skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It has been said many times before that some of the budget cuts should impact staff at the ESC. After all, the District is supposed to be dedicated to the educational needs of our students and yet the bulk of budget cuts in previous rounds always seem to target the classroom. The time has come to lose a few assistant superintendents, and I don't mean just change their titles while keeping them at their current, swollen salaries.
If a few of these extra bodies were removed from the ESC, perhaps there would be enough parking stalls for everyone to find a place to park.
There really shouldn't be a need to have anyone sitting outside monitoring the parking lots. One sign, well placed, warning students that the District will tow unauthorized vehicles should be more than adequate. Unless the signs are posted in an obvious location, the District has no legitimate right to have any car towed - unless of course Paulson's Towing is one of management's "special friends". Spot checks should be good enough. A written warning under the wiper blade would also be a friendly approach.
No one with a bad back should be made to monitor a parking lot. There have been times in the past when students have been known to be confrontational. There might even be a slightly elevated chance of a fracas. Why would the District willingly place an injured member of staff in a position that might result in personal harm? Also, the lot monitor would have no way of knowing the driver's status as a college visitor until they left their vehicle and started walking toward the College. Is the lot monitor supposed to chase the offender and confront them? Perhaps district lot monitors have been trained to tackle students safely. Maybe they throw lawn darts or use pepper spray. The mind boggles.
I suspect there is probably a lot of interest in assigning light duty workers to Property Management. While the department has more than enough bodies to do their work, adding a lot more minds certainly couldn't hurt. The blog has been informed, on more than a few occasions, that one employee has been attending rudimentary classes, on district time, to learn how to use basic software applications. I wonder if she parks at the College on those days when most of her time is spent over there.
Better still, as long as the District is going to employ parking lot attendants, why not charge for parking? The District could sell monthly passes, they could validate ticket stubs for visitors and they could shackle large, yellow barrels to the tires of parking offenders. The practice would have the added advantage of generating a little extra revenue and encouraging staff to carpool, ride the bus or walk. Even better, the attendants could be provided with stylish uniforms that give the illusion of a highly-organized and financially-savvy enterprise.
The time has come to assemble another committee and we can call it the Citizens Parking Committee.
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.
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.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to pack up Camp and move to a better place. Eventually, there just aren't enough places to bury excrement and you have to move to a new place, farther from Edmonds. Of course, it doesn't help matters when many of the people around your Camp are burying their waste under your tent.
There was a great opportunity, not long ago, to make the Camp a permanent base and build a house with all of the necessary amenities to support a robust and vibrant place. Unfortunately, this Camp was overlooked as the great and vital resource that it was. Now, the Camp is moving further north.
With the uprooting of this Camp, the organization of wolves will rejoice in that no future Camps will be established and money will be saved by allowing staff to wander around with no particular direction in mind. Some will sleep for hours at a time, locked in a latrine. Others will smuggle materials to distant locations for use at their private, personal place.
A Camp offers the opportunity for nomadic people to return to a common place where ideas and stories can be shared. Without a Camp, such nomadic people will just wander aimlessly without the benefit of a unified community. As wanderers, they will be more easily picked off by wolves and budgetary predators.
Without the hope of another Camp, the outcome is obvious; wandering nomads, without the benefit of a map, will quickly get lost. These wanderers may find themselves at the Shoreline, Cape Flattery, Northshore, Kettle Falls, Mount Vernon, Mercer Island or Lake Stevens. Can we really afford to have these people wander off to new territories?
In an effort to better support our financially-strapped public agencies, the blog has decided to offer reconfiguration services to help our community weather the storm of economic uncertainty. It is no longer necessary to contact those high-end cubicle companies to have your space reconfigured, nor is it necessary to interact with internal staff to try to ascertain just what exactly your new space might look like.
Our experience is extensive. Our lead installer has experience building out AO2 cubicles and can reconfigure a space containing 20 to 30 employees over a single weekend. Collectively, we have designed more efficient work spaces, tracked existing inventory, tapped resources for obtaining additional Herman Miller AO2 panels and pieces, coordinated the delivery of portable crates, managed the networking requirements of the new space, enlisted the services of licensed electricians to ensure safe, code-compliant connections and cleaned the entire space so staff can get to work promptly once they return.
