Costs to increase 14.8%
On Monday, August 10, the Administration's' final plan for Youth Advocates instead of Security Guards at the high school will go before a vote of the school board. Wanna bet that the board will vote 7-0 to approve it? We hear Vegas is laying odds of 20-1.
Administration found a group that operates via the United Way that will provide us with two Youth Advocates at a cost of $45,000. At 7 hours per day and a 175-day contract, that works out to $18.37 per hour for each. That's $5.00 more per hour than the $13.27 per hour the Administration planned to pay Youth Advocates hired under Local 60. It's also $2.37 per hour more than we paid the contracted Security Guards. Gee...don't you just wonder why the sudden change of heart and move away from hiring staff? They were so adamant about that in our last episode.
Notably, a large part of the rationale for hiring FTE Youth Advocates as district employees was that the security guards were not authorized to touch any student, making it difficult to quell physical confrontations. But...wait...don't we have the same problem with these contracted "Youth Advocates"?
Read the Situation Report for the 8/10/09 meeting
Showing posts with label Youth Advocate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Youth Advocate. Show all posts
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Dear Dr. Culver…Do we need to review Open Meetings Laws again?
First off…and we may have missed it…but we do not recall anyone asking you whether or not you agreed with Mr. Mealy’s allegation that the vagueness of the agenda item related to “Youth Advocates” represented a violation of noticing requirements under the Open Meetings laws. Furthermore, a significant number of community residents would prefer that you remember that these are school board meetings, of which you are NOT a member. Remember? You are the employee…the board is the employer?
Second, we’re wondering how difficult it must be for you to dance between positions. At one point during Monday’s meeting you clearly counseled board members (your employers) that any members planning on attending an upcoming meeting need to alert Gwen King in order that she can generate a public meeting notice, if an equivalent of a quorum planned to attend, to satisfy Open Meetings Laws noticing requirements. So, on the one hand you’re going out of your way to alert the board to situations that potentially fall under the jurisdiction of Open Meetings Laws. A conservative position, one would say. On the other hand, you’re arguing that burying an underlying, critical issue regarding security at the high school under the innocuous agenda title of, Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE, does NOT represent a violation of Open Meeting Laws. Where did that conservatism go?
Logic Analysis
Let’s look at the logic (or lack thereof) in your argument that the agenda item was NOT a violation of Open Meetings Laws. Administration’s plan was/is to replace security guards with Youth Advocates. The board agenda item related to approval of the Youth Advocate job description. A separate board decision would be required to discontinue Security Guards, replacing them with Youth Advocates. Therefore, Mr. Spock would tell you that it is illogical to begin by approving a job description since the creation of those positions was dependent on the board FIRST approving the switch from Security Guards to Youth Advocates. What if they agreed to approve the job description but not the switch? That wouldn't make sense? It only makes sense to decide on whether or not to use Youth Advocates instead of Security Guards. THEN you move forward with a job description. Of course the decision to switch should consider a maximum amount to be invested in Youth Advocates to keep the plan cost neutral.
You put the cart before the horse. The first action SHOULD have been to allow the public to know about and have input on the decision of whether or not to discontinue the practice of using Security Guards.
Do we have any doubt that you’ll find an attorney who’ll support your position? Nope. After all…attorneys get paid by the hour to argue contrary positions. How do you get an attorney to argue an unreasonable position? Pay ‘em!!!!
What does the Law say?
The law ( Open Meetings Laws Guide 2007, III.A.2.a.) states that Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) sets forth a reasonableness standard [for clarity of public notices] , and that such a standard strikes the proper balance contemplated in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81(1) and (4) between the public’s right to information and the government’s need to efficiently conduct its business.” The document states further that the reasonableness standard “requires a case specific analysis” and “whether notice is sufficiently specific will depend upon what is reasonable under the circumstances.”
In making that determination, the factors to be considered include:
“[1] the burden of providing more detailed notice,
[ How much effort would it have been to have the agenda item read, Replacing Security Guards at the High School with new positions, titled, Youth Advocates???]
[2] whether the subject is of particular public interest, and
Hello! You KNOW there has been significant public concern about violence at the high school!
[3] whether it involves non-routine action that the public would be unlikely to anticipate.”
This is the easiest. We have contracted Security Guards for several years now, so this is a non-routine action. Further, there is no way the public could make the leap in logic from approving a job description for “Youth Advocates” to replacing Security Guards with these positions.
