[Editor’s Note: With negotiations between the School District and its two unions at a typically fragile spring stage, the newspaper has obtained a copy of correspondence Debbie Hamme, President of the Classified Employees Union, sent recently to her members. What will follow in a separate document is sharp disagreement by a member.]
March 22, 2011
Good morning,
A lot has been happening in the last couple of weeks, and it’s time to catch up a bit. Many of you have been reading Dave Mielke’s updates — as we discussed at our March 16 meeting, several of our members wanted me to forward them on to the classified.
I will do that as he makes them available to me. Dave and I have discussed the need for our units to support each other during what we are sure will prove to be very difficult negotiations this year and next. This is a step in that direction.
At our meeting we also discussed the District’s request for 9 furlough days next year. Of course, we have heard about other school districts making sweeping layoffs and proposing even more than 9 furlough days. But we are concerned that while we are being asked to take 9 furlough days, the District/Board is making less than prudent budget decisions in the meantime.
Remember that the District let the March 15 deadline pass without pink-slipping any administrators. While the explanation has been given that certain administrators do not require notice by March 15, it is disheartening that 19.2 teachers were the only employees who received notices to date. Please note that I say “to date” because I know that classified positions will most certainly show up on a future cut list.
We have already been given a peek of what is to come. I don't know if you have seen the Director of Security’s latest proposals for restructuring the Security Dept. Each of the three scenarios he submitted called for his months worked to be increased from 10 to 12. So, he gets a raise to over $93,000 per year, while suggesting that 8 members of his department, who are currently working 8 hours per day (and have been for many years), be reduced to 3.5 hours per day. He is willing to destroy the lives of 8 people — knowing they cannot support themselves with a 3.5 hour per day job, but has asked the district to increase his salary.
He has also created a new job description (School Safety Officer), which mirrors the requirements of a CCPD police officer and requires the members of his department to complete evening classes on their own time (and at their own expense, apparently) within 12 months or lose their jobs.
Existing employees, who successfully complete the required courses would have to apply for the newly created positions and go through the interview process in order to be considered for one of the new positions. In this way, the entire seniority structure that now exists in that department is effectively destroyed. Seriously? Are they going to be paid CCPD police officer pay? A.C.E., of course, will fight this, but that the District would even consider it is frightening.
I would never have found out about this restructuring plan if were not for (name redacted) attendance at the Budget Committee meeting on Tuesday night. It was there that it was handed out to attendees, and while Mrs. Jaffe mentioned briefly that the proposal would need to be negotiated with the union, I am extremely concerned that:
1. She distributed it without bringing it to our attention first….if only as a courtesy.
2. As the Director of Security’s position had already been suggested as a possible administrative cut by Dave Mielke, were the proposals made public to prove how valuable the director is to the District? To show that he was able to come up with three different money-saving proposals for his department?
3. If Mrs. Jaffe is already putting it out there for community consumption, it may mean that she supports at least one of the proposals, and that is another frightening prospect.
Also on the agenda were the Superintendent search and the new Superintendent’s salary. With regard to the Superintendent search, we discussed that our union does not make, and has never made, official endorsements of superintendent candidates — even when the candidate is someone we know. That being the case, it doesn’t preclude our members from supporting a particular candidate or speaking out in support of that candidate, as individuals. But, understand that not all members share the same opinion. Please be respectful of that.
Right now, we should all be focusing on the District’s current financial situation and the importance of our Board making sound financial decisions in light of it. So with that in mind, and with all due respect to Mrs. Jaffe, I need to voice my concerns about how the Superintendent’s salary was decided and how it was presented to the individuals who attended the special Board meeting in the Middle School Multi-Purpose Room on the March 16. Below, you will find a copy of a recent letter that I sent in to The Front Page Online:
“Anyone Care to Join Me in Jumping off the Next Bridge?”
As always, I welcome your questions, concerns, and most of all, your feedback. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason.
My best to all.
