[Editor’s Note: A member of the Classified Employees Union answers a membership-wide dispatch that went out from President Debbie Hamme.]
Re “A Problem with the District’s Security?”
In response to Debbie Hamme’s Classified Employees Union member update on March 22, I don’t think Mrs. Hamme has her facts straight.
I believe she is intentionally trying to spin this in a way that makes the Security Supervisor look like the bad guy.
She has stated to her members repeatedly for the last year, that it is her goal and the goal of the union to get rid of Mr. Yant. In fact, Penny Upton, the regional representative for the CTA, has openly stated that she wanted Mr. Yant cut.
This suggests that it has become a personal issue for Mrs. Hamme and Penny Upton.
Here are the facts, as I know them: The Security Supervisor is an 11-month employee, not 10, and doesn’t make anywhere near the $93,000 that Mrs. Hamme claims.
The current salary of the Supervisor is approximately $65,000. The position used to have a Director title and pay of $88,608/year. It was changed as part of the budget cuts in a prior year. Essentially, the current Supervisor does the same job (from what I hear, he does far more) for $23,608 less than his predecessor.
What Mrs. Hamme doesn’t mention is that the Security Supervisor has offered to give up his previous two step increases to offset the increase from 11 months to 12 months. This would actually be a pay cut of $972/year. I’m not aware of any other District employee offering to cut his or her own pay.
I don’t believe the Supervisor is in any way trying to “destroy the lives of 8 people” and is certainly not asking the District to increase his salary. It’s my understanding that these proposals were submitted at the request of the District, and are intended to offer options to reorganize the Security Dept. in a way that benefits the District both financially and operationally.
As Mrs. Hamme likes to say, “Desperate times call for desperate measures,” but it appears as though that only applies when it benefits the A.C.E. members. Cuts should never be made solely for the purpose of cutting money. Cuts need to be made based on what’s best for the District.
Private businesses make cuts this way. The District should, too. It’s time that this District be run like a business, and leave out personal feelings and relationships from the decision-making process. Whether an employee can survive financially by having their hours reduced should not be part of the decision-making process.
Mrs. Hamme states that members of the Security Dept. have been working 8 hours/day for many years. While this statement is correct, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best way to run the department. By working 8 hours/day, the officers have a lot of idle time while classes are in session. I’m sure we’ve all seen Security officers parked on the blacktop in their golf carts for extended periods of time, and I’m told that some of them spend a lot of time in the Security office.
Mrs. Hamme and fellow A.C.E. Board member Jackie Lee have pointed that out many times. The year before last, Jackie Lee recommended to the CBAC committee that three Security Officers get cut, citing the above practice of sitting around in their golf carts as support. Cutting the Security officers’ hours from 8 to 3.5 means there would be less idle time and would still allow for maximum coverage during the critical times such as arrival, dismissal, lunch and nutrition.
This new job classification (it’s not a new job description) in no way mirrors that of a CCPD police officer. Obviously Mrs. Hamme is unaware of what is required to become a CCPD police officer.
What this new classification does require is a level of training that appears to be far superior to what the current District Security Guard position does. Currently the District only requires the Security Guard position to have the following qualifications:
1. Completion of a 24-hour School Security class.
2. First Aid and CPR certification.
3. Be able to write clear, complete and concise reports.
4. Have a basic knowledge of state statutes relating to vandalism, theft and trespass.
5. Ability to deal assertively and tactfully with others.
6. Establish and maintain cooperative relationships.
7. Understand and carry out oral and written directions.
This level of training is not sufficient for providing for the safety and security of our children, employees and property. I’m told that currently, fewer than half of the Security Guards meet the current qualifications.
The current qualifications are less than what is required for a Private Security Guard, commonly referred to as a rent-a-cop. Those of us who live in any of the many gated communities in Culver City that have private security patrols and gate guards, are getting better trained and qualified people than what the District is providing to protect our children.
That is downright pathetic.
We should all be supporting a Security Dept. reorganization that will require the officers to have a higher level of training, and the moral and ethical character needed to properly provide for the safety of our children.
