Joe,

Interesting comments. Check elsewhere on The Patch [http://ambler.patch.com/articles/wsd-gop-candidates-refusal-to-debate-surprising] for my thoughts as to why none of the 6 Republican candidates showed up.
I wonder, though, what you're referring to as the 'day of reckoning?'

The 'union' has nothing to do with the increase of teachers. Teachers are only hired for positions that are available - like any other business. The school board ultimately approves or denies teacher positions. In the past, WSD has seen classroom sizes swell because the current board Republicans refused to hire more teachers. Additionally, administrators are not part of the teachers union. And while the teachers of WSD willingly agreed to a complete pay freeze in the 2010-2011 school year, administrators were happy to receive not 1, but 2, pay increases.

Pensions are State mandated. It is the law. The problem with funding pensions right now is due to the fact that the district has not contributed to the fund for a good many years - a pardon granted by the state. Teachers, however, were not granted that pardon, and continued to contribute to the pension fund.

I realize it is hard to wade through the Party rhetoric and get to the truth. But in this time when 'opinion' and 'tag-lines' take over the air waves, whittling down to the truth has never been more critical.

Chris, I'm sorry, but you're misinformed on several points. First, the current board Republicans have not refused a single recommendation from the administration to hire anyone. Not one. You may call the administration and ask yourself. The votes are public record, and they'll be candid with you about the recommendations.

Second, the district has, and are required by law to, pay millions of dollars each year into the pension fund. The county has avoided doing this into their fund, which is different, but the school district has done so every single year. Check the budgets - they should be on the district website.

However, since you seem to be taking a shot at Republicans, let me tell you how our last Democratic governor screwed this pension: the state must match the school's contributions dollar for dollar. Despite the fact that the pension is underfunded by billions of dollars, Ed Rendell actually LOWERED the required contribution in order to balance his budget, leaving a further shortfall to be dealt with after he's long gone.

Chris, also, the administrators' pay raises, in total, add up to about half of the raises the teachers got in this contract, including that zero.

Joe, no need to vote for Ron to find that out - call the district's office and ask the business department for all of that info. Ron is going to be a typical tax-and-spender - if you think the 8% the teachers got in this contract was a lot, how much do you think a former teacher is going to vote to give them?

And hey Ron, I saw you flapping your arms and clucking like a chicken at Whitpain's fall festival trying to mock one of the Republicans for not showing up to your so-called debate - is that really behavior befitting a man of your age, or a man trying to run for office? I was embarrassed for you.

Dear Concerned Montco Citizen,

It's interesting that you seek anonymity, while everyone else has been using their *actual* names. Is there a reason for this or are you just a 'poser,' someone who is just trying to be provocative?

Chris *is* correct. When the pension increases were passed - originally just for the State Legislature, but to hide what they were doing, they included the teachers. To avoid ruffling feathers, they gave the school districts across the State a 'pass' in that they didn't have to increase their pension payments for their staffs - *all* staff, including administrators, teachers & service workers in the schools.

Perhaps the reason the *total* cost increase for administrators is just because there are fewer of them? The Board spent 18 months negotiating the contract. Eight of the nine members are Republicans. If you have an argument about the contract, perhaps you should bring it up to the Republican majority instead of trotting out the old 'tax & spend' rot of times past.

As far as the Board approving all appointments suggested by the superintendent, the Board sets the budget, the the superintendent makes personnel moves based on that.

Dear Concerned Montco Citizen,

It's interesting that you seek anonymity, while everyone else has been using their *actual* names. Is there a reason for this or are you just a 'poser,' someone who is just trying to be provocative?

Chris *is* correct. When the pension increases were passed - originally just for the State Legislature, but to hide what they were doing, they included the teachers. To avoid ruffling feathers, they gave the school districts across the State a 'pass' in that they didn't have to increase their pension payments for their staffs - *all* staff, including administrators, teachers & service workers in the schools.

Perhaps the reason the *total* cost increase for administrators is just because there are fewer of them? The Board spent 18 months negotiating the contract. Eight of the nine members are Republicans. If you have an argument about the contract, perhaps you should bring it up to the Republican majority instead of trotting out the old 'tax & spend' rot of times past.

As far as the Board approving all appointments suggested by the superintendent, the Board sets the budget, the the superintendent makes personnel moves based on that.

Continued

As to my conversation with 'one of the Republicans' at the Forum, I did say to 'one of the Republicans' that I missed this person. The reply was, 'Well....' I then said, 'I know, you guys have to follow orders & you're just too chicken to make decisions on your own.' And it wasn't 'my' debate, it was a forum sponsored by a parent group. Just as we *all* attended a Forum sponsored by the Blue Bell Tea Party group. How were they able to attend one but not the other?

Chris is wrong. The percentages, added up, are roughly half. And large payments have been made every year. There was no "pass." You should know this - you're a beneficiary of it. And I'm not happy with anyone who voted for the teachers contract. They didn't even give us time to digest it before ramming it through.

Ron, you didn't address the clucking and arm-flapping. Is that the kind of behavior voters can expect if you're elected and disagree with someone's viewpoint?

8% for teachers overs three years vs. 4.5-5% (roughly) for the administrators over 3.5 years is just about half. And I want to stay anonymous because I have several kids in the schools and I don't want my feelings on the teachers contract to be held against them!

Concerned,

Sorry, Concerned, but *you* are incorrect.

Check out this article, which I found in a few moments search:

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/02/28/news/doc4b89f385eb4f6465512232.txt

This brings out exactly what I've been saying:

'Due to some legislative juggling in 2003, employer contributions were kept artificially low in order to avoid a major contribution spike following a depression coupled with increased benefits granted in the two preceding years.'

Yes, and I said that Ed Rendell did that. The point I was correcting was made above by Chris Butler: "the fact that the district has not contributed to the fund for a good many years - a pardon granted by the state. Teachers, however, were not granted that pardon, and continued to contribute to the pension fund." I was saying that's not true. The district has contributed millions each year. You and I seem to be in agreement (on this, anyway).

Fortunately for Wissahickon, they will be debt-free in a couple of years, so they'll have millions available to offset any "correction" that may come to finally make up for this. Other districts won't be so fortunate, and will probably require huge tax increases if that happens.

Concerned,

Glad to hear that! See, reasonable people *can* agree on something. ;=}

I looked at the parts of the letter from Brian Miles, chairman of the Whitpain Republican Committee posted on the Ambler Gazette site.

http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2011/10/31/ambler_gazette/news/doc4eaeec1b433ca023659201.txt

Though the entire text is not included in the post, I note that much of the same text is in a letter sent to the Patch - but then it was signed by *all* of the Republican School Board candidates.
http://ambler.patch.com/articles/wissahickon-republican-school-board-candidates-choose-not-to-attend-partisan-debate
So, who wrote the letter? Was it the candidates or was there a ghost-writer - namely the Chair of the Republican committee? When Burunda or I have something to say we don't run to the head of the Democratic Party to write for us, we do it ourselves.