skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I will number them for ease of reference and for the convenience of our international readers.
1. Bruce Williams moved outside of his director district, the blog and its readers easily proved it and he was compelled to resign on September 11, 2007. I won't go into the reasons as to why he relocated, but they insufficiently justify the nonsensical retention of his board seat. His appointed replacement, Susan Phillips, reads the blog frequently but has no independent thought of her own.
2. Nick Brossoit lied numerous times to cover for Bruce Williams and yet his lies were easily dismantled by the blog and its readers. When Bruce Williams moved outside of his director district, Nick Brossoit asked Mark Zandberg to redefine director districts. Then, when Mark Zandberg asked about Bruce Williams, while using a pen name, Nick Brossoit concocted a ridiculous story about modernizing a rented apartment.
3. Marla Miller entered into a scheme with Arnie Tucker of Seattle Piano Gallery to buy pianos under the disguise of a "lease" to fool the State Auditor. Then, to make matters worse, Tam Osborne issued a check for just under the legally significant threshold of $40,000.00 to buy four of these pianos. Even Arnie Tucker's lawyer characterized the piano transaction as a "scheme" and the Audit Manager was still unable to connect the dots.
4. Gary Noble ran for a seat on the Board despite two different board policies that prevented it. Sure, when you run the first time you might be forgiven because technically the violation only occurs once you are elected. When Gary Noble ran for re-election, there was no denying the fact that he was in direct violation. Nick Brossoit and the Board repeatedly denied the fact that none of them can read and understand simple English and waited until after the State Auditor told them to follow or revise board policies to actually revise them. It doesn't change the fact that Gary Noble is currently serving under the rules of the earlier policies. His day in court is coming.
5. Pat Shields was actively involved in the formation of Powerful Partners. This organization then entered into a lease with the Edmonds School District and never paid a single cent of the required rental payments. In fact, it was just a use agreement, which excluded a base rental rate and came without any financial benefit for the District. Mark Zandberg attempted to collect the rent and was always turned away. Then Marla Miller stepped in and declared that she would take care of it. The way in which she "took care of it" was to give Powerful Partners a free ride.
6. The State Auditor is an agency of hacks. I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing a few of their former employees and the stories they share would make any taxpayer shudder. In the case of the Edmonds School District, Sadie Armijo was unable to understand the concept of a property appraisal and how such devices can be easily used to defraud taxpayers. Chris Kapek was easily bamboozled by Powerful Partners changing their name to Powerful Tutors. Chris Kapek was also easily fooled by the words contained in the piano "lease" and couldn't see the intent behind the words. The State Auditor is not doing any favors for the taxpayers of the Edmonds School District.
7. Marla Miller also manipulated the process of appraising the property known as Old Woodway Elementary. While it resulted in a direct windfall to the City of Edmonds and her friends at Burnstead, the Edmonds School District lost a fortune.
8. Marla Miller also worked with Mike Raskin to convince the Board to buy a contaminated piece of property that had been rejected three times before. The fact of contamination is irrefutable, despite Nick Brossoit's statements to the contrary. The District's appraisal came in at $3,300,000.00 and the seller's came in at $5,800,000.00. The District paid $5,800,000.00 and will have to deal with the contamination whenever they make any changes to the site.
9. The Capital Partnerships Program was shifted away from Property Management, where the District was an actual project partner, to the Capital Projects Office, where the District charges for project management and every time staff moves a muscle or lifts a pencil. How is that fair to parents or community members that sell cupcakes to subsidize CPO staff salaries in addition to the increased property tax they have already paid and continue to pay every year.
10. There is also a swollen collection of imbeciles that are in positions at the District where they either have absolutely no meaningful experience or an utter absence of intellect that makes the completion of their job virtually impossible. These individuals are so arrogant that they even profess to their co-workers their amazement in how they were hired in the first place. What is troubling for the many of us looking in from the outside is that most of the District is so focused on saving the nickles and dimes in their sphere of control, they don't appear to notice the hemorrhaging going on everywhere else.
There are many other bone-jarring issues covered in the blog, but the ten points above offer a quick snapshot of what this blog is all about. We believe in public accountability and will not rest until the Board and Superintendent realize they are on the wrong path and make meaningful corrections - like resigning and moving on to a community that can more adequately afford the corruption they have allowed to take root here.
www.rsd.edu/resources/bullying-harassment-policy.html
If the Legislature adopted this as state law, we'd all be better off. Note that this policy includes all school district employees, volunteers, etc. They MEAN it.
A story was related to me of a district teacher who had called out a student for bullying other students; the student retaliated by starting vicious rumors about the teacher; the principal called the student AND her parents in and told the student that she WAS a bully and would have to apologize to the teacher and go around to EVERYBODY she told the lie to and confess to them that she had lied. Fairly strong response. This showed students and other bullies that they can't get away with it easily and bullying DECREASED. Imagine that!
Kansas and Florida provided "everybody" protection, too.
Little known fact-useful at your next party: In Arkansas, a parent or guardian who "abuses" superintendents, principals, teachers or bus drivers can be fined $10-$50.
Richard
There was a seminar on Friday, December 5th where custodians were gathered together and provided with handouts. They are accessible here by clicking handout 1 and handout 2.
I find it rather humorous that the Director of Facilties Operations does not believe staff beneath his level are qualified to call the police and yet the Lynnwood Police spoke at this seminar and directed staff to call the police at any time - even if it is just a suspicious vehicle. If the Director had his way, all such calls should be channeled through him so that he can make contact with the police. Like he isn't paid a lot of money to do anything better.
The handouts that were presented smack of condescension. The author is either a kindergartner, lobotomized chimp, brain dead zombie or believes that custodians are illiterate morons, unable to construct or understand simple sentences. Look at the title of her presentation. Even the word "efficiently" is spelled incorrectly. In this day and age, we have spell check and access to co-workers that can proofread the work of imbeciles.
The blog has also received numerous complaints about the waste of paper. There was no reason to use such a large font size. People were not interested in your message because Human Resources doesn't follow their own direction. Printing it in a larger font doesn't make it any less hypocritical. Ms. Birdsong would be better off to share her presentation with her own department and let custodians get back to the reasons why they work for the District - and it isn't the charm and magnetism of its administration.
I nearly fell out of my chair at Ms. Birdsong's suggestion that custodians "use "I" sentences, I feel…" and of course, like "I hope this Carmel@ is different than our existing one."
I also find it mildly amusing that someone decided to deface the banner of appreciation with a rather unsavory expletive. Perhaps next time, people in management will double check the names they use and refrain from showering appreciation on people that have died years before. It would have been much better to express your appreciation while they were still alive. Shame on you for waiting so long.
Word on the blog is that the banner of appreciation has been hidden in shame. I am not surprised. Now, if they will just start getting rid of those shameful employees.
We went to the movie Changling last night. We were expecting a mystery, but got something much larger. We saw our lives at Edmonds School District from 2003-2006 when we “left.”
The lead character, a single mother, returns home from work to find her son has disappeared. We assumed that we would see the unfolding of the police search for this child. Instead, we saw a corrupt organization, the L.A. Police Department, applying psychological pressure to the lead character in order to cover-up the fact that they had “found” the wrong child. The lead character claims that the replacement child is not hers, but the police pressure her by telling her that she is mistaken, she is wrong, she doesn’t see that her son has changed during his ordeal. They begin to call her an unfit mother, because, now that the child has returned, they claim she wants to get rid of him because she wants to be free of the “responsibility” of motherhood. When she refuses to go along with the police, they bring even more psychological pressure to bear, essentially declaring that she is mentally unbalanced and is therefore not a credible person, not a good mother. She is whisked off to an asylum without cause and without proper judicial procedures; she is essentially “disappeared” from the community. Her supporters had warned her that because she was potentially an embarrassment to the police, they were likely to move against her; she believes that the police are good and would not do such a despicable thing. The actions of the police prove her wrong.
As all good movies do, this one circles back to the lead characters’ central philosophy: never start a fight, but if you get into one, make sure you finish it. As the police continue to pressure her (and some of the tactics brought groans of disbelief from audience members, even though it is clearly noted at the beginning of the film that this is a true story), she doesn’t bend or give in. She has self-doubts but she continues her fight with the assistance of others who are interested in eliminating the corruption in the L.A. Police Department. And she continues the search for her son.
The parallel to the District is clear. If you disagree with management, you are labeled a “disgruntled employee,” even to outside agencies that might be drawn into an investigation of the actions of the District, potentially tainting any investigation they might conduct. It is made very clear to all other employees that if they stand up against District actions (or inactions, as the case may be), they will suffer the same treatment as the “disgruntled employee.” If you object to the way you are being treated, there are a variety of ploys the District has to minimize your ability to bring those concerns to light. When you take your complaints public because the administration has failed to deal with them through proper channels, the District suggests that you are mentally unbalanced. If you try to explain to a colleague that their concern for the safety of the bullies is misplaced because victims of bullying are 5 times more likely to harm themselves than the bullies, the District reacts by issuing a no trespass order against you, and they assemble your former colleagues and they lie, calling you a threat to the safety of the students and faculty. And there is no one brave enough to speak up in your defense because it is clear that they will be treated the same as you if they speak up. Oh, and remember, you are still under a no contact order with any past or present employee, so you are not legally able to tell your side of the story to any of your former colleagues.
This is the Kobayashi Maru scenario; the no-win situation. No matter which course of action you choose, you will fail. This is what the District has done to us. Stay in the situation where students and older faculty are being bullied by the principal, office manager and their allies or try to get the District to stop the bullying; but they, unknown to you, are openly or tacitly approve the behavior. Either choice will end with bad results. I was encouraged that among the several e-mails excoriating me for my actions (these writers were never disciplined for electronic bullying which is banned by Board policy) there was one faculty member who gave me the benefit of the doubt and suggested that my actions were uncharacteristic and there must be something else going on that others were not aware of. Chris was not in a position to tell others what had happened; she would have been open to greater bullying (which ultimately did come her way even after [or perhaps because of] asking Osborne to make sure that the next principal be made aware of the truth of the situation) and, theoretically, I could have been additionally charged with violating the terms of the administrative leave that I was placed on in that I was not to talk to any present or former district employees. (I asked Tam how that was supposed to work since I was married to a staff member who was perfectly aware of everything that had gone on; he had no suggestion.) So, just as the lead character in the movie, I was “whisked away” from sight, unable to talk to any potential allies; unable to say “good-bye” to my students; unable to clear my name; unable to tell the truth to colleagues or the public. I was branded a “disgruntled employee,” as if that were MY fault. Actually, I was perfectly happy until I was set up for failure by Houser and watched as he went about harassing other staff as well.
To state this again, I was not the one bullying staff members of a certain advanced age; I was not the one bullying students; I was not the one who would do nothing to stop the bullying or make excuses for it or to warn the bullies that I was on to them so that they could bully me more. No. That was Houser, Bradshaw, Limon, Wilson, Woods, and Osborne.
How much higher in the system does this behavior go? Read the blog; it will soon be clear to you that it is a behavior pattern that is endemic to a significant segment of the administration. It is not a valid argument to call my sanity, or anyone else’s, into question just because I am opposed to this behavior from my superiors. Issuing a “no trespass order” against BOTH of us without going through the court system is neither fair nor appropriate nor in the spirit of the Constitution. Name-calling of employees (disgruntled, crazy, lazy, old, traitor, worn out, old-fashioned) who oppose the administration is not appropriate. Placing targeted employees on administrative leave with a gag order is not democratic behavior; what about freedom of speech rights? Administrators often bully employees that they cannot control in order to get rid of them so that they can hire others who are then beholden to the administrator for their job and who will therefore do as they are told (especially if they are related or socially connected to the person hiring them). Every time someone leaves the employ of the District, willingly or unwillingly, administration has the opportunity to hire people who will bow to their every desire.
