Lakeville's Freshman Senator Dave Thompson Dives Right In
Former talk show host is generating a statewide debate with proposed legislation that would freeze school district employee wages.
Photos
Freshman District 36 State Senator Dave Thompson is no stranger to generating discussion. As a popular radio talk show host and television commentator for more than seven years with KSTP, he was responsible for filling hours of air-time chatter each week.
After winning the vacated seat held by long-term Republican Senator Pat Pariseu since 1988, Thompson was quickly elected to an Assistant Majority Leader role and called upon to help lead a Republican party that finds itself in control of the state legislature for the first time in nearly four decades.
“I believe where I can most effectively be used is in helping to lead the message and framing the discussion on issues,” says Thompson of how he views his new leadership position. “I have a background in communications, and I’m hoping the caucus will allow me to utilize that in helping to sell their message.”
Thompson appears to be getting his wish.
The new Senator recently helped introduce a bill that proposes to freeze all state school district employee wages for two years until June of 2013. The bill, SF0056, is generating plenty of discussion with Thompson at the forefront doing his part to help shape the conversation.
“The primary goal is to make it easier for local school districts to navigate the difficult financial terrain of the next few years,” Thompson says of the proposed legislation. “We’re trying to get rid of mandates and requirements that put pressure on school districts to negotiate. The 2-year pay freeze would free up money within the school districts that could otherwise be paid for retaining staff and maintaining programs rather than eliminating or reducing those resources.”
While the pay freeze has received the bulk of the spotlight’s illumination on the issue, the bill also repeals measures currently in place that mandate school districts to allocate funds in a certain way. This, says Thompson, is designed to help local districts gain greater control of their money when faced with making difficult decisions with regard to their local budgets.
But Education Minnesota-Lakeville President Don Sinner, who represents more than 700 professional educators within the Lakeville Area Public Schools, doesn’t view the bill as being effective in its current form.
“I don’t support the bill as currently put, no,” says Sinner. “The (Minnesota School Boards Association) stand is for local control. And many of the current (legislative) leaders have talked about the need for local control in the past. Sen. Thompson’s proposal takes away local control in this instance. It’s the exact opposite of what they’ve stated they’ve wanted in the past.”
Sinner points to recent voluntary wage freezes he says were agreed to by a large number of school districts within the state, including in the last round of negotiations with the Lakeville school district, as arguments against the effectiveness of the plan as written. Despite those concessions, the Lakeville school district has put approximately 13 percent of its current teaching positions on the table as possible victims of further budget cuts.
“It takes away from the sacrifices that local school districts have already made,” Sinner says. “And there have been many sacrifices. Now, in addition to the cuts, they want a wage freeze on top of it.”
Thompson has engaged in discussions with education leaders, including Sinner, in hopes of gaining support for the measure, but clearly there remain sticking points.
Sinner acknowledged having in-depth discussions with Thompson, and while he declined to reveal specifics of those discussions, he may have provided some insight as to what a potential sticking point might be.
“Nowhere have we ever been guaranteed that wage concessions would actually save jobs, and I think that’s important to note. “
Thompson understands teachers’ concerns and defends his stance.
“I want to be clear about the message,” he says. “It’s already been put out there that I’m targeting teachers and I disagree with that. I want what’s best for the students. All school district employees are included in the bill, from teachers and administrators, to clerical staff and janitors. I’m not singling out teachers, who I have a great respect and admiration for. I’m trying to retain their services.”
“Even though they may disagree with what I believe, my motives are pure,” Thompson continues. “And I think (the proposed bill) will help deliver the best possible education to our students.”
Sinner stated he believes the bill simply isn’t needed from a state level. “This will not solve the state’s budget problems,” he says.
When asked what the negative consequences might be if the bill were approved as proposed, Thompson admitted not everyone would be happy.
“Any time government acts there are bound to be some negative consequences,” explains Thompson. “The negative consequences here are that some teachers, clerical staff and support workers won’t get pay raises. I feel bad, but that’s what’s going on in the private sector and it is part of the dynamics of what we’re facing in the current economical climate. My intention is to be able to retain more teachers and programs, which I think is a better alternative than losing those resources because of union negotiated pay raises.”
While the two sides may not agree as to how effective the measure might be in accomplishing the goals of local school district budget relief, the goal of creating discussion has certainly been reached.
Ultimately, though, says Thompson, “it’s about what the people want.”
The problem is different people want different things.