Poor form, Dr. Culver. The law is clear. Your logic was equally clearly flawed. That public notice violated the requirements of Open Meetings Laws. Save us a few hundred dollars and skip the attorney consult to which you alluded, will you please?
There’s no need to check with the attorneys and cost the taxpayers money. Simply open your copy of the WISCONSIN OPEN MEETINGS LAW A COMPLIANCE GUIDE 2007 (OML 2007) and read section III A 2.a. Then resurrect that conservative approach you presented when trying to protect the school board’s collective keesters earlier in the meeting.
Dr. Culver…you hung President John Whalen’s keester out on this issue, because –as you know—you are immune from any sanctions related to violation of Open Meetings Laws. Only elected officials can be taken to the woodshed. But rest assured, John. We already know that DA Blanchard is waaaaaaay too busy to deal with Open Meetings complaints. He still has one in the hopper on which he has yet to adjudicate.
Second, we’re wondering how difficult it must be for you to dance between positions. At one point during Monday’s meeting you clearly counseled board members (your employers) that any members planning on attending an upcoming meeting need to alert Gwen King in order that she can generate a public meeting notice, if an equivalent of a quorum planned to attend, to satisfy Open Meetings Laws noticing requirements. So, on the one hand you’re going out of your way to alert the board to situations that potentially fall under the jurisdiction of Open Meetings Laws. A conservative position, one would say. On the other hand, you’re arguing that burying an underlying, critical issue regarding security at the high school under the innocuous agenda title of, Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE, does NOT represent a violation of Open Meeting Laws. Where did that conservatism go?
Logic Analysis
Let’s look at the logic (or lack thereof) in your argument that the agenda item was NOT a violation of Open Meetings Laws. Administration’s plan was/is to replace security guards with Youth Advocates. The board agenda item related to approval of the Youth Advocate job description. A separate board decision would be required to discontinue Security Guards, replacing them with Youth Advocates. Therefore, Mr. Spock would tell you that it is illogical to begin by approving a job description since the creation of those positions was dependent on the board FIRST approving the switch from Security Guards to Youth Advocates. What if they agreed to approve the job description but not the switch? That wouldn't make sense? It only makes sense to decide on whether or not to use Youth Advocates instead of Security Guards. THEN you move forward with a job description. Of course the decision to switch should consider a maximum amount to be invested in Youth Advocates to keep the plan cost neutral.
You put the cart before the horse. The first action SHOULD have been to allow the public to know about and have input on the decision of whether or not to discontinue the practice of using Security Guards.
Do we have any doubt that you’ll find an attorney who’ll support your position? Nope. After all…attorneys get paid by the hour to argue contrary positions. How do you get an attorney to argue an unreasonable position? Pay ‘em!!!!
What does the Law say?
The law ( Open Meetings Laws Guide 2007, III.A.2.a.) states that Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) sets forth a reasonableness standard [for clarity of public notices] , and that such a standard strikes the proper balance contemplated in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81(1) and (4) between the public’s right to information and the government’s need to efficiently conduct its business.” The document states further that the reasonableness standard “requires a case specific analysis” and “whether notice is sufficiently specific will depend upon what is reasonable under the circumstances.”
In making that determination, the factors to be considered include:
“[1] the burden of providing more detailed notice,
[ How much effort would it have been to have the agenda item read, Replacing Security Guards at the High School with new positions, titled, Youth Advocates???]
[2] whether the subject is of particular public interest, and
Hello! You KNOW there has been significant public concern about violence at the high school!
[3] whether it involves non-routine action that the public would be unlikely to anticipate.”
This is the easiest. We have contracted Security Guards for several years now, so this is a non-routine action. Further, there is no way the public could make the leap in logic from approving a job description for “Youth Advocates” to replacing Security Guards with these positions.
Poor form, Dr. Culver. The law is clear. Your logic was equally clearly flawed. That public notice violated the requirements of Open Meetings Laws. Save us a few hundred dollars and skip the attorney consult to which you alluded, will you please?
There’s no need to check with the attorneys and cost the taxpayers money. Simply open your copy of the WISCONSIN OPEN MEETINGS LAW A COMPLIANCE GUIDE 2007 (OML 2007) and read section III A 2.a. Then resurrect that conservative approach you presented when trying to protect the school board’s collective keesters earlier in the meeting.
