Despotic Carpetbagger Paradigm and Superintendent Compensation: Vote "NO" on 76

In early September, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill recognizing gay marriages. A number of op-ed critics chastised the governor for vetoing the legislation, but nobody seemed to catch the hypocrisy in his response to the press. When asked why he vetoed the bill, his press secretary told reporters that he vetoed the bill out of respect for the will of the people. He cited the passage of Proposition 22, the “protection of marriage act,” as the basis for his decision. The press statement went on to say “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote.” ()

If the legislature does it, it’s bad. But if the governor does it?

Schwarzenegger is absolutely correct. We cannot have a system where the “will of the people” is ignored and government officials derail the people’s vote. So why on earth is he supporting proposition 76, which seeks to repeal proposition 98—an initiative that received overwhelming public support?

Hypocritical irony aside, there is a pragmatic reason for voting down proposition 76. It is another key element of the Despotic Carpetbagger Paradigm. Team Unruly calls it “Bloated Despotic Carpetbagger Compensation Package Theory.”

The theory suggests the business principles that led to dramatic increases in CEO salaries (editor’s note: according to a statistic cited in this month’s Mother Jones, top CEO salaries are 431 times higher than the average worker) have trickled down into public education. Superintendents are receiving 6 times the pay of the average starting teacher. When adding in the perks, that stat jumps to 10. Teachers earn about 50k a year, but in many districts they often have to pay a sizable chunk of their medical benefits. Cities across the nation are dealing with the reality that local teachers cannot afford to purchase homes in the areas where they teach.

School districts across California have complained that they have not received enough funding from the state to offer competitive salaries and benefits to teachers. Programs are cut. Services are eliminated. Counselors, librarians, and facility maintenance personnel are laid off or reassigned back into the classroom. Unfortunately, most of the districts making these cuts continue to offer bloated compensation packages to administrators—especially superintendents. It’s a twist on Mr. Spock’s sappy line from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: in this case, the needs of the superintendent outweigh the needs of the students. the teachers and the community.

The evidence is mind-boggling. Esperanza Zendejas received a 400k home loan at 2% interest, on top of 20k to cover the costs of her own radio and cable access television shows, on top of funds to wiretap her office and pay for a concealed weapon, thanks to the trustees of the East Side Union High School District. William Bragg, Cupertino Unified’s despot, earned close to a 20% salary increase this year, while teachers received nothing (). Milpitas Unified failed to pass a bond measure and was forced to increase class sizes and layoff nearly 30 teachers, but they did manage to find the money to give Superintendent Karl Black a 32k, 20% salary increase (). Tony Alvarado, Alan Bersin’s lapdog during his reign of terror in San Diego, received a free home in the affluent Coronado area as well as free travel across the U.S. while his boss received regular raises and similar perks, then telling teachers the state was not providing money for a one or two percent salary increase to the teacher pay scale, leading to a number of strikes and an overwhelming vote of no confidence (read here: http://www.johndebeck.com/MessageFromJohn.htm )

The award for greatest overpaid carpetbagger has to go to Arlene Ackerman, recently resigned superintendent of San Francisco schools and professional extortionist. Ackerman traveled from Seattle to Washington D. C., where she her dictatorial behavior earned her the praise of the anti-public education crowd and the scorn of parents and teachers. After one year on the 150k annually job, Ackerman demanded a 25% salary increase so that she would be competitive with her despotic peers—without including the perks she already received, like the 800 dollar a month car allowance (). To get the raise, she extorted the trustees, threatening to leave if they did not cave to her demands. They didn’t.

Keeping her word, Ackerman packed up the ol’ carpetbag and headed west to San Francisco, where the very conservative California Taxpayers Association informs the advocate she , on top of the 200k base salary, “is driving a $33,000-plus 2002 Chrysler 300M sports sedan that is “as loaded as you can get,” according to the sales manager at the dealership in Colma.” Scroll down to the bottom education part of this webpage and get lots of other examples of “Bloated Despotic Carpetbagger Compensation Package Theory in Action: (). After two years on the job, Ackerman’s despotism led to ANOTHER memorable extortion moment. Threatening to leave if she did not get a 13% raise to 250k a year (not including the 24k housing bonus, the car, the free travel, or the general expense account), the trustees caved. The San Francisco teacher’s union shot back and opened their bargaining session with a demand for a 13% salary increase for all staff. The ensuing battle led to many entertaining board meetings, public outbursts, and a board race that included a candidate named Starchild, a male exotic dancer (). Although Ackerman got the raise, trustees were forced to cave to public pressure, which led to an even fatter “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out check,” to be cut in June 2006 once Ackerman packs up her carpetbag.

The California Taxpayers Association is right to point out the fraudulent waste that characterizes “Bloated Despotic Carpetbagger Compensation Package Theory,” but they are wrong in asking the public to support Schwarzenegger’s reform measure. The evidence in our theory amply proves that cutting education funding will NOT eliminate the mindset in school boards that seeks to reward a few administrators over providing direct services to students and competitive salaries for employees. Want to get more money to your schools? Vote NO on Proposition 76. Want to rid your school board of wimps who prefer lavishing tax dollars on despotic carpetbaggers? NO INCUMBENTS IN 05!