The bill is set for further discussion during a scheduled Education Committee meeting Tuesday at the Capitol.
terry
8:28 am on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Great job Dave Thompson. We are proud of you. We would not need his bill if School Boards had taken a responsible approach to the money hungry Education Minnesota union that is simply in place for it's own purposes. It is really time to tell the union they are going to receive 10% less rather than our kids and their programs. The union is so cash rich they put on these hookey union tv ads that cost millions each year to tell us how great they are. What lies.
The school boards have fallen for every ruse in the book to take more money over the past 10 years and it makes most of us just sick.
Sal Tessio
9:40 pm on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Money hungry public employees...I find that quite humorous. While the public sector was enjoying steady wage growth during the last boom, state employees plugged along trading large raises for decent benefit packages. Now we're in a bust...and anti-union paranoia is all the rage. The easy targets are teachers, municipal workers, et. al. Union membership is at an all time low, something like 14 percent nationally. Pretty hard to believe out of a nation of 300 million people that public employees are solely responsible for our current state of affairs...nor should shoulder a greater burden of the solution than any other sector of the economy. The overriding issue here is local control. While ISD 194 is going through a bad patch right now, why would we penalize the many other districts that are doing a good job with their resources. If a school district is prospering and being a good shepherd of their resources they should be able to allocate their monies in any way they see fit. That's the whole notion behind local control. How else are they going to attract and retain the best and brightest? The market should decide a prevailing wage...whether or not the employee group is bound by a collective bargaining agreement. I understand the sentiment Terry but St. Paul has no business in this matter.
Sarah
11:43 pm on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sal, the key issue that you mention is that " the market should decide the prevailing wage". When a position becomes available within district 194, which is rare because of tenure and other issues, the number of applicants are increasingly very large numbers. People want those jobs because they are more attractive than jobs available in the private sector. Government positions shave become the gold standard of employment in many cases and the salaries and benefits have outpaced the private sector. Much of the wealth enjoyed in the private sector has been wiped out and reversed. That has not been the case for government employees. As an example, Washington DC is a boom town with rising housing values and great wealth being created by many. Much of the remainder of the country is struggling. The same is true for tenured positions and administrative employees in our school district. The "new normal" for our school district should be the need for a realistic look at the viability of continued pay increases and continued benefit enhancements supported by the taxpayers.
Sigrid Iversen
2:46 pm on Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Senator Thompson,
Where is the local control that you so enthusiastically supported ?
parent taxpayer
10:32 am on Thursday, January 27, 2011
This bill rightfully is generating disucsison, but ultimately reflects not just the economic challenges of today, but long standing problems local school districts have been mandated to deal with.
Local control and the 6.2 Bil state defict is the main talking points of Unions. It sounds cute for liberals to suddenly support local control but dig into the bill and you will realize local schools are freed of some madates and penalties ultimately giving them more control. Further the point of this bill is not to have an effect on the States general budget problems, the point of this bill is to help save teacher layoffs and strengthen the education of STUDENTS.
By eliminating some of the ineffective and costly mandates, and putting the school boards on a level playing field with the unions in contract negioations the your local school boards HAVE MORE CONTROL to not fire as many teachers and over their budgets. The result is better STUDENTS.
Where is the local control ? read the article.
“The primary goal is to make it easier for local school districts to navigate the difficult financial terrain of the next few years,” Thompson says of the proposed legislation. “We’re trying to get rid of mandates and requirements that put pressure on school districts to negotiate. The 2-year pay freeze would free up money within the school districts that could otherwise be paid for retaining staff and maintaining programs rather than eliminating or reducing those resources.”
Sigrid Iversen
12:47 pm on Thursday, January 27, 2011
"Parent Taxpayer"
Then let the districts do that, and for many reasons many are already considering it. Thanks for the explanation, but I am pretty well versed on your "answer". I am aware of the justifications. I did read the article.
I am more concerned with the manipulation of the "local control" message. Don't change it up to further your agenda. He seems to use it when it suits him. Even his counterpart Representative Garofalo is hesitant about this legislation.
parent taxpayer
10:59 pm on Friday, January 28, 2011
No need to be snarky Mrs. Iverson. It's your right to support Rep. Garofalo, i'm sure you voted for him even. But while your posting aren't adding much to the discussion, perhaps other readers might be interested in knowing that atleast three major papers have also come out supporting this bill. (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press and a Mankato Paper)
I think a discussion on the issues is better served than your concern of politics. It's not often that those papers agree with Sen. Thompson/ republican "answers" or manipulation of message. Come on, that doesn't help. For other openminded folks here is the pioneer press article... http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_17208962?nclick_check=1
Sigrid Iversen
11:41 pm on Friday, January 28, 2011
Wow! didn't intend to be snarky. Just expressing my opinion. Quick FYI, clearly you didn't realize that I RAN AGAINST Pat Garofalo in the last election! Because of this I have discussed the issues with people that have had very differing opinions. I must say that your response has been one of the rudest I have encountered, and I have knocked on thousands of doors over the course of the campaign this fall. Perhaps you should do your research before you get on your high horse. I am saddened that because you disagree with me, you believe that what I say has no value. It is exactly that attitude that exacerbates the problems in this country!
