Readers Support Bill To Reduce The Board Of Aldermen From 28 To 12 Members
Readers overwhelmingly support Board Bill 31 before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen that would allow voters to decide in November if the board should be reduced to 12 from 28. If so they change would be effective on January 1, 2022:
Thoughts on the bill to reduce the number of aldermen from 28 to 12 by 2022 (pick up to 2 answers):
- Great, way past due 88 [63.31%]
- Won’t get the 60% of voters needed 17 [12.23%]
- Voters will finally approve this charter change 14 [10.07%]
- It’ll never get to voters for approval 12 [8.63%]
- Bad, we need to keep 28 aldermen in city hall 5 [3.6%]
- Other: 3 [2.16%]
- unsure/no opinion 0 [0%]
Some did feel that either the bill won’t be approved by the Board of Aldermen or that city voters won’t approve the measure with the 60% required.
Three “other” answers were:
- Iceland has about 320k people and 60+ members in its parliament. Nuff said.
- The problem isn’t the number of wards — it’s aldermen not working together.
- Why not go for total charter reform?
Iceland?
I know that reducing the number from 28 to 12 won’t magically fix all the city’s problems, but it’s a start. If approved by voters we might see work on other charter reforms such as reducing county offices, switching to nonpartisan elections or even becoming one of the 90+ municipalities in St. Louis County. The original post introducing the poll is here.
Ald Young, the bill’s primary sponsor, was on St. Louis Public radio speaking in support of the bill and Ald Vaccaro was on speaking against. You can hear the 20 minute segment here.
– Steve Patterson
I know I’m repeating an earlier post but; make it 10 aldermen, eliminate the board president, hire a professional city manager, eliminate residency requirement for City staff, and get a deal done for bringing the City back into the County.
Why eliminate residency requirement for city staff? I think it’s a fair rule, and there are other city’s with the same policy. Why change it? Frankly, I think it should be expanded to include the St. Louis Public Library and St. Louis Public Schools.
If you expand to include SL Public schools, you’ll chance alienating good teachers by forcing them to decide between living in the city vs county, and some of you might not like the results. Let’s remember that it’s about the kids–not about bolstering the city’s population or even about feeding the coffers of city government. If the city schools are ever to overcome their reputation as glorified child day-care centers, attracting gifted and qualified teachers is job #1.
One, the city has absolutely no direct control over the schools. The School Board (elected or appointed) is the one that does. Restructuring the BoA will have no impact, positive or negative, on the schools. Two, residency and the quality of new hires has little direct correlation. Any employer will select the best choice(s) from their pool of applicants and in today’s economy, the pool for any position is large. The bigger issue with residency is retaining good employees – being “forced” to live where you work may be a non-issue or a minor concern when you’re first hired, but can evolve into a major issue over time. The issue then becomes one of lateral opportunities – do you have choices? Do most school districts mostly hire only new graduates? Or, do they also hire a lot of teachers with 5 or 10 years of experience? Are teachers “trapped” in their districts because of seniority and pensions, and is residency just another golden handcuff? Or, is it just a “burr under the saddle” for a vocal minority of employees? Personally, I’m a big believer in the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules. If you really don’t like rule(s), feel free to look elsewhere. But while you’re here, you’ve agreed to play by the rules, so STFU . . . .
Restrictive employment regulations often are counter-productive/counter cultural. I’ve always believed strongly, for example, that unions tend to protect weaker tradesmen because, IMO, hardworking and skilled workers will always be in demand and therefore in a better position to negotiate their base salaries/bonuses and benefits packages. I’m not represented by any union, and my qualifications and job performance are material to my annual reviews and compensation negotiations, as well as where and for whom I choose to be employed. I think teachers are in a similar position. Good teachers can call the shots on many work-related issues, even in this economy. There are many young, unproven teachers out there. Often, “young” and “unproven” are considered as negatives in education, BUT NOT ALWAYS. A “liking or not liking the rules–or else” philosophy for teachers is somewhat bullish, and for the most part doesn’t necessarily create a working environment that fosters selflessness and sound pedagogy . City residency rules had been an issue among firefighters and policemen for years, and MAY have been a reason why so many of your policemen earned their stripes in the city….then moved on to greener/different pastures. If policemen and firefighters have doubts about the benefits of city living relative to the educational opportunities available to city students, WOULDN’T A MORE INFORMED TEACHER HAVE SIMILAR DOUBTS? And I wonder who among us is willing to experiment with/perhaps compromise the educational opportunities of our kids just to stand up for a cause that many may feel is hopeless anyway? I also wonder who among us would want to select a surgeon who was forced to live in a given area of a metropolitan area as a condition for employment in a given health care facility.
