It has been a while my friends. With twenty-six thousand reads recorded I always feel an obligation to continue to check up on the well-being of education in Greeley Colorado. Rarely however am I moved to write a new post but I appreciate your emails and calls nonetheless. These are important in filling in the details and movement in District 6.
I agree there have been some good changes made over the years and this must be acknowledged. Especially in the Board of Directors changes have been significant. Plus certainly the decision to not renew Lang's contract is the highlight of all that's good in education for the town of Greeley. The chance for a superbly highly qualified and competent Superintendent with the ability to construct a well-honed team lurks on the horizon. I hope the search is extensive and the interview process inclusive of a high regard for education rather than the political dogma and ideology which has gutted the possibilities of District 6 for so long.
However some disturbing news has reached me and raises some new concerns (the reason for this posts obviously) on this topic. As such I am urging citizens of Greeley to be vigilant on the process of hiring Ms. Lang's replacement. It means everything to your child's future that this process be fair, impartial, and objective--with a formal professionalism.
The selection of Mr. Eads to Interim Director is very troubling. As I blogged on some years past, http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2010/01/financial-crisis-or-house-cleaning-for.html, for example or here http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2009/10/part-iii-greeley-school-district-six.html as a second example; As an Interim Director with Mr. Eads tendency towards nepotism and favoritism, and I'll argue manipulation of the leadership of the Board of District 6 through the art of "Credentials over Substance", could lead to a very shaky hiring process when combined with other professional debris Ms. Lang left behind. That spells out an even bleaker future for District 6. It is time for the Board to be strong and do their own homework independently.
Emails and conversations have reached me from concerned parents who have brought some dubious actions into light--citing that those with long ties to District 6 are already feeling the tip of the sword Eads is presumed to have been given to wield. It is not a strong sign of Democratic leadership for the leader who climbs into the throne seat to first thing shed the school district of any person worthy of challenging, logically and reasonably, some of the poor positions and decisions that lurk in the District 6 history. In fact it is the sign of desperation to purge those who disagree or challenge one's authority.
To be fair, a strong and well-reasoned human resources executive, along with an objective Board of Directors should check this power surge. Sadly though these historical nepotistic trends in District 6 are not one of the positive changes the Board has driven. The wagons instead, have been circled, allowing those with questionable credentials to pick and choose their friends with even more questionable credentials and place them in high value jobs. An audit on these selective systems and managers would indeed I believe uncover a murky history or clear it once and for all.
Alas, for now, I will hold out that this newer Board will act fairly and objectively, ensuring that their Interim Director has no conflict of interest in selecting Ms. Lang's long term replacement or influencing the people who will choose that person. A truly professional process must be given the chance to thrive. While the local paper will remain a rubber stamp for the inappropriate, and some will argue, corrupt democratic shenanigans, there are twenty-six thousand others watching and reading as a force for doing what is it right--and above question. Democratic process in public institutions after all is a part of the whole job and the check and balance the public relies upon to curtail abuses of power.
I'll be one of those watching this with interest--keep those documents flowing; I'm reading with great concern; I still have family in D6 schools. :)
Showing posts with label Greeley Education Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greeley Education Association. Show all posts
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Monday, January 25, 2010
Financial Crisis or House Cleaning for Greeley District 6 Schools
Cutting budgets is never easy. Particularly when you are talking about cutting out two hundred jobs in an already economically ravaged town. Yet, there are better approaches and poorer approaches. It isn't clear yet just what approach Greeley District 6 is applying but it already doesn't look pristine. What is certain is that the School Board and Superintendent Lang of Greeley Schools District 6 are facing a serious financial reworking of the District or they are being cagey about cleaning house (restructuring/downsizing).
Maybe a little of both, eh? An interesting question isn't it.
After having read through the school district's audited financials report and the budget for the upcoming year, as posted on the District's website, I've been crunching some figures and noting some things that leave me with a lot more questions about the approach the long troubled District has taken.
(Before you keep reading, for those of you who like to skip the pertinent informational numbers--the conclusion is in the bottom three to four paragraphs. So is the District Administrative Organizational Chart.)
First of all I'd like to note that only 39.1 percent of students in this district tested proficient last year in math. 39.1 percent, grades 3-10 from the CASP scores according to an October 2009 budget presentation that Mr. Wayne Eads prepared for the board (it is available on the D6 website). I'll come back to Mr. Eads, Chief Operations Manager, later on in the article but for now let's concentrate on the numbers. This leaves a bit over 60 percent of the students as nonproficient.