Phillip
10:06 am on Saturday, January 29, 2011
I actually thought Parent Taxpayer's were on target and not rude.
Sigrid Iversen
3:33 pm on Saturday, January 29, 2011
Just to clarify...I have no problem with "PT's" opinions. It is where he claims that I had nothing to add to the discussion. EVERYONE has something to add. He also claims that I am not open minded, and unless he knows me he cannot in fairness make that claim. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean that what I say has no value. As I said to him, it is that kind of attitude that has this country in a deadlock. I would wager that Senator Thompson might even agree with me on that point.
Joni
10:12 am on Saturday, January 29, 2011
It seems to me that a wage freeze is a pretty big mandate that is definitely NOT local control.
Randy Pronschinske
12:36 pm on Sunday, May 1, 2011
Joni. - This discussion is about local control and I for one believe in local control as much as anyone. The closer one is to the problem the better the decisions will be. Unfortunately what is happening in most districts including Lakeville is that we are talking about “Local Union Control”. The law is currently tilted in favor of the union, because of the fines imposed on the district if the contract is not settle by a date certain. (are you in favor of dropping that state mandate?) Second concern is that the local unions take mandatory dues from the teacher and then support the candidates that vote on their contracts. Our local union for example collects over a half a million dollars annually. If a candidate runs that is not in line with their agenda they spend whatever they want to ensure their candidates win. I guess because ISD 194 is the biggest employer in the district you could argue that is local control but a lot of those dues come from teachers outside the district as well but have a huge incentive to have the union favorites win. I believe Senator Thompson's bill is intended to help district address the imbalance in the negotiation process and if we end up with a bill that removes the imbalance in the negotiation process and lost the pay freezer portion, I for one would be very excited. We are in the middle of contact negotiations in Lakeville and I am sure we could settle on a fair program if our board has the opportunity to truly negotiate.
parent taxpayer
2:45 pm on Monday, January 31, 2011
Mrs. Iverson, my intention was not to be "rude" or on a "high horse". My apoligies if your were offended. I'm not interested in a total back and forth here, but was trying to add to the discussion. I'd hate for you to become know as Snarky Iverson. Especially as a past office seeker.
My statement about not adding to the discussion should be better articulated. Your opinion and others ARE sought here and by me. That is why I read the comments. Simply defend an opinion, which you didn't really voice one. It's more enlightening than a one sentence complaint or sassy question. Although, now that we know you were a Union backed candidate, we have context for your positions and I understand your previous comments on my post. We might actually agree on somethings you know.
parent taxpayer
2:50 pm on Monday, January 31, 2011
As I was obliged to defend my comments, I also found another link on this discussion that some might find as helpful as I did. Almanac had a segment on Sen. Thompson's bill, and a DFL'er from Minneapolis debated it with him. They bring up the "local control" issue again. (sounds like a "Talking Point" to me) Hope this helps any of you understand each position.
It's only about 6 minutes long.
http://www.mnvideovault.org/mpml_player_embed.php?vid_id=21789&select_index=0
Sigrid Iversen
10:36 am on Saturday, February 5, 2011
Posted on my Advocates for Education FB page created to keep people informed. It is a good link...thank you!
Lorraine
7:52 pm on Thursday, February 3, 2011
Thank you, Sig, for supporting our kids and government employees, specifically teachers, who work because they love the rewards of the smiles, tears, and success stories of our kids ---not for the pennies that we (teachers) have to divide between fees to allow our own kids to play their favorite sport or fine arts activity. Yes, we teachers are taxpayers to, parent taxpayer. You probably get a bonus when you are successful at your job? I do too. A thank-you from a graduate.
Colin Lee
9:49 pm on Thursday, February 3, 2011
As a former non-union teacher at Saint Thomas Academy and a recent candidate as well, I know unions are not the cost issue. After years of studying the root cause of growing costs in government, I can confidently say the greatest problem is the rising cost of health care, which Senator Thompson's bill does not address. His bill even distracts from the root cause.
California froze wages and actually had no increase or cuts to education last year, yet they had to cut 8% of their public teachers. That's how badly health care costs have risen.
