skip to main |
skip to sidebar
For the many of you that could not attend last night's board meeting, here is a brief overview.
First, Nick performed a total reversal on the issue of half day "kindie-garten". (Why people like Nick pronounce it this way is just bewildering.) While attending the community input meetings he was adamant that no reliable, valid or objective evidence has ever been shown to support the strength of half-day programming for kindergartners. At last night's meeting he mentioned "legal" research that helped staff decide to retain the half-day kindergarten programming and appeared to have an epiphany regarding the wisdom of half-day programs. Should a superintendent be performing research about the strength of early childhood development AFTER announcing that such programming would be cut? Wouldn't it have been better to know the strengths and weaknesses of an issue BEFORE blasting a hole through it?
In my opinion, the District is retaining the half-day program for two primary reasons. The first reason is that the community knows how vital such a program is and it came through in their comments. Sadly, our community seems to more in touch with the research associated with early childhood development than district leadership. It is the role of our educational leadership to know what works and what doesn't. This just seems a little too sloppy on Nick's part. I suspect another motive.
Whenever budget cuts are proposed, the District routinely threatens to slash programs they know will never be cut. I am convinced that such suggestions are made for no other purpose than to inflame the sensitivities of this community. I am convinced that mentioning half-day kindergarten programs on the list of potential cuts served no other purpose than to quickly rally support behind the District in an effort to cut anything else. So, the District is either misinformed on fundamental matters relating to education or they are manipulating us. I am convinced of the latter.
The same can be said about librarians at "smaller" schools.
The District also proposes to reduce the size of the Superintendent's Office. One path forward is to revert some of the six assistant superintendents back to "executive directors". However, since salaries will not be changing, how is this a budget reduction? Nick mentioned that administrators have been discussing furlough days, but such days only offer a temporary suspension of budget problems. The same salaries are being paid and the same level of retirement contributions are being made. Vacation and sick days are accumulated at the same rate as usual and COLAs still move these administrators further into the stratosphere.
Real and lasting cuts can be accomplished by cutting administration. The District needs to shift away from the model that assigns a correlation between salary and qualifications and toward a model that strengthens the organization as a whole. The District needs to become a place where people want to work and desire to be a part of something exciting. We already have a lot of teachers that have such a passion to teach, where are the administrators that have a passion to lead and care a little less about earning obscene salaries?
Just take a few minutes and ponder this point. If everyone had all of their bills and mortgages dissolved overnight, what percentage of our teachers would continue teaching as salaries moved toward zero? What percentage of district administration would continue to work for this community as their salaries moved toward zero? I am sure there are many great administrators within the District, but there are also far too many assistant superintendent salaries being paid. We might as well start calling them Governors because their salaries are nearly as much as our governor's.
Another point from last night's meeting stuck in my head. A teacher from Cedar Way suggested that a "pay-to-play" fee be evaluated for music programs at the District. Nick's response was some senseless drivel about music needing to be free because it is required under the auspices of the Basic Education Act. Well then why would you cut the program all together? I suspect if parents had the choice to pay a fee or see a program be cut they would likely start paying a fee. Such logic was applied to district athletic programming why would it not be at least considered in lieu of total elimination?
As the son of a librarian, I am still irritated by the District's insistence that librarians in smaller schools do not mean as much as librarians in larger schools. They are quick to reduce the level of service of librarians but why not apply the same reasoning to principals? Splitting librarians across two schools apparently wouldn't adversely impact students, why not split principals across the same two schools? In fact, let them car pool. Like many others, I am left wondering why a small school like Maplewood wouldn't be in danger of losing their librarian? Is it simply a matter of catering to the most vocal parents rather than advocating for the needs of ALL students?
The Herald published a very interesting article this morning about the contaminated site the Everett School District bought in 1986. Tainted soil costly for Everett district.
The Everett School District identified their site as necessary for acquisition in 1986, while the Edmonds School District had rejected their new administration site twice before.
The Everett School District knew their site was contaminated and they spent years developing a plan to remediate the existing consequences from known conditions, while the Edmonds School District still has no idea as to the extent of contamination at what was an informal dump site for decades.
