I want to shift the focus now to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, or WEAC as it is commonly known.  Following this, we'll look at the WEAC affiliate that delivers health and other insurance coverages.

WEAC is among the state's 800 lb. gorillas so far as labor organizations are concerned.  It touts having some 98,000 members.  Its history shows a start in 1853, some 8 years after Wisconsin became a state.  It became known as WEAC in 1972 following adoption of collective bargaining laws for public employees in Wisconsin.

WEAC represents the following segments of education today: teachers, education support professionals, custodians, university students, state education employees, paraprofessionals, retired education support professionals, retired educators, library media specialists (one of whom, Mary Bell, is the current WEAC President), nutrition employees, school safety personnel, Wisconsin Technical College faculty and support staff, clerical staff, counselors, secretaries, teacher aides, bus drivers, cooks and state-employed education and information professionals.

WEAC's structure begins at the local level with the local unions such as the Germantown Education Association (GEA).

The local unions are members of a unified services unit, or UniServe unit, in their local area.  That unit includes the professionals required to support the locals, and is typically limited to some 1,200 to 1,500 individual union members.  Five of the largest school districts have their own UniServ units (Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay).  The staffs of each UniServ provide locals with collective bargaining, member rights, public relations, professional development, and political action assistance.

The UniServ entities are tied to WEAC in Madison and WEAC is a member of the National Education Association, or NEA located in Washington, D.C.

It is easy to see that this organization is very well developed for the functions it has carved out for itself.  That is among the reasons that education is such an effective political force.  I have made earlier references to the fact that WEAC has spent millions of dollars to assure an attentive audience in the halls of Wisconsin government and in the Governor's mansion.

WEAC has identified its major initiatives for the period 2008-2010 and those are:

School Funding  They state: "It is evident that school funding is broken.  It is at the center of discussion from local to local.  The WEAC Board of Directors has identified measures of success for school funding reform, and they are offering a comprehensive education to kids and fair compensation for members."

Health Care  They state:  "We know that under the Qualified Economic Offer we've been sacrificing salary increases for health insurance.  But WEAC's commitment to health care reform is much bigger.  We care deeply for kids and their families because we all know that health care is also a learning issue."

Professional Development & Licensure  They state:  "Educators are required to focus more attention than ever on licensing and professional development, and WEAC is stepping up to provide quality support and services.  You are the best person to manage your professional development, with support from your union and financing from your district."

Achievement Gaps  They state:  "This issue is very close to the hearts of WEAC members.  The frustration of not being able to meet the needs of all our students drives us to do more - demanding needed resources and bringing the issue forward into a public conversation.  We will continue our work to involve communities, corporations and government in closing the achievement gap."

Membership  They state:  "We are listening to what you need and value, and connecting your union to your daily work.  We are focusing on groups who are already organized - and those who are not yet - in order to fulfill the promise of public education for future generations."

I'll close this piece with the 2009-2010 WEAC legislative agenda.  Their printed material says:

"WEAC Supports Legislation To:

• Repeal the Qualified Economic Offer law.
• Repeal revenue caps.
• Make preparation time for educators a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
• Increase funding for SAGE to provide $2,500 per low income pupil beginning in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
• Implement voucher accountability.
• Make attendance of 5-year-old kindergarten mandatory and a prerequisite to admission to first grade.
• Treat education support professionals the same as teachers under the Wisconsin Retirement System in terms of qualifying for coverage and for early retirement calculations.
• Establish WTCS pay equity by requiring that the salary and fringe benefits of part-time technical college instructors be prorated based on the salary and fringe benefits of full-time staff.
• Create a loan forgiveness program for teaching math, science, special education and ELL in high-poverty districts.
• Repeal residency requirements.
• Provide a tax deduction for non-reimbursed classroom purchases.
• Adopt the 'Wisconsin Indoor Environmental Quality in Schools Act' for public school buildings.
• Require school boards to adopt anti-bullying policies.
• Allow parents to take leave time from work to attend school conferences and activities."

~~~~~~~~~~

Several things jump out at me as I write this but I'll use another piece to explore those.  The one major thing that occurs is that virtually everything about WEAC means higher costs of education which translates into restructuring school financing laws and that will ultimately translate into more tax dollars.

The angst that followed the election concerning the defeat of the referenda items has subsided a bit.  I want to explore the whole subject of education in our community and state, and have been discussing many issues with those involved including school board members from communities in Wisconsin, educators and taxpayers.  I have no idea how long this series will run, but the input of the citizenry is important and I hope this might provoke some additional rational discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~

I was off the mark on the qualified economic offer (QEO) when I referred to it as the maximum amount that could be provided to teachers in the combination of salary and benefits.  The QEO was instituted in 1993 and replaced the then mediation and arbitration system,  It provided that school boards providing at least 3.8% increases of salary and benefits combined would be protected from binding arbitration which had been problematic for school districts up to that time.  In this sense, the QEO is the minimum and usually the maximum.

There are teachers/former teachers who would admit that the QEO has served to protect the jobs of teachers that might otherwise have been cut in the old binding arbitration days since the arbitrators could assess whatever they felt was appropriate in terms of combined increases without regard to the district's ability to pay the added load.

Similarly, those people would also indicate that rescission of the current QEO rules and their replacement with mediation/arbitration, as the governor has tried to gain over the past several budgets, would probably cause teacher terminations since the proposed mediation/arbitration language has been moot on the subject of districts' ability to pay.  That leads, I suspect, to some of the 'scare' tactics citizens face whenever teachers' compensation is debated.  We almost always hear of the 'programs that will have to be ended if...' there were to be limits to increases proposed.  Those debates seldom, if ever, are concerned with actual reductions, but almost always with limits to the amounts of increases.

The cost of healthcare has played a significant part in the rising cost of education.  The 3.8% increase has to cover the cost of benefits and compensation.  If the health premium increases in double-digits annually, that translates into relatively little remaining for salary increases.  In the unregulated world that most of us occupy, the employer makes the decisions and enforces those decisions.  That world does not exist in education.

So, it is possible to extrapolate that the removal of QEO and its replacement with mediation/arbitration, without consideration for a district's ability to pay, could result in teacher losses, increased class sizes and some issues surrounding the nebulous issue of 'quality of education'.  That issue is nebulous in that it is poorly defined on a consistent basis.  It seems that whenever we get into those discussions, the achievement side becomes dynamic so that it is never quite possible to gather information permitting solid decision-making to occur.  Cause and effect are difficult to equate in those discussions.  That coupled with the emotional response that comes very quickly from one or both sides fairly well suggests that we'll not get to a good, solid, well-informed decision.

Under our current rules, after the 3.8% has been granted by the district, and that is not acceptable to the teachers, a mediator is brought in to attempt to help the sides find common ground.  If neither side is willing to give ground, the mediator can declare an impasse and the 3.8% offer is put into place with no further negotiation.  This has tilted the equation to the district's side and it has been that way since QEO was created.  It is understandable that teachers would find this 'unfair' even though you and me might think 3.8% was a pretty fair increase...especially if we've not received an increase for awhile...or if we've lost our job due to cutbacks.

Next time, we'll look at some hypotheticals that put some numbers in place.

The MATC has developed yet another draft budget after the first such exercise produced the need for a 6.4% property tax increase (see Blog of April 23rd).  At the time of that budget draft, the governor apparently said he would not countenance such an increase.  MATC announced then that it would go back to the old drawing board and see what could be done to get down into the range of 'as little' as a 5.0% to 5.5% property tax increase.

Guess what?  They can now apparently declare victory in this onerous task since the finance committee is only proposing a revised draft budget that would consume another 4.9% increase in property taxes.  The proposed draft will come to a vote by the full board on May 27th.

MATC has developed budgets since 2004 that will have caused property tax increases of more than 30% if this draft is ultimately approved.

Has your personal income increased by 30% in the past four years?  Has your savings account grown by 30% in the past four years?  Has yours become a single income family instead of a dual income family in the past four years?  I doubt it.  But, if so, congratulations!  Even with such an increase, if that has happened for you, I'll wager that you have better places to put your hard-earned money.

The MATC finance committee says it has cut all it could cut from the budget.  Jeannette Bell, committee member and former West Allis mayor, was in favor of not only this 4.9% property tax increase, but also favors reducing the reserve account held by MATC which has been done as part of this draft. 

People costs are budgeted to increase significantly.  Wages and salaries will go up about $1.5 million.  Health care costs will rise by some $2 million.  Other 'fringe' benefits will add another $4.5 million, including  $2 million required to bring the recognition of accrued benefits onto the MATC books like any other 'business' must do today.  That is $2 million of 'funny money'; where else would we find accounting tricks employed if we were to subject this institution to the standards maintained by businesses?

I cannot accept the statement that MATC has cut 'everything possible' and still needs this kind of increase budget over budget.  The paragraph above suggests to me that people costs are way too high, and a very quick way to achieve reductions there is to have fewer people.  Maybe MATC should think about outsourcing certain functions.  Maybe they should think about 'tough love' negotiations with union representatives.  There are or ought to be limits even for tax-funded entities.

Maybe MATC needs to review its class demand and determine the bottom third by attendance and end those classes.  If there is insufficient demand, there is apparently not an identifiable 'significant' need.  MATC cannot be providing services to a market that doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to show demand.  That would free up space for other uses, and it would, or should, enable staff cuts that will reduce costs.

It is impossible to forget, in this debate over MATC, that there is a very real problem with the Milwaukee schools system and we must recognize that some of MATC's costs should rightfully be paid for by the Milwaukee school system since MATC is mopping up after that dismal performance.  Adult high school education classes and GED classes are an example of how the public education structure in Milwaukee fails its students and the residents of the community.  Interestingly enough, this may well be an intended consequence rather than an unintended consequence.  It gets non-Milwaukee taxpayers to pay more of the Milwaukee education costs than is already done through state tax distribution formula.

Finally, I suggest once again that MATC needs to clean up its many acts.  It needs to get out of the failed business incubator function.  It needs to quit building physical monuments to itself and its leaders.  It needs to look at sale and lease-back arrangements.  It needs to reduce staff. 

Frankly, it is becoming more and more apparent that significant leadership changes may be required, as well.  MATC leadership seems to be ignorant of the public's needs.  This is an institution answerable to no one other than the governor through his ability to appoint members to the state technical college board.  The state legislature and the governor must act to bring this renegade system under absolute control.  There must be a change in the manner in which the state board and the district boards are created; voters need to determine who sits on those boards.  The current incestuous approach simply doesn't work...for anyone other than the leaders and those who sit on the rubber stamp boards.

All this brings me to the next obvious question:  Where do we stand in the quest for permission to move to another technical college district?  There seems to have been a long delay in the process; maybe it is justified.  I hope it doesn't mean that the movement has been quietly put to sleep.