That is the object; to hire sycophants who will never question the authority figure so that the authority figure doesn’t have to explain or defend any of their stupid moves.
This is a bankrupt management style. This is management by intimidation and coercion. It is wrong. It is not the model that should be presented to our children. Somebody needs to stand up to it.
Look guys, I didn’t start this fight. But I intend to be around to end it.
A question has been posed by a contributor to this blog that seems to expose a rather disturbing trend in the manner in which our public servants at the Edmonds School District engage law firms. It would seem that no one at the District is capable of seeing a legal argument when one is blatantly obvious. There is no one on staff that apparently knows when a legal threshold has been crossed.
With the amount of money being spent on lawyers, and the habit of channeling business to friends, the public cannot be blamed for thinking that maybe district management has friends at these law firms. After all, when a lawyer from Rotary is struggling to keep his law practice afloat, he makes a call and his wife is hired without qualifications or meaningful experience. What are the rest of us supposed to believe about the intelligence of district management?
These are the same people that are making decisions about how best to educate our children.
From a personal perspective, I was rather surprised to see the District hire Perkins Coie to challenge my use of ESD15.org for non-profit, community discussions about the Edmonds School District. [Let the legal billing begin, The District wants your wool socks] If ever there was a reason to use .org, a public forum would be the perfect venue for such a domain. Hiring a high-priced law firm to mail a few threatening letters does nothing more than incur legal fees that have to be covered by the public.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a portion of the legal fees incurred by the District passed along to the manager that engaged the firm to mount an offensive position on the issue. Perhaps 10%? Maybe 25%? The District has developed an itchy trigger finger because they never paid for the gun or ammo and have no stake in the bloodshed the bullets may cause.
Next was the senseless defense of Gary Noble's ineligibility to run for a seat on the Board. Despite the fact that board policies were written in English and they were very easy to understand, the District's next law firm relied upon irrelevant state laws to manufacture a non-existent defense of Gary Noble. [Gary Noble should immediately resign, "Exit Items" reveal that Gary Noble must go, Shoveling smoke and talking by the hour] The State Auditor and Attorney General have both weighed in and have concluded that Gary Noble is out of compliance. The Board continues to deny the fact that Gary Noble is a squatter and needs to be ejected from his illegitimately acquired seat.
The issue will no doubt end up in a court room and will result in one simple conclusion. Unfortunately, the legal fees incurred by the District will never be covered by Gary Noble, despite the fact that his refusal to relinquish an undeserved seat is at the root of legal expenses.
The question posed was this:
When is a law firm obligated to advise their client that the facts do not support their case?
On the one hand, the law firm is made up of partners that have an expectation of maximizing income for their firm. On the other, the firm needs to adequately protect their client from incurring unnecessary charges chasing after bad policies that will only result in future losses.
Is a law firm doing its job when their client spends very little paying for lawyers? Of course. Where is the sense of justice when a law firm just spins bad decisions long enough to wear down their opponent? What happens when such cases arrive before a jury? Are members of the public so simple that lawyers can easily convince them to focus on a single dot rather than a line or a pattern?
The District will continue to bleed cash on lawyers when people that lack legal training or legal sense engage the services of lawyers to defend incredibly stupid choices. The lawyers defending the District are reminiscent of the worst sort of defense attorneys - those doing whatever is necessary to get their client off, even if their client committed the crime.
From: Barney, Laura (ESC)
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:50 PM
Subject: Insurance Benefits and Pools
Importance: High
To: Group Leadership Members
From: Laura Barney, Manager of Payroll and Benefits
Re: Insurance Benefits and Pooling
Earlier this week notification was sent to the leadership of each employee group about the new pooling amounts for the 08-09 school year. As always, the cost of benefit coverage and the impact it has on all employees is an important issue for the District. In addition, during this period of economic uncertainty employees are more concerned than ever about the impact these increased benefit costs have on their pay. As leaders within your groups, I thought it would be helpful to share some "talking points" about benefits and pooling, so you are able to answer questions or address concerns from your members.
The perception is that the District has "cut" employees' benefits. This is not the case. In fact, the state allocation increased by $25 per month and all employee groups (with the exception of Superintendent's Staff) receive an additional allocation per month, funded by the District, based on midpoint data.
There are several factors that have occurred that have unfortunately caused greater out-of-pocket expense for several individuals:
Health insurance rates increased significantly in September. Although the District negotiated lower rate increases than originally proposed by the insurance companies, rate increases are a direct result of plan use the prior year. District employees and dependents are using their medical coverage to the fullest capacity and this has directly impacted the rate increases.
It is important that employees remember they are only guaranteed the state allocation (based on FTE) toward their benefit package each year. The District does pool the excess dollars for most groups so all additional funds go directly back to the employees, however, there is no way to predict the actual pooling dollars from one year to the next. We acknowledge this is difficult for planning purposes and that is why we are diligent about reminding employees in our benefit brochures, at the Benefits Fair and at labor management meetings that they should be making insurance decisions based on their needs, and financial decisions based on the state allocation each year.
Sometimes employees will forget that pools will vary from year to year and will make plan changes or will add family members based on what they anticipate will be available to them in the fall; then when the pools are calculated following open enrollment, they are surprised by the decrease in pool dollars and the increase to their out-of-pocket expense.
Pool balances are monitored monthly and are recalculated twice a year, once in October and again in April. Historically, pools are higher in the spring than in the fall. This occurs primarily because employees drop dependent coverage after they see their out-of-pocket expense in the fall, therefore "freeing up" pool dollars for others to use. We wait until April to adjust the pool dollars because during the first part of the school year there is a lot of fluctuation to all the factors that affect pooling; enrollment changes (dropping dependent coverage), new hires, FTE/hours changes, etc. Generally, by mid-year these factors are static and we are able to accurately adjust the pools.