Why confine yourself to the limitations of a static work environment when your staffing needs change all of the time? The panels move, after all. They easily come apart and easily go back together. It isn't rocket science, so why would you pay rocket science rates?
Herman Miller AO2 panels and pieces are very common and additional pieces can be acquired on the secondary market for a fraction of the original price. Our staff is even skilled at reupholstering panels to make them work in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. No mish-mash of colors or a splash of contrast where such a splash really isn't wanted.
Why waste the time of valuable, internal staff with something so simple as a reconfiguration? Why would any public agency want their employees harboring grudges against co-workers for messing up what was only an inefficient space and now is an horrendous mess that accommodates no one? Let those valuable employees get back to filling out purchase orders or tracking keys.
Our reconfiguration service is founded on one basic premise. We serve as reconfiguration consultants. We assemble the best people and products and ensure the lowest possible price and shortest possible down time because of our vast experience in the industry.
If you are concerned about what your accounting department might say about that fat check made out to ESD15.org, don't worry, as consultants we won't charge you a thing. You just pay for the parts and the hourly rate of our highly-efficient installer.
If you need a first or second opinion about how to get your space modified to meet your programmatic needs for the lowest possible price, do yourself a favor and email us immediately.
[Nora Cole, Cotton & Company]
Warehouse: I can see that you have put significant effort into downsizing your warehouse functions and therefore costs. However, what led you to downsize your warehouse? Was there a cost study that led you to do this downsizing? Are you using certain cost analyses to see how much you have, or will save by downsizing? If these studies exist, I would be interested in seeing them.
From: Miller, Marla (ESC) [MillerM@edmonds.wednet.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:21 PM
To: Cole, Nora L.
Cc: Taylor Dribben; Brossoit, Nick
Subject: Performance Audit Follow-Up: Warehouse
Nora and Taylor,
This message includes attachments related to your questions regarding our analysis of our warehouse operations (see below).
Included with this message are the following:
1. Description of reduction in staff in 2003-04
2. Description of analysis of discontinuation of office supplies (just in time delivery)
3. Description of elimination of leased facility for surplus storage
4. Description of progress report on reducing warehouse inventory
5. Changes to mail delivery times to accommodate reduction in delivery staff
6. Analysis of value of changing shredding procedures
7. Message asking a UPS manager to train our warehouse staff on productivity WITH customer service
8. Initiation of study of merging warehouse and food service delivery operations
Much of this is to give you a flavor of the ongoing nature of our review of ways to improve the efficiency and service of our warehouse operation. We eliminated the surplus storage leased warehouse to save $100,000 per year in the General Fund. That was a fairly straightforward decision – can we fit everything into one warehouse, and if so, downsize!
Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you,
Marla
I find it peculiar that Marla wanted to sell the District Warehouse and consolidate all warehousing functions in the leased warehouse, just as the rates there were scheduled to go up. This didn't make any sense at all. Despite my vocal opposition, I contacted Kidder Mathews and arranged for an appraisal to be performed for the District Warehouse. That appraisal came in at just over $1,000,000.00, out of reach for the only party interested in buying the site. Their offer was approximately $850,000.00.
If the District Warehouse had been sold, there would have been substantial on-going costs for leasing the facility for an unknown period of time. Particularly since the new District Support Center hadn't yet been purchased and is still "under development".
What is happening with that site anyway? $5.6 million to buy. $2.3 million to grade. Property values continue to fall from the site's original valuation of $3.3 million.
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.
As many of you know, the District has been working to update our facility use procedures, fees, and forms. The School Board adopted 2008-09 fees and updated procedures in August, 2008, and we have found we need to look at clarifying when the fees apply and to which groups. Any language changes that result from this review process are anticipated to be recommended to the School Board at their October 7th regular business meeting.
If you would like to see the currently adopted facility use procedures and rates, here's the link to the District's webpage:
http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/propertymgt/newfac.html
If you have time and interest in meeting with me to go over the facility use procedures and fees, I would welcome your review and feedback. You are invited to an optional meeting for community groups as follows:
Thursday, October 2nd at 7:00 p.m. in Board Room B
We appreciate your interest. Our goal is to support community use of schools, while also being fiscally responsible for covering operating costs that result from that use.
Although it is not required, it would be very helpful to know if you are planning to attend the meeting, so we have ample materials and space. Thank you!
Marla Miller
Asst. Supt., Business and Operations
p.s. I've cc'd the people designated as the facility use contact for each school. Would you please forward this invitation to the leaders of the groups that frequently rent your facility? Thank you!
A reader of the blog recently commented that the brand new field at Evergreen Elementary looks great. It struck me as odd since the school is scheduled for closure - pending the charade of a "study" by the Board. Why would the District, when facing budget problems, spend anything on the field at Evergreen when they plan to close the school?
A quick glance through the Capital Projects website reveals that three fields were recently renovated. The fields are located at Evergreen, Cedar Way and Westgate and cost more than $467,653. Assuming that all three fields were of similar condition and required the same level of investment, the cost for renovating the field at Evergreen would be approximately $155,884, plus $14,030 in sales tax. That's a lot of cheese sandwiches.
Added to that expense would be the brand new playground that was installed a couple of years ago. That project wasn't cheap either at $31,500, including sales tax. Even more cheese sandwiches.
Then there are the power and cabling upgrades at four different schools - one of which was Evergreen. The total for those four schools was $408,100, with an average expense per school of $102,025, plus $9,182 in sales tax. Piles and piles of cheese sandwiches.
If you ask the District why they just dumped more than $312,621.00 into a site that is scheduled to close, they'll tell you about their commitment to tax payers when the last levy and bond passed. The District committed to completing these projects and they aren't about to go against the wishes of the community. Of course, the community didn't know that Evergreen was scheduled for closure.
If the School Board read the Capital Facilities Plan at any time since 2002, they would have known that school closures were coming and they could have started a "study" back then - avoiding the senseless spending of untold fortunes on a school limping along toward an inevitable closure.
I read with interest an article in the Enterprise regarding the recent ribbon-cutting of a project at Edmonds Elementary. There was great fanfare and even the Mayor showed up to help operate the freakishly large pair of scissors.
It surely is a great project that resulted in so many great improvements for the playground, the school and the community as a whole. So why would the District opt out of taking a little bit of credit?
The playground and walking path project was a District-sponsored Capital Partnership project. A sizable chunk of the expense was covered with voter-approved capital funds, though the article was careful to mention that no district funds were used. Why would the media make such a claim? Could it be the District's futile effort to distance itself from any spending that may be deemed as unnecessary during these tight economic times? Why not share in the success of one of its schools? Why lie about the fact that a considerable amount of money came from the Capital Partnership fund?
What is equally surprising is the fact that from a long list of partnership projects, this project was the only one the new Facilities Director took over when he joined the District in 2006. The playground structures were already in place and yet it took more than two years to complete a paved walkway and build a stack of cement eco-blocks. It was the new Facilities Director that presented a crayon sketch to the Architectural Design Board that was instantly dismissed as overly simplistic and underwhelming.
I also recall how the school was unaware of the best way to raise funds when the District was matching, dollar-for-dollar, contributions generated by non-District sources. The parent group wanted to have the District match parent funds first - before they collected money from the City of Edmonds. It didn't take a financial genius to recommend that the school raise all of their money first, before having it matched by Capital Partnership funds.
While I am pleased that Edmonds Elementary finally completed their Capital Partnership project, I am disappointed in the District. They are clearly more concerned with leaving the impression of not spending any money rather than leaving the impression of spending money wisely.
Blog: The Enterprise has altered the article to reflect the District's contribution.
Yesterday, I had a meeting with Nick and Marla regarding the facility use policy of school facilities and associated fee schedule. The new policy (effective now) is that Parent Organizations (PTA, PTSA, PTO, Booster Clubs, etc) are charged up to $300 a year for use of facilities and even more if they have a fundraiser that invites people from outside of the district.
Now, it’s completely reasonable to make sure that extra labor (such as custodial and weekend energy fees to heat/cool the building) are paid for so that the district doesn’t bear the burden; however, it is unprecedented in the local area that PTA/PTO organizations are charged facilities and scheduling fees for serving the community with activities for kids like Ice Cream Socials, Book Fairs, Science Fairs and the like. It comes down to 3 arguments, “other districts do this”, “wear and tear” on the building and “the PTA groups think its ok”.