Randy Pronschinske
12:48 pm on Sunday, May 1, 2011
Colin, It is true that health care is rising rapidly unfortunately it is not only the public employees that have this issue it is us private sector employees as well. Not only have we taken pay freezes and in many - many case pay cuts our health care premiums and co-pays are rising 20 and 30 percent on top of the pay cuts. I am not sure how it seems fair to anyone that while we in the private sector are getting pay cuts and health care increases we allow others not to bare some of the pain along with us. If you go back an look at the data when times were good we were supporting our teachers and every single year they have outpaced inflation with their increases. I personally do not feel it our obligation to have our families suffer even more while the teacher’s union sticks with a 3% increase for the teachers that remain while laying off great teachers and increasing class sizes. We all love teachers and admire them for their efforts but we also need to protect our own families as well.
Chris Lind
6:24 pm on Sunday, February 20, 2011
As a former school board member I have to applaud his law. We are constantly battling on an uneven playing field. We negotiated our administration to a hard freeze (benefits and salary) said they should lead. The previous year our teachers received a 6 percent increase over the previous contract. I voted again it but many of the board members wanted to settle before the deadline and not be penalized. We would have been penalized $50 a student or $70,000. Thanks to the DFL passing a law to strengthen the teacher union. To even the playing field get rid of that law.
Loves Teaching
8:30 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011
What about the teachers that paid thousands out of their own pockets to go back to school with the knowledge that they would be able to make a lane change to help pay it back? What about the teachers that won't be able to take classes because they know they can't afford to take them knowing they won't see a raise to help pay for it? Taking classes not only helps a teacher to go up on the pay scale, but it helps children as their teachers gather new ideas and methods to use within the classroom. What about the district contracts that were JUST settled and so they ALREADY got a raise? Teachers are not able to get bonuses as some employees in the private sector do. Teachers are not paid to further their education as employees in the private sector sometimes do. Teachers did not go into teaching to make lots of money (they would have gone into a job in the private sector if that was what they were looking for). But why should they have their rights taken away from them just because it is on someone's agenda? Unions should have the right to bargain within their district. Unless someone is in education, they don't really know how much teachers care about their jobs. It is why they put in many extra hours on their own and pay a lot out of their own pocket to buy things for their classroom to help inspire kids in many different ways. All of this recent political uprising is like a slap in the face to teachers everywhere.
Randy Pronschinske
1:28 pm on Sunday, May 1, 2011
Loves Teaching - Let me see if I can supply some insights on your points from a parent, private sector, and taxpayer’s point of view. Please take these as insights and not as someone just disregarding your positions so we can learn from each other. 1. The out of pocket for education. You’re correct some companies do help with this but also many/more do not. In the private sector is that there is no guarantee that once we have a new degree we will get more money no matter who paid for it. 2. Bonuses – yes a lot of people in the private sector can EARN bonuses but in the past few years you will find that not only did we get pay cuts, but bonuses are awful hard to come by as well. I am 100% in favor of bonuses for teachers and will advocate for that as long as they are tied to performance like those in the private sector. 3. As for making money I agree that great teachers are not paid enough but I would like to point out that the average teacher does make more then the average Lakeville citizen. According to the census it is $38,000 and that is about what a teacher with 5 years experience makes according to your schedule “C” in the union contract and with the recent cuts there are very few of those in the system.
Randy Pronschinske
1:32 pm on Sunday, May 1, 2011
As for my last point, while we may not be in the Profession of teaching we do understand the passion. We are parents and therefore the first teachers in any child’s life. We have passion not only for our own children but also those of our fellow citizens and no one wants to “slap teachers in the face” but we do need to keep things in perspective on where we are in the economy. Just to be clear we love great teachers and respect the work that they do!
Randy Pronschinske
1:55 pm on Sunday, May 1, 2011
Mr. Sinner – in this case you want to argue for local control yet you are not happy with the local control the district just voted for! You talk about Senator Thompson not staying true to his principles yet here you are arguing both sides as well. Local control means that the state does not provide unfair bargaining power to the unions by fining districts if contracts are not settled. Local control means that you ask the local tax payers to fund the programs not the state. Local control means you do not force teachers into your union by state law and use their dues to fund things they may or may not believe in. Local control means that the district and not the state should set tenure practices or lack there of and not the state. You believe that the state should tax citizens and pay for the bulk of the funding then someone else should set the pay scales? That does not seem like a logical model for any enterprise if you want efficient use of dollars. Seriously are you really for local control? If so we welcome you stepping up to the plate and helping to advocate for true local control listed above. If we get these local measures through I will be the first in line to lobby the legislature drop the pay mandates from the states.