There is a bigger impact to the pool when the employee group is smaller (like maintenance or principals) compared to the larger groups (teacher or paraeducators). A change by 1 person in a smaller group can significantly impact the pool dollars for every employee in that group.
Why does the notification about pool dollars happen so late in October?
Pools are calculated based on all the changes that occur during open enrollment. Open enrollment lasts the entire month of September. We calculate the pools once all enrollment changes are entered into the payroll system and all new hires and FTE changes are processed for October payroll; this is usually complete about the third week of October. As soon as this work is complete the information is shared with each group. It is not possible to calculate the pools prior to open enrollment since the pool amounts are driven by the changes that occur during open enrollment. The process and timing of calculating the pools is the same this year as it has been for many years.
Thank you for your help communicating this important information to our employees. If you have questions you can contact me directly at (425) 431-7037. If staff members have specific concerns, I am happy to talk with them.
There have been more than a few people calling the blog tip line and sending anonymous emails expressing concern about the latest district tactic to weaken opposition to the dismantling of Terrace Park. Apparently, the District plans to create a highly-capable program at Brier Terrace Middle to pacify opposition. What leg does the parental argument stand upon for eliminating the only non-lottery K-8 school in the District if the plan includes candy canes and gum drops at the replacement location?
The problem with the District's approach is that parents should be bright enough to know a ruse when they see one. Parents couldn't possibly be stupid enough to believe that conversations about a new highly-capable program will still be happening after the move takes place. In fact, I would even place a wager that the program never launches and that it is merely idle chatter intended for no other purpose than to make middle-of-the-road parents start swearing their allegiance to district management.
Another interesting tidbit is the latest decision to meddle with the medical benefits of staff and the overtime of custodians. From what I have been able to extrapolate from the messages on the tip line, it would appear that the District is launching a financial assault against employees that dodged staffing cuts. Oddly, while administrators are getting an increase in benefits, everyone else appears to be in the cross hairs. What makes this situation all the more egregious is the lack of sufficient notification. Why inform staff of reductions just one week before it hits their monthly paycheck?
The overtime issue is alarming. From what I have been hearing, if there is a paid holiday during the week and a custodian works eight hours of overtime during the same week, they will not receive overtime pay for those eight hours. I have also heard a rather pathetic assertion that the District has been violating state law for years in paying overtime when the first 40 hours involved vacation time or sick leave. I suspect Floridians couldn't even be this stupid. How hard will it be to get a custodian to work overtime when there is a vacation during the week? What good is it to use sick leave or take a vacation if it won't count toward your 40 hours of weekly effort?
More details are needed, so if you have a perspective to contribute, your insight will be much appreciated.
Good economic modeling relies upon the effective evaluation of extremes to help establish the impact of trends and consequences. In reviewing the tax obligations of community property owners, a troubling problem becomes very clear. More than 62% of our property tax goes to support our local schools and there have been no adjustments for plummeting enrollment.
It would make sense to identify an ideal number of students for our district and then allow our property tax obligations to float with enrollment. As student populations surpass the established range of capacity, our community obligation should drift slightly upward. Conversely, as enrollment drops, the obligation should shift downward.
Such an approach would be consistent with Impact Fees assessed on new developments in our community. If a builder seeks to construct a number of homes within a school district having limited school capacity (identified through the Capital Facilities Plan), the developer must pay an impact fee equal to a set figure multiplied by the number of dwelling units under construction.
Some claim that an impact fee is unfair because it penalizes developers that construct while available capacity is low and offers a windfall for developers that build during periods of excess classroom capacity. I am not suggesting an elimination of the impact fee but rather the application of such a philosophy to the entire community - not just developers.
Imagine what would happen to a school district's general fund as enrollment approaches 0. There would be more property tax revenue available for fewer students.
Imagine what would happen if you added the effect of an increased property tax assessment. There would be even more money available for these fewer students.
Some may quickly argue that communities naturally grow and that over time, student populations increase in size. Well, housing stock also increases over time and these new houses are assessed new property tax obligations.
The Office of Financial Management has been using the figure of 14.6% to describe the proportion of K-12 students in our state's population. This figure has proven to be totally unreliable with prevailing demographic trends. In the year the figure was established, it was fairly accurate. However, over time, people have been having fewer children and the proportion is now under evaluation.
Imagine a scenario where district administration adopts a policy of forcing children out of their school district. Property tax levels would remain fixed while enrollment would shrink. More funding would be available for fewer students. Greater funding means higher wages for administration positions, since teacher's salaries are somewhat dependent upon teacher's salaries across the region - the use of midpoints, for example. An increase in administrative salaries may not be immediate for individuals, but the ranks of administrators could swell over time - creating a greater burden on taxpayers.
Fun Factoid: Owning my primary residence, in the City of Edmonds, requires a direct payment to the Edmonds School District of $228 every month. That is more than I spend for electricity, water, sewer, telephone and television combined. It is within a few dollars of my average monthly expenditure for heating. It also warrants mentioning that the City of Edmonds is muddling through serious budget problems for the coming year. No doubt there will be additional taxes to cover.
Image is from The Edmonds Beacon. Click here to read their article.
A great leader should encourage staff to be intellectually engaged in their work. A great leader should also seek opportunities to be constructively challenged by staff when developing new procedures or seeking to improve the manner in which business is conducted. The alternative is to develop a weak or nonsensical policy and then be publicly challenged by the community. Two recent examples involve cheese sandwiches and the facility use policy.
The current dilemma with the District is that opposition is silenced at every opportunity. People that would otherwise be viewed as organizational experts in certain areas are pounded into submission or driven out of their profession. This does not make an organization stronger or more capable of accomplishing the organizational mission.
Perhaps management has grown tired of pounding staff into submission, because they have apparently adopted the highly destructive strategy of hiring people that are "pre-pounded". If you hire staff that refuse to be creative or lack the capacity to fully understand their jobs, they spend their careers just trying to tread water and have limited opportunities to grow professionally. If such staff do manage to grow, it would be in a direction consistent with the path followed by their supervisor - pounding others into submission.
On the education side of the house, principals claim they are interested in hiring the best and brightest teachers. This approach assumes that students are better off with the best and brightest teachers. Why wouldn't a similar approach be adopted on the operations side of the organization? What sort of credibility does the District have if the operations side of the house doesn't seek out the best and brightest? What are the consequences for our community?
In these difficult economic times, highly qualified people are readily available if you just know where to look and, more importantly, if you don't actively try to limit the list of candidates because you have a friend in mind. Not a friend with meaningful experience, but rather a friend that is in dire need of employment.
The public sector is not the place to cut deals to accommodate the financial needs of friends. Sure, you can "lease" a bunch of pianos and tell people it's legitimate, but ultimately we all know the transaction was a scheme hatched between two friends. One friend that desperately needed to make a sale and the other friend that had the power of a public agency in her pocket without a concern for accountability.
An email went out yesterday, inviting members of the community and district staff to take part in a meeting to discuss the District's facility use policy.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to include the Planning and Property Management Specialist? The Specialist used to be the person that scheduled the use of parking lots and worked with schools to ensure that district facilities were being rented out according to board policies.
The position has clearly been downgraded to something less than Professional/Technical. Even district management routinely excludes the Planning and Property Management Clericalist from critical meetings that would essentially guide the manner in which she performs her job. But then, with all calls to rent parking lots being channeled to the Director of Facilities AND Operations, it seems the District has successfully downgraded staff qualifications and duties while substantially upgrading staff salaries.
Do we really need someone earning more than $100,000.00 a year scheduling parking lots?
Below is the recipient list for the email posted yesterday.
Nicola Smith, Edmonds Community College
Faimous Harrison, Edmonds Community College
Katie Anderson, City of Lynnwood
Pete Bennett, Pacific Little League
Jeff Bentz, City of Mountlake Terrace
Randy Brockway, Pacific Little League
Bruce Howe, Former Woodway High Fields
Cathy Jackson, Northwest Nationals
Todd Cort, City of Edmonds
Dan Dapper, Community Member
Paul Doherty, Edmonds Community College
Tom Eunson, Fred Hutchison Cancer Research
Ryan Flynn, Sno-King Youth
Chuck Granade, Community Member
Brian Harding, Edmonds School District
Brian Hendricks, City of Lynnwood
Marc Krandel, Snohomish County Parks
Rich Lindsay, City of Edmonds
Brian McIntosh, City of Edmonds
Larry Norgaard, select Baseball
Eric Rasmussen, King's Schools
Ric Raunio, Former Woodway High Fields
Don Sarcletti, City of Mountlake Terrace
Paul Seely, Boys and Girls Club
Doug Sheldon, Pacific Little League
Dan Simmons, Community Member
Rachel Solemsaas, Edmonds Community College
Travis Hutchins, City of Lynnwood
Vernon Beattiger, Former Woodway High Fields
John Wagner, Northwest Nationals
Sylvia Young, Northwest Nationals
Ron Martinez, District PTSA
Rick Jorgensen, Community Member
Tom Krause, Puget Sound Senior Baseball League
District staff recipients are as follows:
Allen, Kevin (BTM)
Baldwin, Craig (MA)
Bartlette, Cindy (EE)
Bennett, Geoff (EWHS)
Bennett, Leslie (SVE)
Betts, Carol (CPM)
Blomgren, Sandy (OHE)
Brister, Barb (MTHS)
Burns, Debbie (BTM)
Cady, Stacey (SP)
Carlson, Kelly (MA)
Cote, Dale (MDHS)
Davern, Vicki (CWE)
Eldridge, Pat (MLE)
Gallaher, Marie (MW K-8)
Gilbertson, Kathy (BVE)
Goettel, Joni (SWE)
Gray, Marsha (SVE)
Hansen, Christine (CLE)
Harris, Shelly (ESC)
Helms, Kay (HRC)
Holmes, Amy (MDE)
Kratz, Christine (WGE)
Krause, Tracy (HRC)
Lally, Jennifer (EGE)
Madsen, Craig (WWE)
Martin, Pat (MDHS)
Ray, Nancy (EWHS)
Raymond, Sue (MMS)
Rock, Danny (HRC)
Ruud, Mindy (LDE)
Stauffer, Diane (HWE)
Stephens-Bell, Mary (EWHS)
Tronsdal, Leann (CVE)
Trotta, Kristi (CPE)
Varriano, Mike (EE, Custodial)
Webster, Sandra (LHS)
Weir, Ruth (HTE)
Whittles, Julie (BRE)
Blog: Perhaps the Planning and Property Management Specialist is bogged down with the key audit.
Hey Mark, I thought you would be interested in the latest stupidity in Human Resources.
On the second day of school, one of my friends who teaches in my building was pulled out into the hall by our principal. She was told that he had just received an email from Jim Roberts who's the ESC dude in charge of certified staff. The email indicated that her certificate had expired and she needed to be removed from the classroom until she could get it renewed. That required her to drive to Olympia to be fingerprinted etc.
In the meantime, a substitute has been brought in to teach her class until she can be re-certified. Other teachers in our building also had the same thing happen on that day. Yes it is their responsibility to make sure that their certificate doesn't expire....but if Jim has that information, you would think he'd have sent that out in JUNE!!! not the second day of school.
What's really disturbing is that my friend was informed that 60 teachers across the district also received the same treatment! That's 60 classes disrupted because some bimbo at the district can't send a timely email. That's 60 classrooms with the district paying substitutes! Idiots! I don't have any information to substantiate this other than word of mouth and what I've seen happen in my building.
Keep up the good work!
Here is another clear case of playing favorites, Edmonds School District style.
An employee in Maintenance, we'll call her PM, sought and received permission from her supervisor to work a peculiar shift. Apparently, she worked the first full week and every Friday of each month. Our staff is still reviewing the details, but so far, the records provided by the Auditor appear to substantiate this.
