Yet Another PERC Finding

In addition to everything else, the District is an employer. As an employer, the District is required to comply with labor laws. Sometimes they don't. In fact, they often don't. And when they really mess up they have to appear before the Public Employment Relations Committee (PERC). And when they are proven to have followed unfair labor practices they have to read the decision of the PERC into the minutes of the School Board's meeting such as they did on March 10, 2010.

This happens once or twice a year and it is a direct indictment of the District's culture and management practices.

It has happened again.

I would really like to see a clause in the superintendent's contract that dings the superintendent salary $10,000 for every one of these. Then I think we would see them stop. Historically the District never takes any action after one of these and never holds anyone accountable for their grotesque mis-management and denial of rights to District employees.

Instead these findings get the same treatment as everything else in the District:

We see a lugubrious series of mea culpas
We see a big, sloppy show of contrition
That's followed by a big sloppy commitment to do better in future
Then they forget all about it, fail to hold anyone accountable and go on doing the same stuff they were doing before.

Dysfunction, delusion, and deception all over the place.


Cap'n Billy Keg said…
PERC - to "the board" it is an "itch" that occasionally needs to be scratched. Ding the superintendent's salary? Good luck on that one. Until you get a board that really LISTENS and CARES, your ideas will fall on deaf ears.
KG said…
Exactly!! Well put Billy.

The definition of "insane" in the dictionary = Seattle School District School Board, Human Resources Department and Labor Realations Department.

This will not change under this partly new regime.

Expect more of the same, your money is a safe bet with the Seattle Schools.
zduke said…
what is the actual PERC decision and what does it relate to? I can't find it in the minutes.
someone said…
I think you meant March of 2011 right? Here's the decision from the PERC site:
Matt said…
Can anyone explain the context for this decision? Following the March 2011 link above, it appears PERC was mediating a dispute between the union and the district about which jobs are including in union bargaining.

Not all of the decision went against the district, eg the Senior Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent was successfully excluded.

Probably my interpretation of this document is wrong.

So can anyone explain in more detail why this is an example of district mismanagement, and not a legitimate attempt to limit union control of administrative jobs?
Anonymous said…
The district is a joke and a farce when it comes to Human Resources.

As one who had to have an Attorney actually point out a district policy to a Human Resource "Director" to explaining to school personnel standard employee laws there is no "there" when it comes to employee relations and development
Paul said…
I found the case. It was the Hale principal (Hudson) altering records and sending the union false information. Then the HR Department wrings its hands and the general counsel makes up excuses.

Same theme, different case.

Union trying to protect memebrs is how I read it.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools