Well let's see, I live in a house worth 2.75M (of which I pay a fraction of its actual value in property taxes - thanks to prop 13 and the housing crisis appreciation since 2012 - much love to peninsula cities and their planning boards, hold fast on no new housing I want to retire early), on top of that I make mid six figures with even more tacked on as RSUs. Same for the spouse.

I mean if we weren't making in the top 95% of the state how in the world would we afford to live, let alone raise school aged children, in one of the most expensive zip codes in the nation?

Let's face it, this isn't Cleveland. Menlo Park / Atherton are top 95% cities, we should pay our public employees accordingly so they can at least live within an hour of where they work.

Yes:

most of us are not making "mid six figures". No where near that, yet we still manage to live in Menlo Park. so, NO, ninety fifth percentile pay is NOT a prerequisite for living here.

That sounds incredibly entitled. Menlo Park 2013 median household income was $119,097, hardly mid six figures. What a slap in the face to those who struggle just to stay in the area.

I thought the school district was looking for ways to save money with the loss of the parcel tax vote. Perhaps this was put on the agenda a couple months ago. If so, I would expect the school board to vote this proposal down.

I'm in favor of rewarding individual administration assistants that do a great job. Those individuals should be paid well. I'm not in favor of rewarding everyone across the board just because they all happen to be in the same job category.

On top of that, everyone gets a rich pension and retirement health benefits. Then on top of that, they get virtually guaranteed job security. The Woodside school district has been spending a fortune for over a year trying to fire one of its employees, but it hasn't been able to.

No private sector job pays all its employees in the 95 percentile, has rich retirement benefits, and guaranteed job security.

I understand that some people, such as @Yes, want to support government workers. However, this path will lead to a reckoning in the long term. At some point, residents will balk at supporting constant tax increases for escalating pay and pension funding for all local and state government agencies. The school district will have a hard time negotiating pay cuts, and won't be able to reduce pension obligations. That means students will have to bear the brunt of the cuts at some point. A little pain now will save us a lot more in the future.

I thought the MPCSD was in dire financial straights after the defeat of the two parcel taxes at least that is what I thought I heard at the last board meeting when Maurice presented his "three levers". He also put in place an immediate hiring freeze. Does not seem like finances are that "dire" if you can have a policy of paying to 95% of comparable employees statewide.

I do wonder if "Yes" pays his gardeners and other service workers a living wage so they can live an hour away from work?

If you would like to see what the public paid in salaries for 2014 for MPCSD, go here.

Web Link

" are being paid at the 95 percentile of comparable employees statewide"

Sounds like verbiage from a number of older firefighter and police union contracts. Are they still written that way?

Somehow, I think putting Lassen, Tuolumne and Fresno wages into the mix will not price MP out of the market.

1 - How can they even consider pay increases when they already have a deficit budget?

2 - How can they justify paying anyone and everyone at the 95th percentile?

3 - Why does the MPCSD Mission Statement make no reference to its obligations to the taxpayers that support MPCSD?

Last night the School Board approved these increases in order to ensure that this "classification is in line with other MPCSD classified staff rankings when compared state wide. This increase, effective July 1, 2016 will be an ongoing cost to the District approximately $15,000 and will result in the classifications being ranked at 95% statewide."

So we have a District that is running a deficit that is operating on a policy that guarantees all of its employees will be paid at the 95th percentile.

These compensation obligations cannot be reduced so when the District runs out of money the employees will all be protected and the only way to cut costs will be to reduce student programs. And then the Board will claim that they need more money "for the kids".

If they keep giving away money that they don't have to the employees then they should not expect the taxpayers to bail them out again and again.

Uhhhh, okay.

"Sounds like verbiage from a number of older firefighter and police union contracts. Are they still written that way?"

How are the local firefighter contracts arrived at? In olden times, I recall some (many?)peninsula departments used a calculation of average Calpers (or CHP) contracts, IAFF data, or other local state surveys, guaranteeing the local dept met minimums that exceeded the aforementioned survey data surveys, etc..

Is that still written in, or have significant influence?

"How are the local firefighter contracts arrived at?"