When her hours were counted, it was determined that in some months she worked less than she was paid and in other months she worked more than she was paid. The net impact was a few thousand dollars in her favor, so the District placed her on administrative leave while they investigated the matter further. The end result was that her job was eliminated, she was required to repay the deficit and work the remaining days of her employment without pay.
Another employee in Human Resources, we'll call her NB, took an extended leave of absence. During this leave of absence, she received payment from AFLAC to alleviate some of the pressure of meeting financial obligations without working. In order to receive this service, participants normally pay premiums in advance of collecting the benefit. However, no premiums have ever been paid by the employee and it was only as she was departing employment for her leave of absence that she claimed to be covered by AFLAC.
The District apparently never contributed to AFLAC on behalf of NB. The District never deducted the premiums from her paycheck. NB never noticed that her pay stub showed no evidence of payment for these premiums. But somehow, the District agreed to pay all of NB's past premiums with the intention of seeking reimbursement from NB. But of course, no such reimbursement has taken place.
So, why would the District go out of their way to seek reimbursement from one employee and not another? The State Auditor even recommended the District contact the police and file a report regarding the overpayment of wages, but the AFLAC issue has yet to be reported to anyone.
Maybe it isn't true. Maybe it was an honest mistake. Maybe a plan has been hatched. Maybe somebody should ask district management. The blog can't ask all of the questions.
Blog: We are not the only ones that don't trust the District.
A few months ago, the blog uncovered a reconfiguration within Facilities Operations (also known as Facilities AND Operations) intended to alter the work environment of seven individuals. The work was performed during the day and with all of the minor complications normally experienced with such an undertaking. No one stuck around to watch the reconfiguration take place, so no one on staff will ever be able to perform future reconfigurations without help from outside vendors.
It has come to the attention of the blog that the employees that were to benefit from this recent reconfiguration just relocated to the District warehouse, leaving their new, $11,000.00 cubicles vacant. So, not only was it excessive to blow $11,000.00 on reconfiguring space that will soon become Scriber Lake Alternative High School, the beneficiaries of this expenditure are no longer working in the ESC.
Perhaps the plan is to start a museum for government waste. Visitors could donate a dollar and walk through the new cubicles and experience the less-than-standard space that was constructed for Custodial Services staff.
Perhaps the plan is to absorb more board member pet projects. To complete the “Powerful” set, they could start up “Powerful Purloiners” and apply for grant funding. They could call it a “think tank” and concoct new and mind-teasing ways to pilfer public funds. If Sonntag ever loses an election, the District could tell the next real auditor that all of the corruption was actually just research. Powerful Purloiners could be geared toward crafting district press releases that constantly stretch the limits of creative writing. They could dream up new ways to bamboozle an unengaged public. They could assemble words into new and exciting ways to say “It’s for the Kids.”
To be honest, the cubes are probably empty because no one wants to work in such a depressing environment. The department has definitely gone through a radical transformation. The resulting climate must be terribly oppressive for staff to prefer working in a dark and musty warehouse. But then, I’m just speculating.
Edmonds Elementary's new principal is Melissa Oliver, who comes from the Mercer Island School District, where she was a teacher mentor and acting principal at Island Park and Lakeridge elementary schools.
Read the entire article by clicking here.
The Community Forum was advertised on the District's website and did not mention Melissa Oliver among any of the finalists at any of the schools.
Edmonds Elementary
Doug Johnson: Doug is currently serving as Vice Principal at Mead Elementary School in the Lake Washington School District.
Betsy McGregor: Since 2006, Betsy has served as the Dean of Students and teacher at Martha Lake Elementary here in Edmonds.
Margaret Mesaros: Margaret is the Title I Specialist for Edmonds, and from this past January through March served as the Interim Principal at Hazelwood Elementary (while Tim Parnell was on leave).
To view all of the other finalists and all community forums, click here.
Many of you have stated that you found these meetings valuable and helpful in your role as a supervisor or manager.
As we have discussed, one of the most valuable parts of the meeting is to listen and learn from each other. Another outcome has been to develop consistent practices in handling employee situations.
Over the past two years, these are the topics that have been covered:
Reviewed hiring practices
Reviewed progressive discipline (difference between evaluation and discipline)
How to create an environment free of harassment
How to establish effective working relationships and improve motivation of your employees
How to handle suspected substance abuse, odd behaviors; review of guidelines, warning signs and observed behaviors
The procedures for placing an employee on administrative leave
How to work with employees who have medical, psychological, emotional or other health related issues such as
ADA/FMLA
On the job injury
Light Duty
Employee Assistance Program
Business communication
Evaluation procedures and how to conduct an evaluation conference
The new on-line application process and use of Nextel phones
We would like to continue having meetings next year, perhaps monthly. Please send me any suggestions for items that you would like to discuss during the 2008-2009 school year. I would appreciate receiving your input no later than July 11, 2008. Then I will send out a tentative schedule and agenda.
Thanks and have a great weekend.
Catherine L. Birdsong
Director, Classified Employees
Human Resources Division
Edmonds School District
20420 68th Ave. W
Lynnwood, Wa 98036-7400
425-431-7022
FAX 425-431-7034
Blog: Thank you to the anonymous contributor that sent this along. Perhaps a few of our readers may have a suggestion or two.
From: Birdsong, Catherine (ESC)
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:58 AM
To: Joos, Sherry (ESC); @All Edmonds Email
Subject: RE: Finalists for Edmonds Elementary Principal
I hope this [Person] is different than our existing one.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joos, Sherry (ESC)
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:42 AM
To: @All Edmonds Email
Subject: Finalists for Edmonds Elementary Principal
There are three finalists for the Principal position at Edmonds Elementary.
Laura Clift
Laura is the Dean of Students and Mentor at Fairmount Elementary in the Mukilteo School District.
[Person] Dellino
Since 2005, [Person] has served as the Assistant Principal of Shorewood High School in the Shoreline School District.
