Saying “NO” is never easy
April 1, 2009
Ask any elected official what one of the toughest parts of our job is and I’m willing to bet you they would answer “Having to say ‘no’”. If they don’t say that or admit to that during a conversation, they might not be saying “no” enough.
Seriously, if all I did was try to make everyone in the world happy and be a “Yes Man”; being an elected official would be a much more enjoyable job than it sometimes is.
I’m not gonna rehash the whole stimulus battle, if you’ve been reading Nathans News you can see what I’m talking about. Saying “no” isn’t easy. Most people think you’re crazy. Most politicians think the same thing.
Why not say “yes” and worry about it later? Sometimes, you gotta say no in life.
Ask volunteers who are always helping with every cause/organization that comes their way – because they can’t say “no”. Those folks get burned out easy and something gets sacrificed. Ask any parent. Is it easier not having to tell your children “no”? Sure. But where would that get you? Where would that get them?
What got me thinking about this tonight was a bill we adjourned today. At first glance it doesn’t seem like that big a deal, H3254. Simply put, the bill would provide bonuses to certain speech-language pathologists for the job they do and certification they carry. Kinda like National Board Certification but on a much smaller scale.
The thing is – why are we even introducing this bill at a time when our state budget is in a huge mess?
I imagine it’s because members may say “no biggie…we can’t fund it now….it’ll only get funded WHEN we have money.” At first glance that was my initial thought until questions were asked. Questions like “How much will this cost? How many will be effected? etc.” Debate was adjourned because we were told we don’t have all those answers. We did hear “maybe 400 people” and, reading the bill it appears $3,000 bonus, so I’d imagine we’re looking at $120,000 every year once the bill becomes law. (UPDATE: Thanks, Paul…..it’s more like $1.2 Million)
Folks, it’s bills like this that (when added up) put us in tough spots in state government.
It’s bills like this that require on-the-record voting so that elected officials can pause, deliberate, and question “Do I want to be on record for this?” Without our new rule changes, bills like these often aren’t even given consideration they should (rightly or wrongly) and often would pass on voice votes.
Now, I’m not saying the idea is terrible or that certain speech-language pathologists don’t deserve more pay and that they don’t perform a valuable role in our state. What I am saying is that elected officials have to sometimes say “no”.
In doing so, we make people upset. In doing so, we don’t have fun. In doing so, we’re sometimes thinking of the bigger picture and trying to avoid unintended consequences instead of just living for the day and making people happy.
Comments
13 Responses to “Saying “NO” is never easy”
Got something to say?
That’s the thing. Everyone thinks gov’t has an endless supply of cash, when the reality is $$$ is tight everywhere.
Actually Rep. Ballentine, you have some of this information confused.
1. SLPS-CCC is not at all like National Board. It’s not an “extra.” It’s required to bill Medicaid and with the economic times as they are, we in the schools need every dollar we can get.
2. SLPs can work in many places, not just schools so the demand is great higher and the supply of them is MUCH less than teachers.
3. The monies in THIS bill are “if funds are available.” I.E. the speech-language pathologists are asking for recognition. We are not immune to the difficult challenges you face regarding the issues of the budget/economy. We are facing them at work, at home, and in our organization as well.
4, Re: How much will this cost? I urge you to gather information from school districts on how much NOT providing incentives has ALL ready cost them. If we do not have SLPS in the school, we are at risk to lose federal dollars (since we are mandated). If we use contract companies the cost is enormous.
Representative Ballentine, this bill is about recognition of hard working people who work for less than their peers in the hospitals, clinics and nursing home. WE as a profession, the schools, and the children would benefit from this recongnition and can use this in recruiting efforts. Please do not use this bill as your platform regarding voting “no” and “waste.” Please consider using your “no” vote when it will really matter, on excess spending or a bill that provides monies in a way that you don’t support.
Uh Nathan, 400 * 3000 is 1.2 million $$$. You’d have to forfeit your salary every year. You need to sit next to Bharat!
Paul,
Thanks for the math check! LOL! Makes my decision even “easier”. No wonder Sarah (our 12 year old) is struggling with math.
Traci,
I know my vote won’t make friends but it’s the wrong time in this environment to be talking about bonuses. The “funds available clause” doesn’t mean what most people think. “Funds” are avaialable every year we pass a budget, it’s a matter of WHERE those monies are spent. This bill would be “in line” for others in committee/floor to say “we need to fund it” and it then is pitted up against every other law/area we “need to fund” every year in the budget.