EVERY job has some level of “restrictive employment regulations” and unfavorable working conditions, that’s why it’s called work. You trade a certain amount of BS for a paycheck. If you don’t like it, you either look for other opportunities or you suck it up. Life is not always “fair”. I’m not sure if residency regulations are a good thing, or not, but that decision lies in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of city workers. If we (the voters) wanted to, we could require all sorts of silly and not-so-silly things – drug tests, college degrees, no facial hair, no tattoos, no earrings, no tobacco use, etc, etc, and as long as we got enough qualified applicants, and kept enough competent employees, there would be no reason to change any of these rules. It’s called leverage.
Yes, our police and fire departments end up be a training ground for a lot of suburban departments, but we also have a large number of officers with decades of service. There is a market out there for our officers looking for a change, and the golden handcuffs (benefits) that might keep them here apparently aren’t always enough. But this is not always, apparently, a bad thing. We continue to get plenty of motivated recruits, and much like Albert Pujols, we’re getting their best years out of them. The same thing happens in education. Every year we see a new crop of enthusiastic graduates being hired – supply is apparently not the problem. And every district, good or bad, sees attrition, to marriage and motherhood, to retirement, illness or accident, to criminal arrests, and yes, to issues with residency. But I would argue that the biggest thing that chases teachers out of the profession is burn out and frustration – the bureacracy / a lack of independence, “teaching to the test”, too little parental involvement, too much parental interference, and having their hands tied when it comes to administering any level of real discipline.
I’m quite certain that if I were an experienced educator who couldn’t afford private education for my child, one who understands and respects the importance of exposing my child to the very finest educational experience available, I would say ‘thanks,but no thanks’ to any job offer that would force my child into a public school system that has proven to be corrupt and underachieving and underperforming–not to mention downright dangerous. I wouldn’t consider even the possibility. And experienced teachers vs “enthusiastic graduates” are traditionally more likely to achieve better results in the classroom, maintain discipline and are likely better equipped to recognize and deal with varied learning problems and challenges. I wonder how comfortable a prospective client might be if he walks into your office and sees the office filled with fuzzy-chinned architects? If he has any experience in building, he probably would start fo smell lots of “change orders” brewing. Probably as comfortable as I’d be if my son’s teacher greeted me on parents’ night with a wad of bubble gum in his mouth, and snot running from his left nostril! Drug tests and college degrees are required to make certain that the teacher is not operating on fumes….and that he knows something about the subjects he teaches. Granted, they don’t necessarily make him a better teacher. But residency requirements do nothing to improve the level of educational excellence, and if they are not un-American, they are certainly un-American in spirit. Let’s require our teachers to live up to standards that go beyond parting their hair on the left side, wearing their watches on their right arm, and living in a neighborhood that maybe just doesn’t fit their needs!
I think you’re missing my point. While I’m no expert,, my understanding of the public school system is that the combination of tenure, seniority and the unions makes it difficult for experienced teachers (unlike top administrators) to move freely between school districts, unlike most employees in the private sector. Residency may be something that teachers don’t like, but if there are no comparable positions (with a similar or better pay scale) available in any nearby districts, it becomes a moot point. And whether or not a new graduate would be prescient enough to know or predict that they would be wanting to move from the district where they first started their career, as a future “experienced educator who couldn’t afford private education for my child, one who understands and respects the importance of exposing my child to the very finest educational experience available”, is highly questionable.
Sorry, but I can’t follow your logic. Where/when was moving between school districts brought into the conversation? (Modus ponens?) How does residency become a moot point when positions (comparable to those available in the city system????) are not available in the county? Are you saying that a teacher will feel compelled to settle for a city job? And to do so, he/she’ll have to move INTO the city? Don’t think that will happen. Can’t make out what point you’re trying to make in your last sentence. But I do know that it doesn’t take divine omniscience to figure out that getting trapped in the city in exchange for a $40,000.00 teaching job is a bad choice!
