[Editor’s Note: As President of the Assn. of Classified Employees union in the School District, Debbie Hamme replies to a lengthy letter in yesterday’s edition that was a response to a March 22 email Ms. Hamme sent to members of her union regarding prospective budget cuts.]
Re “In Stout Defense of the Security Supervisor”
In response to this anonymous email, I would like to make several clarifications:
I have no idea who you are as you first sent your email out to CCUSD employees under the guise of “Culver Community.” But I have never stated that the “goal” of our union is to get rid of Mr. Yant [the School District’s Security Supervsor], and neither has our California Teachers Assn. rep, Penny Upton.
That may have been this writer's interpretation of something he/she heard, but that is incorrect, as are many of the “facts” contained in his/her e-mail.
What the union's goal is, and should be, is to make sure that neither Mr. Yant nor any other CCUSD supervisor, violates our members’ rights under the negotiated contract. When those rights have been breached, it is our job to bring that to the attention of the supervisor and make sure that those breaches do not continue. That is our duty.
I take issue with the suggestion that this is a personal issue between myself and Mr. Yant. I have had a good working relationship with Mr. Yant (up until the point that I suggested that all members of his department be given the same access to training and information). He has previously consulted me before moving forward with changes to the Security Manual, changing job assignments, rotating overtime, etc., in an effort to stay in compliance with the negotiated contract.
I applaud Mr. Yant's efforts in that regard. However, under Mr. Yant's leadership — as expert as this writer purports it to be- — the Security Dept. has become more and more divided. Some members continue to feel that preferential treatment is the norm, that opportunities for training and access to information have been denied to them.
The union's goal has been to try to bring back a sense of unity and pride among the members of that department. We have tried, unsuccessfully, to work with Mr. Yant to that end.
That Mr. Yant has admirably offered to give up his last two step and column increases could not have been mentioned in my update, because it had never been disclosed in the public domain. S o I would have had no way of knowing that.
However, in reading the proposal as presented to the community during the budget meeting, increases in work months, regardless of whether we are speaking about one month or two, is still a raise.
With regard to campus security guards hanging out on the blacktop or in the Security office: I have pointed out to Mr. Yant on several occasions that it is his responsibility to keep the members of his department circulating through the campuses to which they are assigned so they are never stationary in a single location. If he does this, and the employee does not comply, then it is Mr. Yant's responsibility to follow progression discipline procedures.
It is not my job as the union president to have to suggest that to him. That is something he should be doing as their supervisor.
Now let's discuss what you refer to as “the real world.” We all live in “the real world” where a lot of us struggle to pay our bills and put food on the table for our families. Unions are not the enemies here. I won't apologize for my comment about the proposed security restructuring having the potential to destroy people's lives.
What I find disheartening is that this writer doesn't feel that this is an issue that should be taken into consideration when making cuts. Whether we are under financial strain or not, this is NOT the time to lose our humanity.
A few more thoughts:
1. I apologize for the inaccurate information my update may have contained regarding Mr. Yant's months worked. But as I pointed out earlier in this email, whether it is a one- month a two-month increase in the supervisor's work year, it still constitutes a raise.
2. I immediately forwarded to everyone an email I received that brought to my attention that Mr. Yant's position is not a Director's position but that of a Supervisor. I stood corrected and thanked the sender for bringing it to my attention.
3. With regard to the misinformation I allegedly put forward about Mr. Yant's salary, I can only say that this anonymous writer is the one who is ill-informed. The handout that was distributed at the budget meeting includes a table in which the Supervisor's salary is clearly listed as $93,000.00 after the restructuring. That his current salary is a reduction from the previous director's salary is not in question, but neither is the $93,000 salary that was indicated on the restructuring plan.
As I stated in my first response to you, I showed the new job description to a Culver City Police Dept. officer. His immediate comment to me was that those are the requirements for officers. That being said, maybe you should have taken a look at the handout and done some investigating, as I did, before sending out your email.
However, if Mr. Yant does not think his security guards are adequately trained, and have not been for the years he has been their supervisor, then it was obviously his responsibility to make sure they received the proper training before now.
Since, as you state, he is a “security expert” (and I am just an “unknowledgeable and often biased union President”), it should have been no problem for him to offer this training in-house at no expense to the District.
4. You falsely state that I have come up with my 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.”
I have NEVER suggested cutting the “secretary” position. Considering that I've been fighting for years to have the Clerk Typist II position (the one you incorrectly referred to as the “secretary”) reclassified in an effort to have her compensated for the double duty she does as both a secretary and dispatcher in the Security Dept., I have to ask exactly where you are getting your information?
You seem to be extremely concerned about the alleged misinformation you claim I’ve sent out. But don’t think you need to check your own facts?
5. “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.”
I am not clear as to why you would assume that, but the Executive Board consists of highly respected members of the CCUSD family who have worked for the District for many years.
Since you appear to be a member of our unit, you know who they are. Please don't tell me that you are questioning the abilities of any of them. With regard to myself, I invite you to speak to any of my supervisors, past or present, and ask them about the quality of my work. I am confident that they would tell you that you needn’t be concerned about my performance nor my abilities.
Would you stand up to the same scrutiny?
6. Just to set this rumor to rest: Jackie Lee has NEVER suggested to the CBAC Committee or anyone else that three security guards be cut. Jackie has never been anything but a strong advocate for our members. Your diatribe is not strengthened in any way by perpetuating this falsehood or any other.
7. You are very concerned about what you refer to as my update resulting in the slander of Mr. Yant, but seem unconcerned that you are slandering Jackie Lee and me. How convenient that you fail to recognize your own double standard.
Last, and not least:
I stand by my update, and I had the courage to send it out with my name on it.
I invite this writer to do the same and to contact me for further discussion.
I think it's time for everyone to get their facts straight.
My best,
Debbie
Ms. Hamme, President of the Assn. of Classified Employees union, may be contacted at antiquer01@aol.com