Dr. Culver…you hung President John Whalen’s keester out on this issue, because –as you know—you are immune from any sanctions related to violation of Open Meetings Laws. Only elected officials can be taken to the woodshed. But rest assured, John. We already know that DA Blanchard is waaaaaaay too busy to deal with Open Meetings complaints. He still has one in the hopper on which he has yet to adjudicate.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Board Votes to Hold Off on Cutting Security Guards at the High School
At Monday's board meeting, the school board listened and came to the conclusion that the best decision was to table the Security Guard issue for its Tuesday May 26, 2009 meeting. We appreciate the votes of Jill Camber-Davidson, Caren Diedrich, Al Slane, David Stackhouse, and John Whalen to table the issue. Jim McCourt and Terry Shimek voted against tabling the decision. Do we detect a change in board philosophy? If so, we like what we're seeing! It's not about voting to support or slam what any citizen presents. It's about listening to what's being presented and asking if it makes sense. Then it simply defaults to doing what's right for the community.
To recap, the root issue here was buried underneath the innocuous agenda title, "Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE". [SP-EYE: C'mon....did ANYONE without fore knowledge read this agenda item and realize that it meant no more security guards at the troubled SPHS???] It sure seemed like Administration was playing a clever game of bait and switch wanting us to believe that the agenda item SOLELY involved approving the job description, allowing HR head Annette Mikula to formally negotiate salary with the Local 60 union. David Stackhouse, however, correctly pointed out that never has he seen a case where once a job description was approved, administration did not immediately move to hire.
And that brings us up to the "ulterior motive" behind this agenda item.....remember ulterior motives, Dr. Culver? You should, since you accused a citizen of operating similarly last fall. What could NOT be gleaned from the agenda item was that behind this proposal is the idea to discontinue the employment of two contractor security guards at the high school. Instead, the district plan is to hire two "Youth Advocates" whose role will be more of a counseling, supporting, advising, rapport- development one. Call them walking social workers. It's a Dr. FeelGood, kinder gentler approach. We're just not sure how the emphasis on "Non-violent Crisis Intervention" strategy plays out when one of the frequent "altercations" breaks out at the high school.
Youth Advocate: "Excuse me, kids? Could you please stop altercating?"
Sure...this MIGHT work (emphasis on MIGHT)...but the community has been very concerned about safety at the high school; and, from our conversations, most folks are a little leery about the prospect of success for this change. So...community members...if you care...
Once again...THANK YOU, school board members (well...the five of you) for seeing the logic in delaying any decision for two weeks. It does no harm to sit back for 2 weeks and think this through carefully before proceeding. The proposal certainly isn't cost neutral...but delaying action doesn't cost you a thing and quite likely buys back a notch or two of community trust and support.
To recap, the root issue here was buried underneath the innocuous agenda title, "Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE". [SP-EYE: C'mon....did ANYONE without fore knowledge read this agenda item and realize that it meant no more security guards at the troubled SPHS???] It sure seemed like Administration was playing a clever game of bait and switch wanting us to believe that the agenda item SOLELY involved approving the job description, allowing HR head Annette Mikula to formally negotiate salary with the Local 60 union. David Stackhouse, however, correctly pointed out that never has he seen a case where once a job description was approved, administration did not immediately move to hire.
And that brings us up to the "ulterior motive" behind this agenda item.....remember ulterior motives, Dr. Culver? You should, since you accused a citizen of operating similarly last fall. What could NOT be gleaned from the agenda item was that behind this proposal is the idea to discontinue the employment of two contractor security guards at the high school. Instead, the district plan is to hire two "Youth Advocates" whose role will be more of a counseling, supporting, advising, rapport- development one. Call them walking social workers. It's a Dr. FeelGood, kinder gentler approach. We're just not sure how the emphasis on "Non-violent Crisis Intervention" strategy plays out when one of the frequent "altercations" breaks out at the high school.
Youth Advocate: "Excuse me, kids? Could you please stop altercating?"
Sure...this MIGHT work (emphasis on MIGHT)...but the community has been very concerned about safety at the high school; and, from our conversations, most folks are a little leery about the prospect of success for this change. So...community members...if you care...
...mark your calendars for Tuesday May 26. Please attend the school board meeting and have your vice be heard. If you cant attend, please phone or e-mail (at right) board members with your comments/concerns.
