Posted by Watchdog, a resident of the Cuernavaca neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2012 at 6:08 am
And don't forget the top two assistant superintendents will retire this year with golden packages (3-4 million each) courtesy of the tax-payers. And one will be back in the fall double dipping because she is too valuable to lose.
Posted by @ Nick, a resident of the Cuernavaca neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm
You need only to look at how the other school districts are fairing during these tough economic times to realize what a good job Craig Goldman is doing.
It is so so easy to sit there and say the money is being mis-managed, but it is simply untrue. He is has worked hard and it shows...in what our students are getting that students in other districts are not! And, what our teachers are getting. They have not yet had any days off without pay, as many other districts are currently doing consistently. And, that is proof that our money (albeit less than some districts of which I speak)is being well managed.
About these "golden packages" I cannot speak. I do not have any information about that.
Some are receiving pensions ~$140k/year, which is worth $3-4M as Watchdog points out. And these numbers are growing significantly every year with each retirement.
It's hypocrisy for Goldman to lash out at Steve Nelson in saying that he doesn't support our children, when Goldman supports millions going to each administrator in retirement pay (that otherwise could have gone to improving our schools).
Goldman is like those homeless beggars that prop up a sick dog to try to get people to donate -- and yet spend the money on themselves, and are actually motivated to keep the dog looking sickly since that pushes people to donate.
If he had prioritized school improvements over pensions -- and now asked for tax increases to fund the multimillion dollar pensions -- would anyone vote for it? No.
Posted by Interested Observer , a resident of another community, on Apr 3, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Nick - why don't you find out the facts before you blast off your negative comments. Goldman has no control over the retirement packages. How they are calculated is controlled at the state level - not at the local level!!!
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Nick does have a point. Goldman has already approved raises and bonuses for district office administrators. One will retire and come back to double dip. Goldman is already in line for a raise, not the teachers. This is the same old scam as before. Look at the board meeting minutes. Ex-superintendent Ghsyels girlfriend is one of the highest paid principals in the district although with the least amount of time in as a principal. The schools were just remodeled ten years ago, while few taxpayers homes were. This is just another fleecing.
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2012 at 6:08 pm
And those administrators who retired a few years back retired at salaries higher than their last salaries. That was orchestrated within the district office and approved by the board at the local level. Dwell on that and then ask yourself if you should be taxed more.
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2012 at 9:20 am
I tried over 2 years to get the Trustees to get 'high standard' community input. I also tried to get this spending plan delayed - by getting 2 Trustees to vote "present" on the bond vote. I am not overly impressed by Goldman's work as CFO with the architects, or his commitment to what the Department of Education considers "best practice" in community input. I think the community needs to keep him on a short leash (tight citizen pre-taxation priorities). There is only 42% bond funds for his $423M SFIP. The question is not pensions, but, Craig, when are you coming back for THE NEXT $200 M?
Posted by William, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 8:26 am
"deny our students access to safe efficient and modern facilities"
Who would be so stingy and selfish?
Our tears fall for the doomed children now suffering in dangerous and antiquated facilities. And for all the teachers who have to go to work 180 days per year. And for the tax payer relentlessly drained by veracious, self serving bureaucrats.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2012 at 11:13 am
All this discussion over this local bond measure, Steve Nelson, and Craig Goldman is missing the forest for the trees. A quick analysis of the low per capita spending per student in California, in conjunction with the relatively low per capita spending per student in the United States is the real, big picture issue and problem.
The fact is that our current priorities don't support us continuing to be the superpower of the world. Education is what develops the people who in turn drives the innovation that supports a thriving economy that in turn supports every else that a country needs to stay on top.
Those who continue to blame inefficiency and corruption in the administrative branch of education may indeed have a point, but its a moot point, because their strategy for addressing it that only makes the situation worse: withhold funding....let'm starve.
To be sure, money is not the sole solution to fixing all the endemic problems we have with our educational system, but neither is turning our backs on it and walking away.
Posted by Marlene, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Any figures on what percentage of students in the district are from (property) taxpaying homeowner families, and what percentage of taxpaying homeowner families send their kids to MVWSD schools? And what percentage of district residents with school age kids send their kids to private schools (broken down by homeowners vs. renters or both)?