As with any new job classification, employees must apply and interview for the position. The last time the District created a new security classification, the current employees didn’t have to apply or interview for it; they didn’t even have to qualify for it.
The employees were only required to complete a 24-hour school security class, and then they were automatically appointed to the new position. What Mrs. Hamme doesn’t mention is that more than half of the current Security Guards don’t even meet the current qualifications for the job.
One of them can’t read or write; four of them, based on my interaction with them, likely can’t write beyond the level of a middle school student; two are not physically capable of doing the job, and one has so many physical limitations that there’s more aspects of the job he/she can’t do than can do.
How does this benefit the District or provide for the safety of our children?
I don’t believe Mrs. Hamme is concerned with providing a better level of service to our District, children, and employees. It appears as though she’s only concerned with preserving the pay and benefits for her union members. It’s no wonder why other states are passing laws to do away with union bargaining powers.
In my opinion, the unions are the reason this District and the state are in a budget crisis. Mrs. Hamme claims that the current seniority structure of the department would be “destroyed” by reorganization. The current seniority structure throughout the District only benefits an employee in the event of a layoff. I believe that most of us would agree that seniority-based layoffs only result in the senior employees becoming lazy and complacent because they don’t have to worry about getting laid off. The seniority structure should be eliminated District-wide.
Employees should be retained based on their abilities and performance. That is how it’s done in the real world. Mrs. Hamme doesn’t support this method because she and most of the A.C.E. Board members would likely be laid off if it was based on their performance and abilities.
Now that Mrs. Hamme has had some time to review the proposals, she has proceeded to spread misinformation and cause unnecessary stress to the Security Dept. employees. She has also come up with her own proposal to cut the Security Supervisor and Security Secretary positions. Wow!
She’s recommending cutting one of her own union members. I clearly remember her stating in one of our A.C.E. meetings that she, as President of the union, would never recommend cutting one of its members.
I thought it was the job of the union to protect its members from cuts, not suggest them. Mrs. Hamme suggests that the Security Supervisor came up with these proposals for the sake of protecting his job after it was suggested by Mr. Mielke that it be cut.
I believe Mrs. Hamme is wrong. To my knowledge, a proposal to reorganize the Security Dept. has existed for almost a year. The proposals were presented to the Budget Subcommittee last week at the request of Board member Karlo Silbiger, who was aware of a proposal to reorganize since last year.
Rather than find out the facts, Mrs. Hamme has decided to spread misinformation, which has ultimately resulted in the slandering of the Security Supervisor. I personally believe this was her intent all along. I have had the opportunity to speak with the current Security Supervisor, Ted Yant, on several occasions. Mr. Yant has always been professional and courteous.
During a recent conversation I had with Mr. Yant, he mentioned an interesting fact about school safety. He stated that “in the last 20 years, no student has been killed or injured from a fire in a public school in the United States. However, more than 60 students and employees have been killed, and over 100 have been wounded by active shooters in just the past 10 years. Even with these statistics, public schools spend very little or no money at all on preparation for active shooter incidents, while they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, on fire prevention.”
With the recent school shooting events in Los Angeles County, coupled with the above statistics, I think our District should look at ways we can improve our Security Dept., and how we can prepare for an active shooter incident.
Cutting Mr. Yant’s position certainly would be detrimental to the District, not beneficial. Based on my conversations with him, it is clear to me that he has an abundance of knowledge in the Security field. From what I’ve heard by many District employees, during his term of employment Mr. Yant has clearly demonstrated that he is a Security expert and has saved the District a great deal of money by implementing various changes in the Security Dept., as well as eliminating the services of contractors for work that he can do himself, or that can be done by MOT employees.
Mr. Yant’s predecessor spent the District’s money without hesitation, often contracting the services of his personal friends. It sounds to me like we finally have the right person running the Security Dept. The last time I checked, the District doesn’t have a Board member or another employee who is an expert in the Security field. I think it’s time that the District/Board start considering the recommendations of our paid experts when it comes to reorganizing, instead of listening to unknowledgeable and often biased union presidents.