First, other districts do NOT do this. I called every school district around Edmonds (including Seattle) and NONE charge anything to a parent club – most offer the facilities free to any non-profit serving the school district. Marla claims that this is not the case and is sending me her data – I look forward to seeing this.
Second, “wear and tear” is a pretty weak argument. I heard a couple of anecdotal stories about a parent group that left marks all over the floor and the school had to clean it up – well, let the group responsible clean it up – don’t make one bad apple spoil everything.
Third, that “PTA groups think this is ok” – well, true, she talked with the “liaison of the PTA groups” and they had no problem and true, Nick instructed her to talk to other PTA groups but I suspect that all the voices will not be heard on this and quietly go along. I urge any PTO/PTA representative to make their opinion heard – send Marla an email (you can copy me at rick.jorgensen@gmail.com). Whether you agree with the District or not, make your position clear. I will be at the Board Meeting on September 9th and will forward any comments I receive from the respective parent group.
I should close with a statement that Nick, Marla and I do agree on a great number of items with the policy, were considerate in discussing the topic and responsive to my inquiries. I really do thank them for the manner in which they treated me and this issue. That being said, I still disagree with them and think that this is the wrong direction for the district.
Rick Jorgensen
From: Miller, Marla (ESC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:43 PM
To: @Office Mgrs; @P- 12
Subject: New Facility Use Procedures and Rates Posted to District Website
Good afternoon,
Electronic access to the new facility use procedures (board policy 9200 R-1) is now up and running, with many, many thanks to JoAnn Kerns and Jennifer Aaby! The following link will take you to the revised procedures and updated rate schedules:
http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/propertymgt/newfac.html
The new Facility Use Permit (Form A-170) is on schedule to be printed and ready to distribute by September 1 (thank you, Eddie!) -- we will get the updated forms to you just as soon as possible. Clint Goodison is also preparing electronic access to the list of organizations and vendors with current insurance certificates on file with the District; we will let you know just as soon as that information is available on-line.
Thanks again for all your suggestions and help in consistently implementing these facility use procedures and fees across the District. If you have questions, or would like us to set up a meeting to go over the procedures, please let Stephanie Hall, Brian Harding, or me know.
Have a great day,
Marla
I have a question. Why would members of the community have to call the Director of Facilities and Operations to schedule a parking lot? The time it takes him to reach for the telephone would already burn more than the $5.00 the District would earn in providing the parking lot.
The following is pulled directly from the District's website:
To arrange for the use of a school, please contact the school directly. If you would like to rent fields, please contact Athletics at (425) 431-7153. Parking is handled through Property Management at (425) 431-7334. You may also email either department via the following links: Athletics & Property Management.
The blog recommends changing the contact number to (425) 431-7331.
The latest findings have been released by the State Auditor. No surprises.
2006-2007 Accountability Audit and Findings
2006-2007 Financial Audit and Findings
Let's review the facts:
The State Auditor totally missed an obvious case of embezzlement over many years. Only after it was pointed out by district staff were they able to start their evaluation. To date, the full impact of the theft has yet to be determined. There have only been estimates.
The State Auditor's report was available prior to the election, but not made available to the public until one week after the Tech Levy election. In fact, the report is dated April 18th and yet "issued" on May 27th. The findings were mentioned during a school board meeting on May 20, 2008, and yet the voter's didn't have a chance to read the report until today.
The State Auditor established a toll-free tip line for citizens to direct complaints and concerns. This information is still available on the Auditor’s website and yet they also seek to "reduce the overall number of findings" while remain "free both in fact and in appearance from personal, external and organizational impairments to independence". Whistleblowing, by its very nature, is external and weakens independence. If the State Auditor routinely conducted a more comprehensive evaluation, there would be far fewer whistles to blow.
Members of the public have directed their concerns to the State Auditor’s Office and our server activity clearly shows the number of visits to our site and the total time the Auditor spent here.
The State Auditor concluded that only two issues warrant actual findings and these two items were included in their annual report. This could only mean that the level of corruption and inappropriate conduct within the District must be relatively constant, since the number of findings has been relatively constant over the last several years.
It could also mean that if an investigation was launched into these issues, then evidence was either destroyed or, also very likely, the State Auditor does not view the sort of misconduct cited as relevant and perhaps entirely within the realm of normal business conduct. This would be the same auditor, and therefore the same standard, applied to all public entities in the State of Washington.