Writing: 45.4 percent tested at or above proficiency. Well if we use the bell curve it doesn't seem too bad but I don't recall the theory behind education stating that more than 50% of students will not need to be proficient.
No doubt there are those that will blame the writing and reading issues on immigrant children. That argument is a whole bucket of water complete with holes. If true then the proficiency rate trend would hold similar in all districts with nonnative language speakers. ESL learners tend to be convenient political scapegoats. But we will give D6 administrators the benefit of the doubt on reading and writing simply because they have enough problems without that one.
But math? Math? The universal language. Come on people. There are more than just financial problems in the District.
Okay, let's move on to the next area. Ms. Lang cites up to $16 million in cuts may be needed in her letter delivered to staff last week through email. Shocking isn't it. No, not that Ms. Lang didn't have Mr. Eads write the letter, but that $16 million is a whole lot of money to most folks.
But that $16 million it isn't so big when you put it up against the total budget (revenues in the audited financials in 2009: $162,618,011) and examine the other budget figures for District 6 as prepared by, not the Finance Officer, not the Superintendent, but Mr. Wayne Eads, Chief Operations Manager. If you take a quick peak at the organizational chart at the bottom you'll see finance, oddly, falls under his dominion.
In 2009 budgeted reserves are $3,443,442. That is down from 2006 when reserves for general purposes (restricted reserves can not be used for general purposes) was $11,232,259 *Mr. Eads notes "We have been spending our reserves on instructional tools." The State of Anti-Education Colorado isn't too happy about the "state" of the reserves. Mr. Eads declares "This is a clear warning from the state that we are spending more than we are getting in revenue."
Or would that be that the District is making poor spending choices? Flip-a-coin.
The District is actually seeing a 2.97% revenue increase this year after restrictions the School Finance Act puts on the money reducing the overall increase. Student growth needs have already been calculated into the budget, again, according to Mr. Eads, the custodian turned Operations Director turned District Teacher Contract Negotiator turned Budget Analyst turned District Spokesperson turned School Board Advisor.
What does Ms. Lang do for her $180,000 + salary+ perks besides manage a grouping of Principals?
Mr. Eads total revenue column lists $134.3 million (this comes from Mr. Eads presentation on the current budget rounds not the audited financials quoted above from 2009). This is an increase of $5.9 million from the previous year. The audited statement, of 2009, if I am reading it correctly has a total of $165 million as actual revenues received by the District. I have no explanation for the difference. I imagine a possibility is unanticipated revenue that came in during the year (a windfall), increase in federal funding for that year, Mr. Eads is eliminating restricted funding, or the State cut that amount from the District. Take your pick or make up your own reasoning.
The district maintains eight different governmental funds. The major funds are the General Fund, the Capital Reserve Fund, Designated Special purpose Grants Fund, and the Bond Redemption Debt Service Fund. (p. 14 of the Annual Audited Financial Statement for 2009)
Mr. Eads goes on in the slide presentation to list new funding items expected in the upcoming year to cost $1.65 million. He then goes on, in October, to talk about hearing about a 10% shorfall and ponders, "What are the consequences of an actual 10% reduction in the District's budget?"
Now it starts getting more interesting, well at least for me, as Mr. Eads 'brilliantly' reduces a grossly complex budget into two simplistic categories so, I am assuming, the Board, made up of common Greeley folk, can grasp it better. Expenditures are 87% People (note Ms. Lang changes this in her letter to employees as PERSONNEL COSTS) and 13% All non-salary items which are listed as Utilities, Fuel, Textbooks, Computers, Office Supplies.
Okay so where are all the other expenses such as insurance, consultant fees (who are not personnel), maintenance, grounds keeping, etc? Did Mr. Eads leave these out or figure they were just too complex for the Board to grasp things other than certain types of expenditures? Are they in restricted funds (which would maybe explain the above referenced thirty million dollar change in revenues)?
Mr. Eads then goes on to advise the Board, "If a 10% reduction were imposed among all employee groups we would have to lay off at least 200 employees. Class sizes would increase. Programs and services would be reduced." He goes on to give slight scenario examples, advise to the board on broader economic consequences to employees and the community, and lays out criteria and a timeline for how to proceed.