Once again...THANK YOU, school board members (well...the five of you) for seeing the logic in delaying any decision for two weeks. It does no harm to sit back for 2 weeks and think this through carefully before proceeding. The proposal certainly isn't cost neutral...but delaying action doesn't cost you a thing and quite likely buys back a notch or two of community trust and support.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Security Guard ⇒ Youth Advocate
And you thought the age of political correctness was over!Let the DAMN Meeting Begin
At tomorrow night' s (May 11, 2009) meeting of the School Board (excuse us, it's probably more politically correct to call it the Affirmation of District Administration Management Needs -- or A DAMN! meeting), a seemingly innocuous agenda item appears, entitled " Youth Advocate Job Description and FTE". It's buried down in the meeting agenda---we almost missed it ourselves.
Yet it reflects a fundamental change in the way of handling security at the high school. Something we're all pretty sensitized to. Certainly, change is in order. But this represents a radical change that should NOT be simply rubber stamped into existence. We need to think this one through. A hint of malingering odor is detected from the smell test.
Instead of just forging ahead with a job description at the HR committee...shouldn't the issue be discussed FIRST in public forum by the school board where the public can watch it , attend it, or obtain a video copy?
Once again, this "idea" is a plan that is ready to be rubber stamped, with opportunity for 3 minutes of public input only IF you are savvy and engaged enough to read the meeting agenda and realize that something very important is at stake here.
An audible emission of intestinal gases is still a ...
When we first read this situation report, our first thought was that the parallel here to the world of water treatment is both ironic and comical. Nobody likes to talk about poop. We live in a 'flush and forget' society. What began as Sewage Treatment works has slowly morphed into Wastewater Treatment and even to Water Pollution Control management. There is even one local community that has named its facilities the "Water Recycling Center" . Look...we get that. Totally. But let's do it with a conscious focus and do it with some structure and abide by some rules. Let the public in on exactly what we're doing. Let's give them more than just a slim shot at providing input, and let's tell them exactly what it means in terms of costs. Hey...what do you know? The community might even get on board with the DAMN idea. But if you try to slip one by the goalie...even unintentionally...the reputation of the A DAMN board will only continue to grow.
What's in a Word? Morphing from Security Guard to Youth Advocate
So we start with Security Guard.
Security: means freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.
Guard: means to give protection; keep watch; be watchful.
...now consider 'Youth Advocate'
Youth: we get it...it means 'kids"
Advocate: means: one that supports or promotes the interests of another
So, we're transitioning from having trained security guards being watchful over and protecting safety to employees whose role is to support or promote the interests of the kids? Huh? We're all for building rapport with the kids, but security does not equate to social work. Those are two very distinct issues.
Security Guard? Youth Advocate? Social Worker?
Things get more disconcerting when you look at the job description for these "Youth Advocates". Are these "requirements" really in line with what's needed at the high school? Here are just a few tidbits:
- Must have experience in similar backgrounds as the youth who are being served.
- Must have experience in or full understanding of urban cultures, diverse cultures, and/or large high schools.
- Must have knowledge and appreciation for adolescent development and a desire to serve young people.
- Must have completed or willing to be trained in Non-Violent Crisis Intervention.
SP-EYE: This seems like pretty specific experience...whose got it? Does that mean that anyone who graduated from like Deerfield High need not apply? And do they have to have a degree? taken a class? in adolescent development? What's that mean? And the only REAL training required is "Non-Violent Crisis Intervention"??? Hello? Have you BEEN to high school lately?
Or, how about this from the Essential Duties And Responsibilities section of the position description. Doesn't this sound more like a Social Worker? If we can get this kind of social work for $13.27/hr....WOW!
Or, how about this from the Essential Duties And Responsibilities section of the position description. Doesn't this sound more like a Social Worker? If we can get this kind of social work for $13.27/hr....WOW!
- Identifies, monitors, and assists students who may be disengaged from school.
- Meets with students who are chronically late to school.
- Contacts home and/or makes home visits to help identify issues affecting poor attendance.
- Refers students to community agencies or student services as needed.
- Participates in teacher-student, parent-student, and student-student mediation scheduled throughout the day to identify and resolve issues causing disruption within the school and during class time.
- Builds relationships through presence, visibility, and student engagement during non-classroom time at school (before and after school, lunch time).
SP-EYE- WOW! And NO social worker training is required? These people can --and are supposed to--conduct home visits, mediation, make referrals to community services? Local 60...are you seeing this? SPEA...isn't this more suited to someone with special licensing or training?