I do appreciate what this group does, and I’m sure there is more money to be made in the private sector. Now is just not the time to even propose a bonus though.
We had a heated battle during the budget over whether to even keep current bonuses in place that had been pledged already (National Board Certification) and those folks had been recieving and were expecting at least 10 years per their contract.
Thank you both for your comments today on Nathan’s News!
Nathan
Nathan,
I read the blog and then your responses and find it amazing how you are ALLOWED to make a decision for the people and be as uneducated as your are on the subject. If you were talking among friends, maybe the math mishap may have been funny, but you are talking about a MISSION that many people in this state work very hard for and believe in to their core. To laugh and make a joke about your math skills and not even address what this bill is about, maybe because you have chosen not to fully educate yourself on it, is an insult to the voters in South Carolina. We all know that we are in tough economic times. Choosing to discount a bill ONLY for that reason, if you had other educated reasons you chose not to list them, makes no sense. Passing this bill does nothing more than give this group the opportunity to keep their fight alive for what they so strongly believe in. If it comes up in line once the budget is passed and it is the MOST WORHTY area to receive the funds at the time, then and only then we will see a financial impact, an impact that isn’t only helping a few, but thousands across the state.
I don’t mind hearing NO….what I do mind is hearing all of the political retoric when trying to justify the NO’s instead of educated, informed reasons why the answer has to be NO.
Mrs. Vastine,
We’re going to have to agree to disagree here and that kinda makes my point about the post. Sometimes elected officials aren’t going to please everyone.
Simply put, if I asked anyone in the grocery store tonight “Should politicians be talking about bonuses this year, even if the recipients are very deserving, even if we won’t pay them this year, and even though it may help bring down more medicaid money?” I’m betting the answer would be “no” or worse than no.
I’m sorry you don’t appreciate my open, honest replies on my blog to someone I haven’t talked to since highschool. He had a good point and that was my math was wrong. More to the point, I (and others) don’t feel we should even talk about bonuses if they are $120,000 in total spending, much less $1.2 million.
If I wanted to take the “easy” way out I could appease you and your group and do like other politicians would “just vote for it because we’re not gonna pay them anyway” Instead I took a more genuine approach and mentioned my concerns.
Thanks for posting.
Nathan
Mr. Ballentine,
A state board certified and licensed Speech/Language Pathologist has put in over 300 hours of practice to receive the Certificate of Clinical Competence that leads to licensure.
A state board certified and licensed Speech/Language Pathologist must pay annual dues to ASHA and biennial dues to the state for a total of $440 every two years. Without these dues, licensure will be revoked.
A state board certified and licensed Speech/Language Pathologist must accrue over 30 hours of Continuing Education credits every three years to maintain the best knowledge and use of methods for clients and students in this state. Continuing Education credits are most often paid out-of-pocket by the Speech/Language Pathologist at an average of $50 per credit.
A state board certified and licensed Speech/Language Pathologist spends countless hours completing Medicaid paperwork that allows funds to feed back into schools and keep their special education programs running.
The school-based Speech/Language Pathologist is paid the same salary scale as a regular teacher but is not allowed to receive the stipend of a National Board Certified Teacher.
To suggest that state board certified and licensed Speech/Language Pathologists should not receive a stipend for the profession they earned and use daily to assist the disabled in communities all over South Carolina is an insult. National Board certified teachers, for whom I have the greatest respect, have put in less hours and less personal funds to achieve their certification. Why should Speech/Language Pathologists deserve less?
You fall in to the trap of a politician in that you can only make a distinction for yourself by making someone else look bad. You sir are the one who is looking bad. Watching this debate today showed me that your more experienced colleague in favor of the bill had a greater command of the facts and a vision for how this saves money in the long term instead of being a quick win short term thinker like yourself. you should rethink your approach and be the longterm conservative thinker like your collegue.
Y’all – I never said what y’all do is not appreciated. And to the poster that compares what y’all do;did to National Boad teachers, well, I imagine those with National Board might think your comments are insulting to them.
That’s what happens in politics. Every group thinks THEIR GROUP is more worthy than the next. That’s human nature. It’s also what happens when more and more groups get bills passed.
Using TERI as an example. It was designed just for teachers but (either because some officials didn’t want to say “no” to others or because maybe they thought others should join in) the doors through open to all state employees. And now…this year, we just eliminated new entries to the program.
Again – tell me how NOW is the time to talk about BONUSES for 400 people when SC has 11% unemployment, the economy is in recession, and teachers are looking to lose their jobs?
By the way, 41 officials voted against you. Not just me. The move to table was 66-41.
Allison Ballentine Chalk
Clemmons Cole Crawford
Daning Forrester Frye
Haley Hamilton Hardwick
Harrell Hart Hearn
Hiott Huggins Kennedy
Knight Loftis Long
Lowe Millwood Nanney
Parker Pinson E. H. Pitts
Rice Scott Skelton
D. C. Smith Sottile Spires
Stewart Stringer Thompson
Toole Umphlett Willis
Wylie T. R. Young
I appreciate your involvement. I believe the bill had 5 or 6 cosponsors. I believe if there were more cosponsors maybe the debate on the floor would have been more in your favor.
The bill was adjourned and should come back up again when we return.
Nathan
Enjoy the site and am reading all the comments with interest. Thank God for Teachers. A few questions:
What does the average school speech pathologists make?
If Medicaid funds come back to the Districts to “keep the special ed programs running” then why wouldn’t the districts pick up the stipend/bonus?
Seems like if I was a District and it saved me so much money to have speech pathologists on staff instead of contracting for the service I would have been paying them more a long time ago.
Has anyone ever proven that National Board Certified Teachers improve students test scores?
Yogi:
The average slp salary is exactly the same as the teachers in the school district. Those salaries vary greatly depending on the area in the state. Most school district websites have their salary schedules on their website and you can look at where you live to get a more accurate picture. Experience and education is heavily weighted on these charts, so for each person/district it is different. All CCC speech language pathologists (those discussed in this bill…but not at all the majority or commonality in the state) would have a Master’s degree. Therefore they make the same as the teachers with Master’s in that geographic area.
The discussion is not really about comparing and contrasting teachers. But, for those not in education, it is important to point out that the average SLP brings approximately $170,000 a year to the district by serving special education students. SLPS are mandated by federal law and are not at all an option.
Regarding medicaid funds coming back to the district, you are correct in that each district could choose to offer bonuses if they chose. However, the problem with encouraging that is that the wealthier districts will be able to offer this and smaller districts with less resources would not be able to offer it.. A state-wide bonus would help even the playing field among school districts who are struggling to keep SLPs in public schools. We have some school districts in SC that do not have a CCC SLP and therefore are unable to bill for their medicaid services. Those districts lose all that money. For those contracting, their “extra” medicaid funds go into paying for the contract service vs. use in the schools. Therefore if we encourage districts to offer their open bonuses we wiill expect to have a greater gap between the haves and the havenots. One can compare it to the Corridor of Shame issues and realize, that idea is one to consider but certainly not one that we should endorse.
Quite honestly Yogi, this bill is not about the money right now therefore the economic times are a moot point. The bill clearly says “if funds are available” and was put there for to allow it to be considered in each year’s budget. The bill is a starting point to help with the recognition of the CCC in the public school and for SLPs with CCCs to know that in the future the SC General Assembly will consider the importance of the CCC and how it affects students (and funding) and analyze if there is an option to support them with a bonus. We need this tool in recruiting. With such a limited pool of CCC-SLPS we often have to look outside of the state and recognition of the CCC by persons who make crititical decisions is a huge factor.
Again, I appreciate your comments and questions and realize they may have been for Representative Ballentine. However, as one who is out in the trenches of education, I hope it’s okay that responded.
There was a lot of debate and discussion last Thursday that demonstrated the need for more education on this topic. I have worked diligently to provide this to those voting and will continue to do so.
Nathan, I appreciate the position you and the others who said “no” took. We have to ALL tighten our belts and hold on for a long, bumpy ride. I fear, that for the next 3 1/2 years, things are going to get much worse before they get better and now is most assuredly not the time for tax increases or BONUSES of any kind. Everyone who has a job should be thankful and leave it at that for now. What’s worse? Not getting a bonus or losing your job? Wow.
Tracey, thanks for your support!
Nathan