Obvious candidates for RIF action are insulated.

I was amused by the following response from the District to a Request for Review from the City of Lynnwood for a development scheduled to occur in the near future. Click here to have a look at what the District considers to be a meaningful and timely response.

First, the response from the District was due no later than October 29, 2008. This response was generated on October 31, 2008 and faxed to the City of Lynnwood on the same day. What took the District so long to get back to the regulating jurisdiction?

Second, the response was faxed. Why wouldn't the District at least scan the document and then email it to the City so it can easily become part of the development record? Notice how the fax didn't feed properly and everything is skewed slightly to the left.

Third, the letterhead still shows "Facilities AND Operations". Wasn't this issue resolved nearly two years ago? It really should be "Facilities Operations".

Fourth, the fax machine is still stamping the initiating fax number as a 670 number. Wasn't this issue resolved nearly three years ago?

Fifth, the response is hand-written. How is the District tracking developments if responses are hand-written? What happened to FileMaker Pro? What happens when staff want to determine how many developments have occurred in one jurisdiction or if staff want to determine how many developments have been assigned to one cluster of bus stops? Perhaps no one is tracking this information, which calls future student enrollment forecasts into question.

Sixth, why is the mislabeled department letterhead directing all calls to 425-431-7334? Doesn't the department have an office manager? Why would all calls go directly to the Director? Perhaps "director" means "director of telephone traffic".

An additional and obvious concern is that the District's template cites the assigned "safe" walk routes to bus stop locations and then in the next sentence declares they do "not have the expertise to prescribe remedies to address these safety issues". What safety issues? There are no safety issues mentioned. Besides, who better to evaluate student safety than a school district? What would a city or a developer know about keeping kids safe? Wouldn't that be best left in the hands of professionals?

For those of you that have been watching the financial turbulence at the District, you will know that the Superintendent is preparing a list of RIF candidates for the Board to "consider". Of course, placing the Director of Facilities AND Operations or the Planning and Property Management Clericalist on such a list may be viewed by others as following the recommendation of the blog - and we all know that would never happen. So to the current occupants of those positions, rest easy in knowing that image means a lot more to the District than financial prudence. Your days of draining public resources are far from over.