintendents less b/c there are oodles and oodles of lower level administrators handling things.
Frankly, even though it’s public information and Dr. E is a public servant, I am not too thrilled about folks posting her salary and making commentary on it unless they are willing to post their real name and salary. But that’s just me… I expect to get flamed on that.
No flaming from me, Mr. Fixit. I agree totally. Scrutinizing people’s incomes and making judgements accordingly is lame. This isn’t some Fleecing of Decatur. We’re talking about a market competitive salary.
Yep, and I don’t think I’d want whatever super we could get for a “discounted” salary. I’d think it would be someone who couldn’t get a job anywhere else or who took the job b/c they don’t want too much responsibility.