Re “Demystifying the Rumors About Mileage and ‘Extra’ Position” and “Mielke Answers Zeidman: What Is Wrong with Using Email?”
[Editor’s Note: Ms. Hamme is President of the Assn. of Classified Employees.]
I have tried not to engage too much in the “discussion” that has been taking place recently in several public forums regarding the two administrative positions in the Special Education Dept. and the mileage allowances granted to our Assistant Superintendents.
I love a good debate as much as anyone else. But I have to admit that I am beginning to find the current barrage of articles from School Board member Scott Zeidman a bit overwhelming and, quite frankly, depressing.
I am disappointed Scott so readily dismissed views that represented a different perspective than his own. With regard to the two administrative positions in the Pupil Personnel Services Dept., the real question is not whether (for the last two years) the duties of that department have been divided between two people and that the School Board is simply continuing an existing dynamic.
The question I raised in the update I put out to my members on May 26, was:
How we were going to continue to fund the second position in view of the School District's financial crisis?
And why were we filling it at all in light of a District- imposed hiring freeze?
If you notice, those are points that Scott's articles do not address.
I totally agree that there is a huge encroachment on the General Fund from Special Education. Due to the School Board's current restructuring of that department, we now have to begin a search for the person who will ultimately be responsible for the work and services of the most important component of the Special Education Dept., and who will be designated as the “Assistant Director” at a much lower salary than the “Director.” The new Director will continue to handle permits, attendance and issues related to attendance and enrollment, which are the duties he previously handled as the Assistant Director.
But it will be very difficult for our District to attract a person with the necessary experience and knowledge to handle the complex issues of Special Education, its related services and the possible legal implications for this District by offering them a secondary position at a lower salary.
With regard to the Pupil Services’ position, Scott states that “Indeed, it is pretty much undisputed that the Pupil Services position more than pays for itself by helping to retain students who otherwise wouldn't be able to remain in our District.”
Since this is a viewpoint that I have never heard before, I am uncertain as to how it can be undisputed. Where has it previously been discussed?
I am not sure to which students Scott is referring since children who are residents of Culver City are guaranteed space in our schools and we don't have to fight to retain them.
Or he could be referring to the relatively few students whose parents live in Culver City but are permitted to attend schools in other districts.
He doesn't clarify. But, if by that, Scott means that the director has helped permit students remain in the District who, without the director's intervention, would not otherwise have been able to renew their permits for next year, his statement makes some sense.
I am not sure, however, how Scott can substantiate his claim that “the position more than pays for itself.” Could he (shouldn't he?) provide some specifics when he makes statements like that?
Of course I would like to address the mileage allowances.
In Scott's letter to your publication, he mentions the amount of driving our Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services does in the performance of her duties. Scott mentions visits to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the Kodak Theater and the Music Center, to name a few. The trip to the Los Angeles County Office of Education is a 44.80-mile roundtrip drive.
At $.50 per mile, the reimbursement would be $22.40. The trip to the Music Center is a 21.20 mile-round-trip drive and the reimbursement would be $10.60. The trip to the Kodak Theater is a 14.92-mile round-trip drive and the reimbursement would be $7.46. If we assume that meetings take place once a month, on average, the district is obligated to reimburse a total of $40.46. That is a long way from the $250 we provide each and every month without question. I think the savings to be had are obvious.
Scott goes on to state, “we were provided documentation” that the Assistant Superintendent travels, “on average,” over 500 miles per month.
I have no way of knowing exactly what the documentation consisted of:
Was it a complete list of every meeting and conference attended?
If it was, how did the Assistant Superintendent's attendance at these meetings, conferences, etc. directly benefit the students of our District? In what tangible ways can that be demonstrated? If it cannot be substantiated, would it be fair to ask the Assistant Superintendent to possibly cut back on some of her time away from the office in an effort to save the District money?
One last comment.
My update was sent to Supt. Dr. Myrna Rivera Coté and each member of the School Board at the same time it went out to the members of my association.
Interestingly enough, Scott did not find it necessary to respond to my email update. I subsequently reached out to him and invited him to meet with me to discuss the issues expressed in my email and other concerns, but Scott chose to take another tact.
Scott states that he doesn't “normally communicate School Board business via newspapers,” but in the last two weeks we have seen nothing but “articles” from Scott in which he espouses his point of view on the two issues that are apparently the most important to him.
And you know what? That's fine.
Scott is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. But for Scott to represent his opinion as the only one that matters or the only one that is “correct” is unfair and does a disservice to his constituents.
Parents, staff and other members of the community deserve to hear multiple perspectives from which they can form their own opinions.
