- "hiring freezes",
- RIFed teachers,
- laid off central administration workers,
- laid off elementary counselors
- and the state cut teacher and principal pay
I think anyone looking at that list would say that the district is experiencing a severe money crunch.
But as I've always said, this is a district that finds money when it wants to do something.
STEM? No, don't go out and do the hard work of getting the program at least half-funded by private companies and entities (even though our area is rich with science/technology companies). No, we just take money from other schools. (Not saying they shouldn't have created the program but that they could have done it in a way that was more cost-efficient to the district like the STEM school over in the Tri-Cities.)
Consultants? Sure. (Even consultants for a department like Communications.) Academic coaches? Sure. Multiple principals at schools? No matter what the year, there's always one school with dual principals.
And raises? Tell me, what government entity do you know for sure - the City, the County, the State - has been giving out raises over the last two years? I can tell you one - Seattle Public Schools.
At the last Board meeting, Dave Westberg of Local 609 spoke before the Board. He had a document detailing salary increases for various reasons for some central administration staff. He pointed out that the district, since 2009, had been giving out promotions and raises to the tune of about 7% average raise per person. There were raises given out as late as June 1, 2011. The dates on the document run from 9/09 to 6/11. What's interesting is that as Meg Diaz points out, there are people on this list who were allegedly RIFed in spring 2010.
- Everyone who got a general raise (as opposed to a raise based on a promotion) was listed under an odd category called "market study." There were about 28 people who, in total, received just under $100k in pay increases. In the category of "position review/reorg/internal equity adjustment" about 24 people, in total, received just under $100k in raises.
- Michael Tolley got a $9k "promotion" raise even though his post was more of a re-org.
- Last July, Cathy Thompson, when she was Executive Director of Instructional Services, got a "retention/equity adj"of $21k. When she was promoted to Ass. Superintendent, she received a raise of $25k. That's a total of $56k in one year.
- Cordell Carter, one of MGJ's Broad residents, came in at about $91k and left making $106k. He was with the district less than 3 years and I certainly would love to know what he contributed. I had begged the Board not to keep on the two Broad residents because of their cost but they did (and here we see that not only did we keep them on, both received raises).
- What's also interesting is that some people received no raise or a modest $1-3k raise. I have to wonder if the squeaky wheel got the grease.
-Non-represented staff were not eligible for a step (seniority) increase for the 2010-11 year.
· - Salary increases to some staff have occurred based upon the following criteria
o Change in job or significant change in job responsibilities – change amount determined by a classification/compensation review. One example is the central office reorganization this spring
o Change made because of market analysis showing the position is significantly under-compensated. Examples include reclassification of bilingual IAs (requested by SEA) and reclassification of nutrition staff based upon market study and difficulty filling open positions.
Regarding the central office reorganization this spring:
A. Not only were some staff salaries increased, some were also decreased parallel to diminished responsibility
B. The cost of Superintendent Enfield’s current transitional reorganization structure is currently producing a net savings of approximately $127,000
All the positions at the central office that are non-represented administrative will be subject to the district’s final plan in dealing with the 3% salary allocation reduction from the Legislature. Those classified positions that are represented (primarily by SEA) may be impacted by the 1.9% salary allocation reduction by the Legislature, however that will be subject to bargaining.
To the first point on seniority, so what? It doesn't mean the district didn't give out raises because they did.
To the second point, ..."market analysis showing the position is significantly under-compensated." And now in the middle of a recession when the district is laying off other workers, they decide to look into market conditions for some workers? It makes zero sense.
To the third point, in the document, there were very few people who took a pay cut.
To the fourth point that the district is saving money, I don't believe it. It is time for the district to QUIT saying how much money we "save" on closing schools, cutting back bus service, centralizing food operations and reorganizing and SHOW US THE MONEY. They never do.
What do you think this looks and feels like to a laid-off maintenance worker or cafeteria worker or teacher or even principal?
This is our district and how it operates even during hard times.
Update: I attended the joint Mayor/Superintendent event tonight (separate thread to come) but I asked the Mayor two things. One, how many staff at City Hall got a raise since he has been Mayor because the District had and, if he was hearing from powers that be about taking over the school district. (I pointed out that we RIFed teachers, laid off elementary counselors and maintenance workers with a $500M backlog in maintenance.) On the latter, he said no and that he felt that they were still in the collaboration stage with the district and it was working well. On the former he stated that the unionized city workers had been persuaded to NOT take a 2% raise but take the amount of inflation and that NO other city workers (non-unionized) had a raise. (He said he could not himself take a pay cut under City Charter but had given $10k to charities and that his staff was making less than the previous administration.)
The Superintendent jumped in and said that they gave bumps to people who got promotions. I had specifically said in my question to the Mayor that these were not for people with promotions and/or additional job responsibilities and I said that again. She then said that they had found that they hadn't been paying people what they should and gave them raises. You can imagine how that went over in the room.
Paying administrative people what they are worth in a poor economy in a district that says it has no money. It is not the fault of those people to ask for the money but it is wrong for the district to pay them more now. There's no amount of waffling that can change that.