The Everett School District determined that removing the contamination would be a far more effective solution to their problem, while the Edmonds School District elected to just pave over the problem.
The Everett School District is performing their clean-up voluntarily instead of in response to a directive from the State, while the Edmonds School District just decided to pretend that no such contamination exists and provided no meaningful information to the State.
The Everett School District held this property for years before developing the site, while the Edmonds School District rushed into their purchase and even rejected their own $3,300,000.00 appraisal in favor of the seller's $5,800,000.00 appraisal.
The Everett School District is paying approximately $450,000.00 to haul contaminated soil from the site, while the Edmonds School District spent $2,300,000.00 to grade and pave their site.
The Everett School District has administrative staff working in three old buildings (One is 40 years old, one hasn't been updated in more than 40 years and another is 97 years old), while the Edmonds School District has administrative staff working in one building constructed less than 20 years ago.
The Everett School District has increasing student enrollment, while the Edmonds School District is shrinking.
The Everett School District has one person managing Facilities and Capital Planning, while the Edmonds School District divides those tasks to prevent the departments from working together effectively.
With all of the scrambling going on and the half-hearted attempts to explain what happened to our precious district, I cannot shake this nagging feeling that Nick will soon move to greener pastures. Call me crazy, but I just have a hunch.
Part of the complication in running a school district is when all of your real control and authority is handed off to others. When a leader hides behind someone maintaining the illusion of control, it is only a matter of time before people catch on and start demanding a more effective leader. The tide is changing and the best time to get out of town is before the locals realize they have been robbed.
Sure, I am speculating. One quickly wonders where another $200,000.00 job can be found in this current economic environment. The same environment that our superintendent cites as the sole reason for the hard times falling upon the district now. Like no one in district leadership is responsible for the questionable calls regarding pianos, property and slashing teachers and paraeducators. Things are bad and will likely get worse, with the current leadership model in place. The best thing for the District right now is to shake things up in administration and get back to the real reason for existing - like educating our children.
For far too long, this district of ours has been suffering from severely swollen management while the emaciated limbs continue to do without. The District needs a change and they need it now. We need to get back to basics and reinvent our organization from the grassroots up. In fact, we might be a lot better off if we just stop at the grassroots and remind management that they exist to serve our children. We don't need a superintendent that just tells voters what he thinks they want to hear. We need a leader that will tackle the real issues before the entire organization suffers from the consequences of poor choices.
It isn't the bad economy creating problems for the District, it is poor management and a general sense of confusion as to how to plan for a reduction in funding. Rather than whine and complain about the State's refusal to adequately fund education, why not pull together a plan that makes real sense and doesn't leave the fate of thousands hanging on the whims of the Legislature.
I expect an announcement to come before the end of the school year.
Just like the discussions the District had with the community regarding the closure of Woodway and Evergreen, the "Reduced Educational Plan" seems to be following the same path. The District decides what positions and programs will be cut and then coordinates meetings to come up with ways to make cuts. The decision was already made. It would be nice if the illusion of community concern was at least sophisticated enough to happen before the cuts are announced.
If you haven't seen the 2009-2010 Reduced Educational Plan, you can see it by clicking here.
While I still find it troubling that the District is cutting staff and programs while giving another round of raises to administrators, that issue will be discussed in the coming days. For now, there are a number of items from the Reduced Educational Plan that give cause for concern.
1. The value of reducing or reorganizing district administration appears to be of a similar value to the entire fifth grade music program. Perhaps if district administration wasn't so bloated to begin with, it wouldn't be so costly to reorganize them. Perhaps if they double their efforts to reduce and reorganize they might save music.
2. It would appear that the guy the District hired to just sit at home waiting for the pager to go off is being eliminated. The position should have never happened in the first place and if greater minds had effectively pondered the issue years ago, they would have realized how insensitive it is to have people sitting idle, earning salary and benefits while paraeducators lose their jobs. Shame on the District for wasting this money in the first place. Congratulations on getting back to zero.
