[Editor’s Note: A third-year member of the School Board, Mr. Zeidman offered the following explanation at last night’s meeting for the Board’s disputed decision to issue new contracts to the School District’s two Assistant Superintendents.]
It’s no secret that this Board and the prior Board do not and did not always agree with the Administration.
I think if you look at the counselor and classroom aide situations, you would fully understand that the Board doesn’t blindly follow whatever the Administration asks or advises.
Instead, as trustees, we look at what we believe is in the best interest of the District as a whole, not what is in the best interest of the Administration, not what is in the best interest of the teachers, and not at what is in the best interest of the classified staff.
We don’t often publicize our thoughts through emails, unless it is in response to an email question. We don’t have an agenda. We don’t represent any particular group of individuals. We were elected to do one thing, and that is to do the very best that we can for the District as a whole.
Many of you may have received emails advocating that you help convince the Board to take a certain path.
First, if you feel it necessary to add a paragraph to (Teachers Union President) Mr. Mielke’s update, and you choose to email that paragraph and the update to parents urging their support, please make certain that your added paragraph is at least close to grammatically correct. It’s embarrassing when a teacher, identifying himself or herself as a CCUSD teacher, cannot put a coherent sentence together.
Next, it is important to understand the origin of those emails.
A union leader’s job is to best represent the members of that union. He or she wouldn’t be doing the job if he didn’t advocate for union members. Indeed, sending emails, speaking to the Board, and trying to garner support among the community are certainly things that a union leader should be doing. If he or she weren’t, I would be disappointed.
We have two excellent union leaders in David Mielke and Debbie Hamme. These two hard-working District employees do a great job working for the District, and do a wonderful job as union leaders, representing their members.
In fact, I look to both for guidance.
I also look to the Administration and to the community for guidance as well. When I make a decision, I don’t base it solely on the union’s perspective, or on the Administration, or on the community. It is important that I hear all sides, then do what is best for the District as a whole. Anything less would be a dereliction of my duties.
Over the past few weeks, I received hundred of emails, most from members of bargaining units, urging that we cut Administration, urging that we require the Administrators to take additional furlough days, and urging that we cut part of the compensation package from Administrators. With each email, I am told that the emailer’s proposals are “fair,” “equitable,” or “just.”
For awhile, I was getting numerous emails daily telling me that requiring the administration to take eight furlough days and the teachers to take five furlough days, was equitable.
I responded that such a plan would cause Administrators to lose 3.6 percent of their respective pay and teachers to lose 2.7 percent of their pay. Such plan wasn’t anywhere near equitable. Naturally, I never received a reply from any of those emailers.
When the Administration voluntarily contributed 1 percent of their salaries to the Empower Our Schools campaign, I was hopeful that the rest of the District employees would follow suit. That didn’t happen.
When I look back at the cuts that we’ve made over the past three years, I am saddened. The state isn’t doing us any favors, and the group that is most negatively affected by these cuts isn’t the Administration, the teachers or the staff. Those most affected are our students.
Looking at those cuts, and looking at it from a percentage basis, (which is undoubtedly the only way to look at cuts), Administrators have taken a much harder hit than the teachers. However, the Administrators don’t have a union leader. They don’t send out emails urging the public for support.
No one likes Administrators at any company. The thought is always, “Hey, I’m doing the work. Why does someone sitting in their office in the ivory tower get paid more than me, get better benefits than me, and doesn’t work as hard as me.”
I had that same feeling when I worked for the city, when I worked as an engineer for Hughes Aircraft, and when I worked as a litigator at a downtown law firm.
I was trying cases, billing over 200 hours per month, and having no real life outside of work, and the senior partners (or so I thought) were having long lunches and making the big bucks. Why was that?
Just over a decade ago, I joined my brother in running a mid-sized corporation.
I no longer have the same disdain for the administration of any company. There’s a lot of work to be done at any company. With state requirements, there’s a tremendous amount of work to be done by the Administration of a school district.
I think that it is easy for someone to say that a company is overstaffed at the top. Indeed, if you ask any employee of any mid-sized or larger company, they will tell you that the company is top heavy. Does that mean that it is true? No. No matter how many times something is said, if it’s wrong to begin with, it’s going to remain wrong.
It is true that years ago Culver City Unified School District had fewer administrators. Of course, there were fewer students then, and fewer state and federal mandates.
As a Board, we must make the decision not only as to how many administrators we employ, but also as to the compensation package for each. If we have a valued employee, do we wish to chase that employe away, be it a staff member, a teacher, or an administrator, by singling out that employee? What is the ultimate cost of losing a valued employee and finding a suitable replacement?
The popular decisions are not always the right decisions … and the right decisions are not always the popular decisions.