When he suggests that the updates we send out are somehow flawed, do not present all the facts, leave out key pieces of information, or that we are somehow misinformed or don't understand an issue, he is impugning our integrity and questioning our intelligence.
If Scott wants to endlessly present his views, in every possible forum, to both the school community and the community-at-large, that's his prerogative, I suppose.
But he can present his opinions, observations or explanations without insulting the viewpoints of other stakeholders simply because they differ from his own. In the long run, he gains nothing from alienating the teachers and support staff of this District and driving morale down even lower than it already is.
I would like to remind Scott that as the President of the Assn. of Classified Employees — Culver City, I represent the collective interests of more than 300 employees, many of whom not only work for the District, but live in Culver City, have children who attend Culver City schools and vote.
When we express our concerns, we do not only represent the “union” standpoint. Our concerns deserve to be given the same credence that he gives to the concerns of other members of the Culver City community.
When you ran for office three years ago, Scott, I endorsed you, not only professionally but personally. I campaigned for you and voted for you. I am, therefore, one of your constituents and perhaps deserving of having at least some of my emails answered, my phone calls returned, and my concerns addressed, at least as much so as any other member of this community.
Following is the letter Ms. Hamme sent to members of her union after the most recent School Board meeting on Tuesday, May 25:
I realize that we are not always going to see eye-to-eye with the District on every issue.
But considering that there was a flurry of emails yesterday and a posting on the Culver City Middle School Yahoo group site by a member of the School Board about whether one of the administrative positions put forth on last night’s Board agenda was a new position, even I have to admit we have reached a new low, a Bill Clinton moment, if you will: He questioned the definition of the word “it,” &#and we couldn’t even agree on the definition of the word “new.”
Regardless of how this is described — as a restructuring, a reorganization or a flip of responsibilities — the position of Assistant Director of Special Education is a new position, by virtue of the simple fact that the job title never previously existed.
It was not Mrs. Ecker’s title. It was not Mr. Sotelo’s title. So it is NEW.
However, we have not reached our targeted $2.5 million in budget cuts for next year, and our hiring freeze is still in effect.
According to Mr. Delawalla’s May Revise presentation at last night’s School Board meeting, we are in such dire financial straits that three years from now we could possibly be facing a $7 million deficit. The District has relied on the five furlough days for next year in an effort to stay solvent.
But despite those days, we have a “qualified” rating from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. As Mr. Delawalla has pointed out on several occasions, we are operating at a deficit of approximately $200,000 per day.
So it is only natural that we look to the Board to exercise fiscal prudence in these difficult times.
Yet while the Board could not bring themselves to allocate funds to fill a part-time librarian vacancy for Linwood E. Howe Elementary School several months ago, a move that would have directly benefited every elementary school student in our District, they have, in recent months, approved the creation of two new Account Technician III positions; maintained existing mileage allowances for District administrators, kept independent consultants in place to the detriment of District employees, and solicited stakeholder input for ways in which to cut costs, which have apparently been ignored.
And at last night’s meeting, the board approved the hiring of a new administrator for Pupil Personnel Services, and to restore, at least on a part-time basis, the Director of Special Projects position that was eliminated just a few short months ago on the Phase I cut list.
The District, in consideration of our financial shortages, is asking the Principal of the Adult School to split his time between his position at the Adult School (60 percent) and the part-time Director of Special Projects position at the District office (40 percent), so that it can be said that “one person is doing two jobs.” Of course, many of us already do that and more. So the questions that come to mind are:
1. If the Adult School apparently does not need a full- time principal, perhaps this position could have previously been reduced to 60 percent as a cost savings measure; and
2. Will the 40 percent assignment in the Director of Special Projects position encroach on Title I and EIA funding once again when we are trying to find the means with which to keep the 18 Instructional Assistants who are also paid from these funds?
It appears ill-advised considering our current financial situation, that rather than realizing savings to the District by not filling the positions that have become vacant due to retirements, resignations or promotions, we are rushing to fill them.
While some people might say it was a “no harm, no foul” situation because the money had already been allocated for these positions, it’s funny how it didn’t work that way when the librarian at Lin Howe resigned this last September and her salary had already been allocated in the Unaudited Actuals the previous year. According to Mr. Delawalla, when her resignation was tendered, the District wasted no time in immediately “sweeping” her salary into the General Fund.
I would ask where all of this money is coming from, but I am afraid that I already know the answer: Despite both units agreeing to the five furlough days, (which some members of the community may not realize constitute a cut in pay), we’ll soon be facing more proposed layoffs or salary cuts on top of the five unpaid days next year.
And that is a crying shame.
My best to all.
Debbie
Ms. Hamme may be contacted at antiquer01@aol.com