3. I misspoke in an earlier entry. While Custodial Services is taking a cut of 6.5 FTE, those positions were intentionally left vacant so the District wouldn't have to actually cut people. Unfortunately, these positions were probably very necessary to keep our schools clean, safe and free from the heightened possibility of disease transmission. There may have been a cut of zero people, but since these positions will now go unfilled, the costs will be borne by the schools and the other custodians that will have to pick up the slack.
4. The Planning and Property Management Specialist, which was already downgraded from a professional position when Marla hired her friend, affectionately called Twinkle Toes, has been scaled back to Office Personnel. Clearly, after two years of woefully inadequate service, it is more than apparent that the position no longer needs to exist. Of course, in cases like these, the District would invite the current occupant of the position to be involved in the reclassification process and stay on to serve in this newly defined capacity. The only time that doesn't happen is when the person is so unqualified their days become numbered. Perhaps my use of the term "clericalist" was just far too generous.
5. The cuts to Grounds seem a little brutal. These employees serve a far greater function than district management understands. I fault George Marschall and Brian Harding for failing to understand the role these employees perform and failing to effectively advocate for this portion of the work under Facilities Operations. There were other reductions that could have been made first, but of course, these relatively simple minds must believe that back-filling grounds positions would be a simple matter. After all, they just mow lawns, right?
6. The District is actually creating a job in facilities management and funding it with the revenue derived from renting out schools. While this move will take some pressure off of office staff - staff that was just reduced through budget cuts - why centralize facility use under these conditions? If schools were responsible for renting out their own space and told that their salaries depend upon the revenue generated, wouldn't it stand to reason that increased earnings could be realized? Will the new employee be provided with the same incentive? If you are funding the position from rental revenues, would you cut the position if they are unable to generate revenue? Will the rentals of athletic facilities move to this same position? You might just need more than one person.
7. Community Relations is taking a cut of $20,000 in their newsletter costs and $25,000 in reception support. While I could see an argument for doing away with the newsletter entirely, since I have never met anyone that ever read one, I fail to see how the reception desk can be unstaffed. Wouldn't this just be a cost shifting effort? Someone will have to cover the front desk. It looks as though the District will be drawing upon all of the free time that some of their other employees have. Will receptionists or secretaries in other departments be expected to sacrifice their staff and departmental productivity by having them cover longer periods of time? Is this fair to staff? Is it accurate to call this a reduction?
8. Under Human Resources there is a peculiar topic; "Seek collective bargaining changes". This is essentially a description of the District's interest in renegotiating labor agreements with staff. What upsets me is the blatant lack of equity. While the District pins their financial hopes on labor's willingness to reverse an agreement signed last August, they make no real effort to reciprocate in management. The union has even gone as far as to encourage their members to accept such a proposal because it will save jobs. What happened to management? Why are they not taking the same cut? Why are they not in jeopardy of losing their jobs? Why aren't cuts being made across the board?
It has been said many times before but why wouldn't the District institute furlough days to save money? There are already plenty of "in service" days where teachers come to work and students get a day off. Why not identify a number of set days in the coming year that will have the rest of district staff stay away? If there is a concern about having too many people gone at the same time, why not give different labor groups different floating furlough days, including management? Imagine the savings that can be realized if the District's herd of superintendents were required to take one unpaid day off each month.
Of course, the elimination of librarians is back on the table. It is terribly tragic when an organization that serves no other function than education feels it is acceptable to get rid of librarians. For the price of a single assistant superintendent you could save most of them, and it would have to be more than just moving Sue Venable to Teaching and Learning, unless she intends to become a volunteer. Clearly, the District intends to use the loss of librarians as a motivating force for those among us that believe that reading is fundamental. Instill a love for reading in a child and they will be richly rewarded with all that literature has to offer. Such children would also be far more likely to care about education and far less likely to allow poor district management to destroy our community from the inside out.
To the District's lawyers: I have been given the day off for all of the heavy hours I have been working because of H1N1.
Sometimes you just have to laugh because crying would be a waste of time.
At the Board meeting last night, Sue Venable struggled to recall that the Board recently decided to close Woodway Elementary. She remembered that Evergreen was scheduled to close, perhaps because it was on last night's agenda, but the loss of Woodway momentarily slipped her mind.
Also revealed last night was that Cypress Equities has revised their site plan and that Marla Miller was not at liberty to discuss how the plan has changed. Well, wouldn't this be a good reason to start the process over in selecting a developer? There were strong developers expressing interest in the site but with slightly different site plans in mind. The revised Cypress plan is likely to be something similar to what the other developers were offering. That is, if Marla Miller ever has the guts to share it with the public. I smell a Home Depot in our future, or some equally mundane big box.
Another interesting tidbit was the revelation that the City of Mountlake Terrace has placed a moratorium on any change of use for Evergreen Elementary until September 19, 2009, when the City will have a better idea as to how to permanently change the zoning for the site entirely. Just five or six years ago, the City attempted to change the zoning to some sort of designation called Transit Commercial. This would have prevented the District from doing any significant alterations to the site or any meaningful capital improvements. It is a strategy designed to let your structure and/or programs at an identified site just slowly rot away while the zoning authority plans a take over. Rest assured, when Evergreen's doors close at the end of the school year, they will never open again. Let's just hope the demographic trends across the county line don't trickle into Evergreen's current service area.
Like many of the blog's readers, I find it terribly distressing that other school districts in Snohomish County are taking action to freeze administration salaries while the Edmonds School District elected to hand out raises to their administrators in the middle of significant budget challenges.
The Herald recently covered this issue at Lake Stevens. Clearly, they have a school board that is more plugged into reality and not afraid to make tough choices. While it is true that a few administrators in Lake Stevens may have "young families" and they may be the "sole breadwinner", it is far better to have a salary frozen than layoff teachers and staff. After all, teachers and staff are the heart and soul of a school district.
Call me crazy, but I see similarities between the recent public outrage with AIG executive bonuses and the senseless 'slathering on' of additional pay for administrators while teachers and para educators see their careers ending prematurely. The taxpayer has been bailing out the Edmonds School District for years. They make poor choices and refuse to plan for obvious, turbulent times and then grab their money from taxpayers without any expectation of accountability from the public. This lack of concern for the direction our schools are heading must stop. Our community needs to take action now.
Of course, as others have said many times in this blog, parents are naturally distracted by their duties as parents. They apparently have adopted the outlook that nothing they do can lead to real change and have decided to put their energy into something that really matters - like their families. Who could fault them? There have been a few people that have tried to make a difference and have been driven out of the community or relegated to some dark hole without access to information or the means to get a message out.
Maybe someone among us will run for one of the two board positions coming up for election in November. We need real and meaningful change and the best thing that distracted parents can do is vote for change in the fall.
March 17, 2009
Dear Colleagues (and taxpayers):
We are all are busy with the work of serving students and others before us each day. Still, since the 2009-2010 budget has the potential to touch so many, I am of the opinion that you will want to be kept informed. The process, including the 4 open public meetings in May, is as it was outlined in my previous e-mail on this topic. However, attached is the updated "list" which reflects work ongoing that continued into Monday of this week. Most of the list is the same, however, there are a few changes as summarized:
Potential savings from reduced bussing service within 1 mile radius of schools had to be lowered due to safety issues impacting the number of routes we can alter.
We have developed more district office administrative and district office staff reductions and these are now shown.
Due to intensive support classes at 6 of the elem. schools on the previous list and related schedule/staffing complications, the LMS reductions have been modified.
Detailed analysis showed the potential elimination of 5th and 6th grade general music in diverse schools to be very problematic in terms of scheduled planning time, thus that changed and now involves 5th grade instrumental.
When you open the attachment to review the updated list, you will also note there is a contact person associated with each idea who can provide additional information for that respective item. Also, thanks to those who have been sharing ideas for research and consideration as we continue to work on possible budget reduction concepts for next year. In closing, please remember this is not a final list and is still a work in progress.
Thank you for your continued caring and professional service in these most challenging times.
Sincerely,
Nick (Brossoit)
"As a public employee, the difference between what you are paid and what you are worth is a charitable contribution to your community."
Of course, this statement assumes that the public employee's "worth" is greater than their "pay" and that they are fortunate enough to be working within their community.
Whether you spend your time tracking the appropriate use of procurement cards or the appropriate use of the Internet, the value that staff contribute to the District can greatly outweigh the salary they receive for performing that work. In such cases, those employees are making a sizable contribution to their community. By preventing unnecessary waste or catching unauthorized expenses, such exceptional employees deserve to be treated with greater respect.
Conversely, public employees that seemingly go out of their way to spend more scarce resources than are absolutely necessary, or seek out every opportunity to enrich their friends and associates, should be driven from the community. They have no place in public service.
While the blog is not generating a lot of entries these days, there is a reason for it. While it may not seem very obvious why there is this lull, once you start reading future entries, it will become very clear. In the meantime, I ask new blog visitors to do what many are already doing - read a few of the blog topics that are listed in the margin to the right. In a matter of minutes, you will see why so many district employees feel frustrated and will begin to understand why it is important for the community to be involved in how their school district is managed.
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.
The blog received comments from a number of people regarding the first casualties in the latest round of budget cuts. It is believed that cashiers at lunch will be eliminated, thereby requiring that the recent adjustments to the lunch line sequencing be altered, yet again.
Some of us were under the impression that the community discussions around the frozen cheese sandwich issue resulted in an acceptable solution. By placing cashiers at the front of the lunch line, students could have been identified as having ample credit for a lunch or insufficient funds, thereby requiring a frozen cheese sandwich. Well, with the elimination of cashiers, food service staff will have to bounce between dishing up meals and taking payment from children.
Perhaps the plan is to automate the payment process. Maybe children will be able to have their eyes scanned and be able to just walk in front of an iris scanner and their meal will just magically appear in front of them while the funds will be charged to their parents credit card. Perhaps the plan is to leave an old, rusty coffee can at the front of the lunch line for students to make their payments using the honor system. Maybe children will stick their finger into a machine that reads their fingerprint. If they have adequate funds, they get to keep their finger - if not, it is sliced into a vat of soup and they are handed a frozen cheese sandwich. Of course, they can only make that mistake ten times.
If lunch cashiers are eliminated, where does this put the conversation regarding frozen cheese sandwiches? Is Nick trying to break a record and collect Schrammies like they were Golden Globes?
At the last board meeting, the Board was discussing the need to close one of the District's production kitchens. The District has already decided not to buy another $110,000 oven.
I have been getting a lot of feedback from staff at the District reporting that the Superintendent thinks the blog is a one man show. I can see where he gets this impression. He appears to be a simple man and easily confused.
In the summer of 2007, the blog posted an email exchange between a woman named Kirsten and Nick Brossoit. That woman's name was actually a pen name that I used because I already knew that Nick would lie if I used my own name or, more likely, ignore me entirely. To improve my chances of getting a response, I used a female's name, thinking Nick would be more inclined to chat with a woman. I was right. Click here and read the following entry from the blog to see the source of Nick's confusion.
Whenever I make a comment on my own blog, I use my registered account name ESD15.org. What "Nicky Suspenders" is hoping to create is a degree of uncertainty among the blog's many readers. If he can convince you that no one supports this blog, maybe you might grow tired of reading it and move on to something less challenging to District management. The many of you that read the blog and submit your comments know the strength of our forum.
The easiest way to demonstrate the high volume of traffic we receive every day is to provide our records from StatCounter. Unfortunately, I have the settings adjusted to only retain the last 500 entries and I periodically delete all of those records just to provide the added comfort to our many contributors that still work at the District.
How does Nick think the blog received information about the Piano Scam? What about the fraud in Human Resources regarding AFLAC? How would I ever get copies of the email sent by Cathy Birdsong that criticize Carmel@? How would I get the handouts that Cathy Birdsong distributed at a presentation to employees at the District? How would I get information about Pat Mason and what happened to her in Maintenance? How would I get an internal email from Laura Barney discussing the status of benefits for employees? How would I know about the small fortune spent on reconfiguring cubicles that now sit empty? How would I know that security staff that were hired after I left the District are paid full wages and benefits for sitting at home? I would I know about a deal struck between an employee, his union and the District? How would I ever know how bad the new Property Management Clericalist is? How would I know about Brian Harding's attempts to track my whereabouts during the last two weeks of my employment?
Fortunately, I don't have to prove anything to Nick. However, Nick believes that he has to convince staff that the blog is just the senseless tirade of one disgruntled employee. Well, Nick, the records speak for themselves and ultimately my peers will determine the strength of my allegations.
Blog: Thanks to the many unnamed members of district staff that forwarded their concerns about the Superintendent's statements. Apparently, he thinks you do not exist.
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.
First of all, I thought it was Facilities Operations. Not Facilities AND Operations. Not Property Management. If the District wants people to find the appropriate website, they really should use the proper names for their departments.
Second, the tax parcel number site hasn't been updated in two years. The Old ESC site is no longer pending. That deal fell apart when the City wanted to build their own hotel next to the convention center, instead of across 196th. Where is that hotel anyway?
Third, Old Woodway Elementary is described as Surplus and not as Sold. Gee, I thought the District "sold" that site?
Fourth, the North Road Property really should be called New Lynnwood High School.
Fifth, Scriber Lake High School is incorrect.
Sixth, Woodway and Evergreen will need to be updated shortly, as well.
Of course, updating a website cannot be a task that moves upstream like the rest of the responsible person's work. The talent isn't upstream. It will have to move downstream and downstairs to Community Relations.
At the last Board Meeting, I specifically asked the Board to be accountable and RESPOND to the public in their requests – not just the "Thank you for your comments" – truly respond, state their positions and be accountable to the community they serve. Simply, they did not and acted as if I was not even in the room.
The only time this Board responds to issues is when they are addressed by the media (or to an issue that the Administration requests – of which it is a "rubber stamp") - NEVER to the public or the "rank and file staff". This is unacceptable when there are huge cuts in services being proposed by the Superintendent. A partial list of issues and abuses brought to them over the last year includes:
Children being denied food and embarrassed at school
School Lunches rising over 100% in a single year (no other school district has prices CLOSE to this)
A multi-million dollar overpayment of a contaminated land purchase
The implementation of a policy to charge PTAs rental fees so they can volunteer their time for our kids
Clear circumvention of procurement procedures to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars for pianos
Clearly ignoring the active promotion of a culture of fear amongst district employees
Ignoring repeated calls to address school closures and dismantling the Terrace Park Middle School Program in a responsible manner
Ignoring fraudulent actions on the part of a Board member, Dr. Bruce Williams and spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that should be going to our kids
Ignoring a clear conflict of interest by another board member, Mr. Gary Noble, to run for a seat he was ineligible to run for (and did anyways with full knowledge of the violation).
And the list goes on, and on.
We need a fundamental change in the School Board to allow us to create a District that is representative of our community, operates effectively and independently from the Administration, provide QUALITY education to our kids and communicate with our parents and district staff.
We need to vote the entire board out of office and start fresh. We need a board that is RESPONSIVE to the needs of the community and is ACCOUNTABLE to the community they serve.
Rick Jorgensen
It seems appropriate to discuss district management's lack of empathy on this day of disguises and masks. Clearly, they lack the ability to look beyond what appears on the surface. They look no deeper than the masks of others and expect no one to look beyond their own masks. Until management understands that real people have real lives and actually have independent thoughts and feelings, nothing will ever change.
Management quickly thrusts opponents into a mire of negativity because they lack the ability to discern between thinking, feeling people and the shell of humans they perceive and portray. It seems their strategy is to dazzle thoughtless and shallow humans when really their audience is just unengaged and uninterested. There is a difference. People have their own lives to live and their own concerns. They don't have the energy to take on honorable causes because their honorable causes are closer to home - like family.
What is also rather striking is district management's propensity to project their motives on others. I suspect management readily assigns a rather twisted purpose to people that speak out against them. If the roles were reversed, district management would be sneaky and conniving. They may sue for no other purpose than money. They may blog for no other reason than to attack and belittle others.