Gee, and I thought the Superintendent did all this work with the support staff. Guess not. So an Operations Manager is left to decide or recommend the cuts to the budget which will threaten learning outcomes for 19,300 students? Why are we paying Ms. Lang again? Public Relations? Fundraising? Oversight of the Teacher's Union? Um, I don't see any evidence of activity in these areas. She has the equivalent of a CFO, an Operations Manager, a Public and Community Relations Manager, a Human Resources Person, a Security Advisor, and an Assistant Superintendent plus more.
I'd like to see Ead's resume and both Mr. Eads and Ms. Lang's job description please... thank you very much.
Let's visit the number relationships now. $16 million, the maximum predicted shortfall of revenue is, rounding numbers, right at 12 percent of Mr. Eads $134 million dollar budget. It is about 10 percent if you use the $165 million dollar budget figure (rounded up) from the audited return mentioned above (available on the D6 website).
So here are my thoughts. Do with them as you wish. I am not an accountant and there is certainly room for reasonable explanations in rebuttal here. If we could only get Ms. Lang present to answer questions.
The 10% figure does not sound as significant as $16 million dollars when put in the context of the whole budget. Although I can understand why they would put the shortfall out in concrete terms rather than a percentage. After all math proficiency in the District isn't great. If all areas of the budget receive a universal 10% reduction what would the effects be?
Why not go to the public and ask for specific help in raising funds to save specific favored programs? Why not make cuts in the "upper-crust" schools as deeply?
Here is another radical idea, if 87% of the costs are personnel based then why not encourage those able to do it to take a 10% reduction in compensation for a period of one year. Hence saving a little over $14 million with 100% participation and saving 200 jobs (according to Mr. Eads). It is a radical idea and rather a pushy one. Those making $180,000 a year, like Superintendent-What-Does-She-Do Ms. Lang would be sacrificing $18 thousand while a custodian like Eads-Used-To-Be, probably paid $18,000 a year or so would be sacrificing $1,800. On the flip side of the argument, the $1,800 would probably bite into essentials a lot more for the custodian than the $18,000 that wouldn't go into Ms. Lang's savings account. Alternative or future year benefits could be promised if better solutions develop. Although the Board's "promises" haven't proven to worth squat in contract negotiations.
So, why all the hoopla about consolidating schools, closing off buildings, selling buildings, and major changes? Hoopla is easy to create when there are other economic crisis in play throughout the State of Colorado and the Nation. Sometimes people have the tendency to overreact. Of course if you are one of the two hundred employees who have now been told job cuts are on the way a big reaction should be on the table. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, said Chicken Little.
But what if it's not. What if the crisis is only a 10% crisis, as compared to say a "huge" crisis. Let's put Chicken Little away for a moment and play out another scenario.
Greeley has a school district which has had some very hard times and made some very poor financial decisions in the past. In my own personal view the main issue in the district is poor hiring choices (see my prior posts on the topic) that have left the district riddled with semi-skilled ideologues and a "good old boy" network. They've made some improvements in the last couple of years with some minor administration changes and new Board members. But more changes are needed.
So I have to ask myself if I am a board member and have spent a couple years researching the problems and have identified the need to drastic changes to correct previous errors of judgment, how would one do that? Politely ask people to leave so you could replace them with more qualified staff and downsize the facilities? Somehow I don't think that would go over well.
The problem becomes clearer. How do you make the needed changes when faced with 87% of your costs in personnel and most of that backed by a Union--where you have to have a substantial and documented objective reason for firing someone? Laying someone off due to economics is an easier route. Additionally firing classified staff gets even easier if the Union has been substantially weakened through failed contract negotiations and faces little public sympathy in an era of recession in a working-class town. In fact, considering the District has forced contracts onto the teachers that are only one year in duration, for this current school year, it might be substantially easier. So easy that teachers may have almost no recourse at all. Political enemies are next on the list.
And then, finally, the house is clean and ready for a fresh start and the people mainly responsible for the problems in the first place get another turn at another go at fixing things without direct accountability or consequences for the initial errors.