Melissa Oliver
Currently, Melissa is completing her administrative internship at Island Park and Lakeridge Elementary schools, and is the Mentor to Teachers for the Mercer Island School District.
There will be a Community Forum at Edmonds Elementary this evening, May 28th, starting at 6:30 p.m. Everyone is welcome to attend. Those in attendance will have the opportunity to meet each finalist, ask questions, and provide written feedback.
Thank you.
Sherry Joos
Administrative Assistant, HR
Agreement Terms
Now therefore, it is agreed as follows:
1. [Deleted] will be paid a lump sum payment of [deleted], less applicable payroll taxes, on or about [deleted] 2008.
Translation: Subject will be provided a large sum of cash.
2. By entering into this Agreement, neither the District, the Union, nor [deleted] admits the truth of any allegation raised by the other parties, and no party admits any liability to the other for any matter related to the dispute which is resolved by this Agreement, other than the liabilities arising from this Agreement.
Translation: No parties are at fault.
3. [Deleted], the Union, and the District agree to keep the terms of this Agreement and its existence confidential except as required by law. Without limiting the foregoing, the parties shall not discuss this Agreement or its contents with any former or current District staff, parents, students, or community members unless otherwise required by law.
Translation: Don't tell anybody.
4. This constitutes the entire agreement by and between the parties and is full and final resolution of the issue.
Translation: This seals the deal.
5. This Agreement shall not hereafter be invoked by any party as precedent in connection with any other complaint or grievance or dispute between the parties, except for the purpose of enforcing the Agreement itself.
Translation: No one can use this deal as grounds for a future claim.
6. This Agreement is in full and final settlement of any and all claims by the Union and [deleted] against the District. The Union and [deleted] release, acquit, and forever discharge the District (including its board of directors, employees, and agents) from any and all actions, claims, and damages on account of or growing out of the aforementioned dispute. The only rights retained by them against the District are those expressly provided for in this Agreement.
Translation: The District didn't do anything wrong.
7. [Deleted] has reviewed this Agreement with his respective advisor and executes this Agreement knowingly and voluntarily.
Translation: Sign the deal and get the money.
Signed by [Deleted], the Union representative and Human Resources.
There was a time, not long ago, when staff in Planning, Property, Risk, Safety, Custodial and Emergency Services carried the pager after normal operating hours. The standard approach was to pay designated individuals a small stipend for the inconvenience of carrying a pager and having to lug a huge book of information around. While "on-call" it was never convenient to go any further than the nearest table and telephone.
The stipend was a mere $22.16 per event. Not per call, per event. What normally happened is you might get a single call resulting in four or five hours of event time but still earn just $22.16. More often than not, the call would be something that can be handled relatively quickly, so the impact was supposed to even out over time. However, as staff became more skilled at reducing the noise from lesser calls and false alarms, the actual average event lasted longer and longer. Human Resources was unwilling to revisit the stipend and members of the department started opting out of providing coverage.
There were only two non-exempt employees carrying the pager. The remaining members of staff were exempt and it was felt that "Pager Duty" fell within their standard responsibilities. Over time, the non-exempt employees started carrying the pager more and more often. The rotation for staff normally required one weekend of coverage each month. That is 48 hours of being "on-call" each month. Of course, we also had our fair share of holidays each year.
Currently, the Edmonds School District employs a Level 3, Prof-Tech, Classified employee to actively work for 16 hours a week and sit at home waiting for the pager to go off for another 16 hours. The total combined hours of actual pay (with associated medical and retirement benefits) is .8 FTE for a mere 16 hours of actual, physical work. In fact, the actual quote from Cathy Birdsong is that the employee "will receive full 32 hour pay for 2 days working 8 hours and 2 days being on call for 8 hours."
During a budget crisis, this seems extremely disrespectful to taxpayers.
Editorial: Now would be a good time for District employees to give up the guilt for taking five extra minutes at lunch.
In September 2005, Seattle Public Schools placed longtime Broadview-Thomson Elementary School teacher Ronald Langston on paid administrative leave.
Within two weeks, a district investigation found that Langston had caught a fourth-grader eating a cookie in class, grabbed him by the collar, dragged him to a trash can and forced him to spit it out. An investigator concluded that Langston had had "inappropriate physical contact" with a student. Langston, who confirms that the incident occurred but disagrees with the characterization of it, eventually was fired last November, but not before the district paid him $52,000 plus full district benefits for 374 days of leave.
Langston's pay contributed to the nearly $2 million Seattle Public Schools spent in the past five years on administrative leaves for teachers, principals and other staff members.
Administrative leave is different from medical or family leave and is specifically for investigation of misconduct. Such leave is supposed to last only as long as the investigation that sparked it, but the district has no official procedures or expectations about how long investigations should take.
Records obtained by The Seattle Times show many cases in which investigations have stalled and proceedings have languished. The district acknowledges struggling with staff turnover and confusion over which cases should be a priority.
As of February, when the district released records to The Times, 13 employees were on administrative leave. One of them, former John Marshall Alternative School principal Joseph Drake, last week agreed to resign from the district in August in exchange for two years' pay.
Drake, 66, was placed on paid administrative leave in August after a consultant's report blamed poor leadership for problems at the school, which is closing at the end of this school year.
In the past five years, the length of time employees spend on administrative leave has grown. In 2003, most leaves lasted less than 100 days. The longest was for an elementary-school teacher who was paid for 201 days off work before leaving her job for good.
In 2006, five teachers spent more than 300 days on leave. One teacher resolved his case in 2006 after being on paid leave for 596 days — the equivalent of three school years.
3 directors in 4 years
The district's human-resources department has had three permanent directors in the past four years and has been without a full-time director since February.
The discipline process is "one area of particular concern," said Gary Ikeda, district lead counsel, who oversees the department. "It's obvious to me that cases have languished ... much longer than is acceptable."
The district has no universal tracking system, he said, and doesn't always prioritize cases where employees are on paid leave. One of his goals is to establish expected time periods for resolving discipline cases.
Union representatives believe the district has overused paid administrative leave, isolating employees and making it harder to investigate what happened.
"In many cases, the length of time it's taken the district to do the investigation is just way out of line," said Steve Pulkkinen, executive director of the Seattle Education Association, which represents the district's 6,000 teachers.
In one case in September, a fifth-grader at a South Seattle school told friends at a slumber party that she was uncomfortable with the way one of her teachers had touched her shoulders. The girl's mother approached the teacher, who e-mailed the principal about it. The teacher was put on leave the next day.
It took the district five weeks to hire an investigator. It took the investigator less than a week to interview students and determine that the teacher had not done anything inappropriate. The teacher was cleared and put back on the job after 11 weeks off.
In several cases reviewed by the Times, district officials had only partial files about employees' leaves. In three cases, district officials couldn't locate any documents that showed why employees spent more than 180 days on paid administrative leave.
A leave of 596 days
Ikeda said cases where employees are on paid leave should be the human-resources department's top priority. It hasn't always happened that way.
The district put a John Marshall Alternative School teacher on leave in March 2006 after colleagues said he verbally harassed and physically restrained students, grabbing them and pushing them in and out of classrooms. An investigator collected statements from students and staff within a couple of weeks.
But then, district documents show, nothing happened for more than a year. By the time work resumed on the teacher's file, district officials recommended he be allowed to resign. In all, the teacher spent 596 days on leave before he resigned in November 2007. It was the longest administrative leave in the district in the past five years — and perhaps ever.
"That was a case, it should never have taken that long," said Pulkkinen, the union director. "We would ask HR regularly, 'What are you doing?' and 'When are you going to made a decision?' and 'Why aren't you acting on this stuff?' It was during one of their upheavals of who was in charge, and he [the teacher] just kept getting lost. Frankly, he reached a point where he was drawing a paycheck and getting on with life."
Backlog of cases
Handling of administrative leaves can vary from district to district.
Chuck Christensen has been human-resources director for Federal Way Public Schools for eight years. He said the longest paid administrative leave he could remember lasted perhaps three months. "I start getting uncomfortable when a leave lasts longer than a month," he said, but his district — about half the size of Seattle's — doesn't have a specific policy to govern how long a leave should last.
Some cases, said Ikeda, the Seattle district's lead counsel, are so complex that they simply take longer to resolve. The district has been working for the past six months to address the backlog of employees on paid leave, he said.
"For a school district of this size, with 8,000 employees, we did not have an adequate system to process the number of cases in a more timely fashion," Ikeda said.
Langston said that during his leave, he called the district every week to ask how much longer he would be away from the classroom. The human-resources department never had an answer for him.
"They'd always say, 'You're getting paid,' and I could not argue with them, because they're right. I'm getting paid," he said.
To pass the time, he played a lot of chess, he said.
It wasn't the first time he had been in trouble. He'd been on paid leave for four months in 2004 after two of his kindergarten students left the school and crossed the street during his class. The case was resolved when Langston was given five days without pay.
In the year before his leave from Broadview-Thomson, he had been reprimanded for insubordination, bullying behavior, coming to work late and leaving early.
Langston said the district never did give him an estimate of how long he'd be spending on paid leave.
"That's like, 'How long are you gonna have those chicken pox?' " he said. "They don't know."
Emily Heffter
eheffter@seattletimes.com
When you operate a small time blog with limited resources and limited staff, people frequently throw you a bone. Here is a bone of significance.
A real estate agent in Lynnwood encountered me at a clock hour seminar. He was aware that I had left the Edmonds School District, not because some sort of official announcement went out, but because he saw my former job posted on the District's website. What's more surprising is that he applied for the position. I told him that it was not possible that he applied because I had copies of both applications at home. I told him that he probably had the wrong fax number. He was absolutely sure that he applied and he described the inside of the ESC and the person with whom he left the application.
I smiled and went back into the conference room. Perhaps his application went into the substitute custodian pile. Accidents happen after all.
Then I received a tip from the blog's tip line. Someone, that prefers to remain anonymous, reports that the person who was eventually hired to become the new Planning and Property Management Specialist is married to a member of Rotary Daybreakers. No big deal there, except the president of Rotary Daybreakers at the time was Marla Miller, Assistant Superintendent of the Edmonds School District.
In reviewing the two applications, I quickly noticed that the person hired as the Planning and Property Management Specialist came in second out of two rather sad and woefully under-qualified candidates. The real estate agent was not the other applicant.
It seems surprising that during a time in the real estate market when sales are down and agents are scrambling to make a living, that a position, specifically-tailored for someone with real estate experience, didn't attract more applications. Or did it?
Given the overwhelming evidence of misconduct and preferential treatment in hiring practices at the District, I am starting to believe that applications were likely diverted to give the Rotarian's wife a distinct advantage.
Added to this is the fact that during a period of budget cuts, the Planning and Property Management Clericalist (a position single-handedly downgraded by the occupant) is not even under consideration for adjustment or elimination. It also seems unfortunate that clerical staff in Maintenance will be eliminated to accommodate a budget crisis while an overpaid clerical position is left untouched.
What is also clear, from exchanges on the blog, is the inability of this new clericalist to perform any of the duties assigned to the position. The person having to pick up most of the workload left unattended is the Director of Facilities Operations and others in the department. This constitutes clear and irrefutable proof that the position has yet to be effectively filled. What better argument is there for eliminating the position?
Sadly, what makes the Clericalist immune from the budget axe is her connectivity to Rotary Daybreakers. I suspect if you assemble the entire Facilities Operations department in a single room, you wouldn't get a single argument for saving this drain on public funds.
For the clerical staff in Maintenance facing unemployment - I recommend that you immediately contact Rotary Daybreakers in Edmonds and become a member. This would be the best way to ensure that your deeply needed services will continue without interuption. Contact the blog and I will even pay your dues for the year, that is, if Marla lets you in.
I will number them for ease of reference and for the convenience of our international readers.