Furthermore, the statements made by the District appear to suggest that a “change in personnel” was at their direction and in response to previous audit findings related to property leases and rental arrangements. No notifications or comments have ever been made to previous staff regarding the need for changes in personnel and no action has ever been taken to address previous audit findings regarding leases and rental revenue.
With the timing of the Auditor’s release of these findings, one week after a Tech Levy, it has become abundantly clear that the Auditor’s office seeks to protect and preserve the current state of mismanagement at the Edmonds School District.
The blog tip line received a call regarding an email message that went out to staff. As stated in an earlier entry, a message went out encouraging staff to "Put paper, glass and aluminum cans in recycling containers instead of garbage cans". The caller had other news to report.
Apparently, the District only recycles paper. Teachers across the District have routinely complained about a lack of recycling in their schools. Some have even gone as far as to transport their recycling home to ensure that it doesn't make it to a landfill.
It looks like management may be out of touch with actual business and operations.
The caller went on to complain that site staff bring trash from home to throw into the school dumpster.
Whether you believe the District is "spending money wisely" or wasting untold fortunes with no regard for public accountability, you need to mail-in your ballot or drop it off at the appropriate location.
Essentially, it all comes down to two different positions. Those that believe whatever the District tells them and those that do not.
I believe the District would be much better off if the Levy passed AND they had cost-effective project management with deliberate oversight and a regard for the public assistance they receive. I also believe that the panhandler begging for money on the street corner will buy a sandwich with the $5.00 I would like to give him. Call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Unfortunately, the current management model (or lack thereof) leaves me without confidence that the funds voters provide will be used responsibly.
A vote in support of the Levy is a vote for throwing more money at a poorly-managed district. I could make comparisons to political parties and the armed conflict in Iraq, but no one will die if this levy passes. Though no doubt, suffering and mismanagement will continue unabated.
Editorial: Is it just me or do others find it peculiar how the State Auditor's report for the Edmonds School District hasn't appeared yet. Why not provide voters with the insight needed to cast their votes effectively? Most of the other district audits have surfaced.
Some parents are incredibly simplistic in their understanding of how the Edmonds School District operates. They are quick to praise the virtues of school administration for providing a few token dollars for core mission issues but continually fail to realize the real cost of delivering those few token dollars.
I recently read in the Herald that the President of Citizens for Schools feels that the District is spending money wisely. My first question is how would she know? When did Tracy Greene work for the District? When did she manage a bunch of projects or monitor a budget for the District? When did she sit in a staff meeting and discuss how to reconfigure seven cubicles for $11,000.00? When did she meet with Capital Projects to discuss a transition of $150,000.00 in matchable money only to see it swept under the rug?
People like Tracy Greene are incredibly simple. Perhaps she represents the majority of parents. Perhaps every active parent fixates on the end result and fails to acknowledge how the end result happened. It might be true that $10 made it to the classroom but it cost the taxpayer much, much more to get it there. Sure, the District could be praised for contributing $10, but what about the untold fortunes that have been misdirected along the way? These fortunes are untold because active parents in our community fail to recognize the real problem with education and would likely refuse to tackle financial issues even if they knew of them.
The education side of the house suffers because they have no comprehension of how the operations side of the house conducts business. Their support base has no regard for the manner in which property is acquired, developed or maintained. There is a huge drain on the District budget and it unfortunately has very little to do with educating our youth. When a superintendent allows the operations side of the house to run amok, as this one most certainly has, the consequences are catastrophic.
Without a doubt, parents like Tracy Greene possess a degree of faith that is woefully misplaced. It is far easier to believe that everything happens for a reason, that corruption doesn't exist and that some higher power will decide the time and place of our demise. Perhaps their response to global warming would be to change nothing and just stock up on sunscreen.
Dear Editor:
As anyone in Snohomish County would naturally conclude, dedicating public funds for the support of educational issues is a great thing. But what would happen if only 20 cents of each dollar committed actually went to support the cause? What if 80 cents of each dollar went toward the administrative costs in tracking the 20 cents? Would the dollar be well spent?
