From the story:
Board President Steve Sundquist says some of these came about due to the elimination of 90 jobs.
Sundquist: "In situations where an employee is being asked to do significantly more work we need to make sure to retain that employee, so they're in a position to serve the public, that they're fairly compensated for that work. It's admittedly a difficult thing to talk through with people."
No, Steve, we would understand if the district cut back on staff and asked the remaining staff to take on more and paid them for it. What is tiring is your deflection of the fact that some people got raises just to get raises. Who paid for the market study? Why was it important to do now in the midst of the budget work and strife? And why did were raises given out in the end?
He did this again in the story in the Times about the budget.
But the district has given raises to roughly two dozen staff members in the central office since September.
Earlier Wednesday, Sundquist acknowledged that it's tough to communicate why the district would give those raises while it cut funding for elementary-school counselors and summer school.
But as the district eliminated the 90 jobs from its central office this spring, he said, some people ended up with significant new responsibilities, and the district wanted to compensate them fairly.
In this recessionary time, this was the most important thing to do? And is the district worried these people would walk without getting raises? It's not plausible.
Dr. Enfield was on KUOW's The Conversation today and I note this new talking point; we don't say "cuts", we say "reductions." I heard Steve Sundquist say at the Board meeting last night something about being careful when they use the word "cuts" and on this show, Dr. Enfield caught herself as she started to say "cuts" and replaced it with "reductions." Why that's a better word, I don't know.
- when asked what happens to schools that can't afford the counselors, she said they asked community partners to step in if they could.
- she was asked about not buying books and the Supplemental levy and if the district reniged on the promise and she said, "Unfortunately we find ourselves in unprecedentedly (sic) difficult times and we went to the voters and asked for that money for that but we are not legally bound to use to do that and that's why we are being transparent about doing that only in an emergency."
- She was asked about "more shoes dropping" financially in audits and she said we have some "catching up to do."
- She was asked about applying for the job but said the Board could just consider her only for the permanent position without doing a search in January.
- She was asked about the Ingraham decision and that she stands by both decisions. She said she hadn't done enough "internally" to support firing Floe.