- Develops and maintains an awareness of potential neighborhood rivalries or conflicts, potential gang related issues, and other community issues that may impact schools.
- Intervenes in altercations between students, staff and public as needed to maintain safety and security.
SP-EYE--Ah...the "intervening in altercations" part...that would be the non-violent intervention kind...right? Just speak firmly and logicallylike Spock and they'll stop altercating...right? Or is it a Jedi mind trick kind of thing? Oh...and they have to become knowledgeable in gang activities, too? And we're going to get this for $13.27 per hour????.
What's it going to cost?
The plan is to discontinue the practice of hiring two private contractor security guards. Instead, we'll create two positions, called Youth Advocates, with the funding coming from what historically was used for the security guards.
Let us be the first to state this CLEARLY. Economy bad. Creating positions good. Got that? We like the idea of creating jobs. It's the rest of it that is giving us some heartburn (or was it those peppers in the omelet this morning?).
If one looks at the biweekly check register...one sees that we spend about $2,500-2,600 every 2 weeks. That means about $1270 per week....which translates to about $31.25 per hour. Divide that by 2 security guards, and you get about $16.00 hr that we pay for them. We do NOT pay for benefits. Those are paid out of what we pay the contractor.
The plan (which hasn't been approved by Local 60) is to hire 2 full time (FTE) "Youth Advocates" at a beginning salary of $13.27/hr (again, IF Local 60 agrees). But that doesn't include benefits which typically cost the district (taxpayers) about 50% of salary costs. That means 'bennies' will cost another $6.63 per hr...for a grand total of $19.90/hr. $19.90 per hour X 2 Youth Advocates X 80 hrs per two weeks comes to a cost of $3,184, which represents an increase of 22.5%.
So...let us get this right. The national economy is still faltering, the state budget has gone down the point-of-use waste recycling outlet, and management wants to increase the cost of doing business by 22.5%???? Hold on to that thought while you learn the rest of this scheme.
And if we decide this isn't going to work, we then have to cut positions (people) and then pay unemployment? HELLO! Can you say "TRIAL BASIS"? Did you think to maybe do this as an LTE (no benefits) initially? Those are both fiscally sound procedures for handling untried plans.
The plan is to discontinue the practice of hiring two private contractor security guards. Instead, we'll create two positions, called Youth Advocates, with the funding coming from what historically was used for the security guards.
Let us be the first to state this CLEARLY. Economy bad. Creating positions good. Got that? We like the idea of creating jobs. It's the rest of it that is giving us some heartburn (or was it those peppers in the omelet this morning?).
If one looks at the biweekly check register...one sees that we spend about $2,500-2,600 every 2 weeks. That means about $1270 per week....which translates to about $31.25 per hour. Divide that by 2 security guards, and you get about $16.00 hr that we pay for them. We do NOT pay for benefits. Those are paid out of what we pay the contractor.
The plan (which hasn't been approved by Local 60) is to hire 2 full time (FTE) "Youth Advocates" at a beginning salary of $13.27/hr (again, IF Local 60 agrees). But that doesn't include benefits which typically cost the district (taxpayers) about 50% of salary costs. That means 'bennies' will cost another $6.63 per hr...for a grand total of $19.90/hr. $19.90 per hour X 2 Youth Advocates X 80 hrs per two weeks comes to a cost of $3,184, which represents an increase of 22.5%.
So...let us get this right. The national economy is still faltering, the state budget has gone down the point-of-use waste recycling outlet, and management wants to increase the cost of doing business by 22.5%???? Hold on to that thought while you learn the rest of this scheme.
And if we decide this isn't going to work, we then have to cut positions (people) and then pay unemployment? HELLO! Can you say "TRIAL BASIS"? Did you think to maybe do this as an LTE (no benefits) initially? Those are both fiscally sound procedures for handling untried plans.
Dear school board:
Let's put this in simple terms.
Economy bad. Generating jobs, good.
Costing more not so good.
Job descriptions that sound like 'Social Worker' but paid far less not good.
Plan needs more thought and public input.
In other words, and please forgive our concerted tact avoidance, proceeding with an affirmation of the Decorum Maintenance Coordination plan known as "Youth Advocates" without additional public input represents an act of cranial-rectal inversion. The plan is factually unencumbered, and fecally plenary.
Got all that? We now need to proceed expeditiously to conduct an unplanned re-examination of recent food choices.
Love,
SP-EYE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