Like many people in the Edmonds School District, I believe that technological support for educators and students is an important aspect of public education. In an ideal world, every classroom would have all of the technological enhancements needed to accomplish organizational objectives. But how foolish would it be for the public to pass a levy that points money in the right direction but is quickly depleted by mismanagement before it gets to the destination?
It is clear when reviewing the monumentally foolish decisions in recent months and years that this school district is out of touch with the value of money. They pay far too much for far too little and waste public assistance like they have the authority to do so.
Having worked inside the District for more than six years, I can attest to the obscene amount of waste that has been happening over the years. Contaminated property was purchased in 2005 for nearly twice the actual value. Business has been diverted to enrich the friends of management. Board policies are routinely ignored when it suits the board and management. There is a lengthy history of financial mismanagement and no one seems to think it matters.
While I would love to vote in favor of the Tech Levy, I would have greater faith in handing cash to students rather than continue to feed corruption.
Mark Zandberg
Edmonds
Laptops, carpet and mobile computer labs in south Snohomish County schools are on the line in the May 20 election. Voters in the Edmonds School District will decide the fate of a technology and capital facilities levy that would replace a levy that expires this year.
The proposed $31.5 million levy is expected to cost residents 28 cents per $1,000 of their property's assessed value. The owner of a $400,000 home would pay $112 each year.
The expiring $44 million levy cost voters 52 cents per $1,000 of the assessed value of their property.
The new levy would help replace outdated computers and buy laptops for classroom use, said Cynthia Nelson, director of technology for the Edmonds School District. The state usually doesn't pay for computers, so most districts buy their computers with levies or grants, she said. Every school in the district has at least one mobile cart of laptop computers that is wheeled into classrooms so students can use computers in their room instead of having to work in a computer lab. Additionally, around 30 percent of the classrooms in the district have a set of seven laptops for classroom use.
Most of the computers were bought in 2004, with funds from the previous technology levy. Nelson said many are having issues and need to be replaced. "We've done a lot of work to pretty much bring the Edmonds School District into the 21st century -- and renewing this levy will allow us to continue that good work at an even lower tax rate than we're currently running," she said. "It is pretty amazing if you talk to a lot of teachers, they're not real sure how they could go back to the old way of doing things."
The levy would also pay for security system improvements, roofing upgrades and changes to make schools more energy efficient.
There is no organized opposition to the levy, but a few people have criticized it online and in letters to newspapers. Although he thinks technology is important, Edmonds resident Mark Zandberg plans to vote against the levy because he doesn't like the district's management style.
"I think the levy is a fantastic thing," said Zandberg, a former planning and property management specialist for the district. "This community needs that levy to pass. However, the manner in which the district manages those funds, I can't tolerate at all. I'd rather take a hit in the short term."
Read the rest of this article by clicking here.
Kaitlin Manry
425-339-3292
kmanry@heraldnet.comEditorial: Gee, what were they expecting the president of Citizens for Schools to say? She is clearly detached from reality if she thinks the District spends money wisely. But then, if I had three kids attending school in the District I might want lots of everyone else's money paying the way - even if a small fraction actually gets to where it needs to go.
The Seattle Department of Neighborhoods is seeking members for a committee that will help determine the use of the Martin Luther King Elementary School building.
Seattle Public Schools closed the school, at 3201 E. Republican St., last fall because of declining enrollment. Now the district is considering nonschool uses for the building, and the city's process calls for public meetings before a committee composed of neighborhood, school-district and city representatives.
The city is seeking eight representatives: two who live within 600 feet of the school; one who owns property within 600 feet of the site; two from the general neighborhood; one at-large representative; one from a community organization; and one from the school district.
To apply, write a letter to Thao Tran at the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods stating your interest and affiliation. Include your contact information; letters must be received by Friday. Applicants can fax it to 206-233-5142 or mail it to P.O. Box 94649, Seattle, WA 98124-4649.
Seattle Times
Editorial: What a novel concept for a public agency to seek the input of others when deciding how to use or dispose of publicly-owned property. If only other public agencies were so enlightened.
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.
It has been said many times before that some of the budget cuts should impact staff at the ESC. After all, the District is supposed to be dedicated to the educational needs of our students and yet the bulk of budget cuts in previous rounds always seem to target the classroom. The time has come to lose a few assistant superintendents, and I don't mean just change their titles while keeping them at their current, swollen salaries.
