Added To Board Meeting Agenda: RIFs

Just added to the School Board meeting agenda today is an Introduction item to allow for "Authorization for a Reduction in Force" by Human Resources.   From the item (red mine):

The District is projecting some budget and program changes for the 2013-2014 school year that will not allow it to maintain its current level of programs and services. In order to maintain expenditures within a level of anticipated revenues, it is necessary for the District to make changes to programs and services and possibly complete a reduction in force of certificated staff. Therefore, it is necessary to give timely notice to people in certificated and classified positions that those positions are being eliminated. For certificated staff, these notices need to be delivered on or before May 15, 2013. 

There is no indication of what programs or services they are talking about or the number of cuts.

It states that this Action Report will be reviewed by the Audit and Finance Committee on April 11th.  I am quite puzzled as to why this is being introduced  to the full Board BEFORE it went before A&F Committee.  

Comments

mirmac1 said…
Isn't transparency a wonderful thing (NOT!)
4/2/13, 8:58 PM
Just Saying said…
It is looking very likely that the state will be putting funding into eduation. Does this mean the district will put dollars back into staffing? I bet they won't.
4/2/13, 10:31 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Just Sayin', the big question on your question is "when" and "how much". Until we know what the State is doing, the district has to close the gap.
4/2/13, 10:34 PM
Eric B said…
The Board has to vote for RIFs by some deadline, so that potentially RIFed employees can be notified on the schedule in the collective bargaining agreement. Just because a RIF is authorized doesn't mean it will actually happen. However, they have to authorize it now if there's a possibility that they'll need to do it later. With the way the state legislature is dysfunctioning, RIFs are a decent possibility.
4/3/13, 8:19 AM
Anonymous said…
The May 15th deadline, while well intended, forces the hand of districts before they know about attrition. A district the size of Seattle should not need to RIF in my opinion. They fire young teachers, fill there spots with transfers, then bag them to come back in September. It is musical chairs that benefits no one.

Eric B is correct though, it does not mean that anyone will be laid off.
-JL
4/4/13, 6:38 AM
Anonymous said…
oops, * beg

-JL
4/4/13, 6:39 AM
KG said…
Just Saying,

I bet they will give Duggan Harman and all theimportant Central Administrators more money for continuing run this District into the ground. Thus keeping up with their belief that keeping the money away from the schools works best.
4/4/13, 3:57 PM
Unknown said…
Well i am here first time and found that this amazing site and informative which gives all reader many good

Research Paper Writing Help
College essay writing service
12/30/13, 3:11 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more