If the roles were reversed, there is no way on this earth that district management would take on a personal struggle to improve the plight of others. No. If district management took on a challenge, they would have no other motive than personal enrichment and self glorification. Just look at the Piano Scam, the contaminated site, Gary Noble, Pat Shields, Bruce Williams and the lengthy list of other very bad choices made in the last few years. The record speaks for itself. It clearly demonstrates that management serves no one but themselves. If anything positive happens, it is either an unplanned coincidence or there is an underlying scam that has yet to be exposed.
Until management digs a little deeper and tries to understand others, they will amount to nothing more than paint. It may be fashionable on the day it was selected, but trends change and once the old color is covered - it is soon forgotten. I just hope that the long term impact of this current batch of paint doesn't rot out the sheet rock, studs, and exterior siding.
Happy Halloween.
Fun Factoid: This is blog entry number 498. There are 31 drafts that have yet to be posted. There are 11 completely new topics that have yet to be revealed. We have had 184,941 page views since we started in June 2007.
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.
It is worth mentioning that comments submitted to the blog are stamped with the date and time they were submitted. As moderator, I cannot alter the comment or the date and time the blog received it. I can just reject the comment or publish it - those are my only two choices.
If contributors wish to attach their name to a comment, please pay attention to the time the comment was submitted. The District may claim they have no problem with your expression of free speech, but just make sure it isn't "on the clock" or while using a district computer.
If you have something to say during business hours, you can use a private, non-District email account and mail it to mark@esd15.org. Of course, as is always the case, I would prefer not to know who you are, but if you want to use your name, and want it posted along with your comment, I will be happy to do that for you.
It is also worth mentioning that anything sent to my email address has a set shelf life. In order to conserve space and not bog down my account, all email is automatically deleted after 30 days.
When I wrote my Letter to the Editor of the Edmonds Beacon that appeared on March 22, 2007, I was using my own computer and wrote the entire letter on my own time. I was expressing a personal opinion that had nothing to do with the District and yet - still - management felt they owned the contents of my head and every moment of my life.
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.
There has been a discussion on this blog, and behind the scenes, regarding the creation of a small, board-sponsored committee to receive anonymous concerns and complaints. Under such a scenario, the information received would eventually find its way to the Board for a response.
However, creating a committee to receive anonymous comments from district staff and the public cannot be as effective as a simple blog. With a blog, no one is looking into the eyes of anyone else and no one will ever have to worry about being uncovered.
A committee requires a group of people to come together on a regular basis to review accumulated concerns. Such a group would have to take time out of their schedules and a meeting space would have to be arranged. With the current state of the Facility Use Policy, it would be any one's guess as to how such a meeting would be coordinated. Issues also surface quickly and may require a response before the next meeting can be scheduled.
A committee also has the additional fault of endowing a select few individuals with identifying information that can be leaked - voluntarily or under duress. A concerned member of staff would rarely be able to determine the identity of the leak and would be worse off with the creation of such a committee. The blog has the advantage of being moderated by just one person. If an identity slips out, there is only one person to take responsibility.
The moderator doesn't have to schedule space in any building or meet formally with anyone else. Most of the blogging activity takes place in the early hours of the morning and without regard for political pressure or consequences to a career with the district.
The blog does not edit comments. We either post the entire comment or reject it entirely. The vast majority of comments are posted, but those that slant heavily toward something inappropriate or filled with profanity are rejected. Supporters and opponents of the blog can contribute.
The blog also allows discussion to take place. A committee cannot offer such a benefit. With a committee receiving anonymous comments, there is no opportunity for constructive dialog to take root. More importantly, a committee would not allow the opportunity for opponents to collect information and mount a well-reasoned and coordinated position.
Clearly, this blog is the ideal format for receiving anonymous comments from district staff and our community. In fact, the Board already reads the blog and therefore has access to the concerns expressed. The Board can choose to take action or they can continue to ignore the anonymous expressions made by voters and residents of our community. It is the thinking of simpletons to assume that anonymous comments are meaningless and don't require an official response.
Furthermore, the fact the Board continues to pretend the blog doesn't exist is a powerful indication of how they would view the contributions of an organized committee.
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.
For the many of you that could not attend last night's board meeting, here is a brief overview.