“Are you saying that a teacher will feel compelled to settle for a city job?” Yes. “And to do so, he/she’ll have to move INTO the city?” Yes. “Don’t think that will happen.” I disagree. In this economy, where jobs are scarce, if the choice comes down to teaching in the city (complete with its residency requirements) or working, say, as a server in a restaurant or selling real estate in the county (because one can’t find a teaching job there), then the choice is to either stay in one’s chosen profession / follow one’s dream or to change careers. And yes, the choice will always be an individual one, but my gut says that more will want to follow their dreams, at least initially, in spite of any obstacles, including residency.
“Are you saying that a teacher will feel compelled to settle for a city job?” Yes. “And to do so, he/she’ll have to move INTO the city?” Yes. “Don’t think that will happen.” I disagree. In this economy, where jobs are scarce, if the choice comes down to teaching in the city (complete with its residency requirements) or working, say, as a server in a restaurant or selling real estate in the county (because one can’t find a teaching job there), then the choice is to either stay in one’s chosen profession / follow one’s dream or to change careers. And yes, the choice will always be an individual one, but my gut says that more will want to follow their dreams, at least initially, in spite of any obstacles, including residency.
Sorry, I don’t buy it! An experienced, dedicated teacher can almost write his /her own ticket, just as a skilled carpenter can. (A reputation follows a person around throughout his career–in all professions, There are some experienced teachers, I would assume, who prefer working in a more challenging “learning” environment–ie city schools. But there are others, and I think they’re in the majority, who would prefer to be saddled with fewer discipline challenges and less fallout from apathetic parents…and concentrate on education. Teachers are not jailers or social workers or martial arts experts. To place residency restrictions on experienced, dedicated teachers is an insult to the profession. I know this: if I were a teacher, forced to live in a given area as a condition for employment, I’d have a pencil and notepad in-hand, writing food orders.
Current openings (3 examples): Lindbergh – 1 part-time; Clayton – 4 openings; Parkway – 9 openings. I agree, most teachers, especially in a district would like SLPS, would like to be able to move to a better environment, especially after they’ve proven themselves, but the reality appears to be that there are few openings, with or without residency requirements. Yes, truly gifted and outstanding employees, in any field, will be highly sought after, but those just below them, the good teachers we all remember, are the ones who end up “stuck”.
Is there any objective information that the city is getting good teachers now? We have unaccredited schools as it is. What about the opposite view…if school teachers lived in the city they’d have a vested interest in the outcomes? Sure, every teacher wants kids to do well. But when you’re teaching your own kids, suffering with all the fellow taxpayers in the same school district, and thinking about your own property value, do you work harder and have more passion about making things better?
It’s not the teachers, it’s the (non)parents and the (non)preparation for many of the students in the system. In the immortal words of some comedian, “You can’t fix stupid!” If most of the successful parents choose to move somewhere where their motivated kids are surrounded by the same, success will be inevitable. And when all you have left is unprepared and unmotivated students, it doesn’t matter who’s teaching, results will (continue to) disappoint.
The education challenges in the city of St.Louis are emerging as one of the highest priorities in the current sustainability planning effort for the city of St. Louis. Lots of good ideas are being suggested. How we implement them will be the challenge. What the outcomes are will be the ultimate test.
The success of the public school system, and any other school system, is directly related to the 1) quality of teachers working within the system and the levels of expectation that they establish (of their students and of themselves) and their ability to impart their knowledge of a discipline to a group of kids who know less than the teacher; 2)parental interest and involvement and teacher support ; and 3) the level of participation and effort that the students are prepared to give (daily and attentive attendance, completion of homework, willingness to abide by certain rules and regulations to maintain a viable learning environment), and 4)principals and administrators who have more than just “Dr” before their names and actually have something constructive to share with both teachers and students. Otherwise, the school lacks educators and students and is instead replaced with babysitters and pupils. If these conditions are not met, the school system in general is a failure. It does matter who’s teaching, just as it matters who’s supposed to be learning. The pie consists of crust and filling. If one or the other is missing, it ain’t pie.
Another thought…re. the schools…the system is so screwed up already, with no residency requirement ever, it’s hard to say a residency requirement has anything to do with the success of the district. Things are a mess and major reform is needed. I would submit that where teachers live is pretty low on the list.
FOCUS people, focus. Alderman does not equal teachers, though both are important. This was about reducing Alderman…a needed task given the City’s population. I only fail to understand why it will TAKE so long to implement. Get some b+++s please Board of Alderman. And I like the comment to get a professional City Manager.