Very good question.

The old MPFPD firefighters' contract, which expired on 30 June 2008, required a survey of 13 comparable agencies and then the automatic adoption of a salary schedule that was above the average of these 13 agencies. All the agencies were doing the same thing and since every new contract was above the average the salaries kept automatically going up.

The elected Fire Board refused to negotiate a new contract which included that survey requirement and which also involved a significant salary increase. Being an elected official means having to make hard decisions and the Fire Board made and stuck with that decision.

As a result the firefighters went for SIX YEARS without a new contract.

In 2014 a new contract was mutually agreed to and that contract includes the following language:

"2.9. COMPENSATION SURVEY
The District and the Union agree that:
The CALPERS Employer Rates shall not be included in the joint compensation study.
The survey agencies shall be Palo Alto, Hayward, City of Santa Clara, Redwood City, San Mateo, Mountain View, Fremont, San Rafael, South San Francisco, Daly City, and Woodside and such other comparisons as either party wishes to include.

The purpose of this survey is to ensure that the Union and District are utilizing the same data in negotiations and to assist the parties in achieving their mutual goal of ensuring that the compensation of represented employees is fair."

Note that the survey shall include "such other comparisons as either party wishes to include" and that the results of the survey do NOT determine compensation levels.

Unlike the MPCSD's teachers' contract there is NO provision in this contract for annual reopeners which allow renegotiation of salaries and benefits during the period of the contract.

The entire 2014 contract is posted on the District's web site:

Web Link

The Fire Board also passed this resolution in 2008:

"RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS


WHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of promoting prompt public access to government records, the California Public Records Act broadly defines public records (Gov. Code Section 6252, subdivision (3)) and the exceptions to disclosing public records under the California Public Records Act are narrow; and

WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950 through 54963, enacted into law in 1953, requires open meetings of local agencies “to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies”; and

WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act “…reflects a legislative determination that ‘public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business,’ and an intent ‘that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly’ (Gov. Code Section 54950); and

WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act require the District to conduct its business in a transparent manner; and

WHEREAS, the Board, as duly elected representatives of the citizens within the District, in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act, is committed to providing the District’s citizens with information considered by the Board in making its decisions; and

WHEREAS, the Board believes due to the importance of proposed collective bargaining agreements with the District employee labor representatives, that these proposed agreements should be made available to the citizens of the District in sufficient time prior to the Board’s adoption of the proposed agreements so as to allow for adequate review and comment by the public prior to final Board action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District does hereby move that any proposed collectively bargained labor agreement between the District and designated District employee representatives shall be made publicly available at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the meeting at which the agreement will be acted on by the Board.


PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District at the Regular Meeting held on the 16th day of December 2008"

A new four year contract was "sunshined" in accordance with this policy and is now in place.

thanks

I just want it to be clear that the Board action on June 7th to increase CLASSIFIED MPCSD worker salaries has NO bearing on Menlo Park school teachers salaries . Teachers are considered 'certificated' workers, classified employees are your secretaries, custodians, classroom aides, bus drivers etc.

District compensation expenditures for classified employees is 14% of total district expenditures. A $15,000 increase/year (just going off the info that Peter reported) for classified employee salaries , out of a 42 million dollar budget, equates to .03% increase in total district expenditures.

I'm not sure if Peter C. was intentionally ambiguous, or forgetful, when he forgot to exclude MPCSD teachers from this story, but judging by some of the comments here , it seems there is a misunderstanding that teachers somehow benefited from the recent negotiated CSEA salary increase.

Teachers have NOT received any compensation raise for the 2015-16 school year..... carry on

And the MPCSD administration is currently negotiating teacher pay increases that will be both retroactive to July 2015 and which will be in addition to "step and column movement". -Peter C.

I also want to clarify, not every MPCSD teacher gets an annual 'Step and Column' increase. Far from it. Go look at the MPCSD certificated salary schedule. Here ya go:

Web Link

There are many occasions, particularly after year 10 of a teachers career, where a teacher only gets a pay increase every four years. In fact, from year 10-21, many teachers see only 3 pay increases, or one every 4 years....