Okay, I am not an attorney. I wish I had stayed awake during my fund accounting courses. The above is a conspiracy scenario and a rather scary one to consider. I have been through a restructuring myself and I have also been in charge of restructuring a couple of smaller corporations. I know how the strategies in management can be played out. It doesn't mean, they are playing out. But appropriate questions should be asked of the Board and their employee, Ms. Lang. Or perhaps Mr. Eads is the one to be questioned. I also know that there are presentations I haven't seen and documents I haven't read. I do not have any experience at management levels in a government supported organization. I also don't know the true legal ramifications of the contractual failures. And, truly, the Board is in a very difficult place any way you look at the situation.
Fixing both past and present errors in judgment and shortfalls with an open and forthright agenda would be the humane approach. Well, maybe not for the Board but certainly for the employees and community. Hiring highly skilled people to complete the downsizing would be sensible.
Establishing a written criteria for selecting people to be laid off based on a combination of actual performance, tenure, job duties, etc., would go a long way towards ensuring that the above scenario has not one bite of reality in it. A preliminary plan for educational quality recovery might be the next best comforting thing. How does the District go forward after the debacle.
Other things on my mind, where is Ms. Lang when the community needs to hear her professional assessment of the state of education in Greeley? Is direct oversight of the Principles and Associate Principles a good use of her time and skills during this crisis? Why is Mr. Eads signature on the cover letter of the Audited Financials in lieu of Ms. Lang's? Did Ms. Lang purposely not sign the audit? Is there another signature somewhere? Why is Mr. Eads, on the organizational chart, the supervisor of the finance officers in lieu of the Planning and Accountability Manager supervising this department? Maybe an ex-custodian has the qualifications, experience, and skills required to be in this position over a $134 million dollar budget. Maybe not. Personally, I'd feel a whole lot better if the information was coming out of Ms. Lang's mouth and not Mr. Eads'. At least I'd have a more complete picture of whether she has a handle on this mess.
There are 19,300+ students counting on us to get it right.
The District 6 Organizational Chart--from the Audited Financial Report
(If you double click on the chart it might open up into a bigger window. If not the chart can be found inside the audited financials on the District 6 website linked above.)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Is Greeley District Six School Board Going Union Busting?
A little excitement with your prairie coffee? There are disturbing things going on between the Greeley Colorado District 6 School Board and the Teacher's Union--Greeley Education Association. Could the District 6 School Board be working a strategy to bust the Teacher's Union? There are contracts being placed in teacher's school mailboxes and at least some teachers feel they are under pressure to sign or they will be fired. Both Trimberger and Broderius of the Greeley District 6 School Board have their stamped signature on the contract.
Please say it isn't so District 6.
The School Board has stated at its most recent meeting that it has adopted it's last contract offer to the Teacher's Union. Ninety percent of the GEA turned that contract offer down prior to this meeting. There is a statement posted to the District 6 School Board's website on the topic. The release is dated October 26, 2009. In it the school board cites that other staff will need to be laid off if the board honors what its previous promises and also grants current cost of living increases.
At its regular business meeting Monday evening, the District 6 Board of Education voted to render a final decision on the financial compensation items of the teachers union contract for the 2009-10 school year.
The Board approved the following compensation package for teachers for the 2009-10 school year:
• The district will pay the increased cost of contributions to the state retirement system (PERA)
• The district will pay the increased cost of health, dental and vision insurance
• The district will pay for educational advancement on the salary schedule for teachers (often
referred to as “lane” raises or “horizontal movement” raises)
• The district will increase the per-hour pay rate for teachers’ non-contract work to $25 per hour
(currently is $18)
The master agreement contract between District 6 and the Greeley Education Association calls for the Board of Education to make the final determination on matters that have not been resolved through the regular negotiations process or through meditation (Article 5-e-3). Mediation between the district and the union was held on Sept. 25, with the assistance of a federal mediator, but ended without an
agreement on salaries and benefits.
“This was a difficult decision to make, because we do care deeply about our teachers and hold them in high regard. But these are very difficult financial times for the district and also for our local communities and our state,” said Board President Bruce Broderius. “Financially, this is the best we can do. As disappointing as it is for all of us to be in the situation that we are, I truly hope we can still develop a partnership with the union to preserve jobs, to avoid layoffs, and to do what we can to lessen the fiscal crisis that will strike at the heart of our district in 2010.”
Salaries and wages for all of the district’s administrative and support staff employees were frozen at the beginning of the 2009-10 school year, remaining at last year’s levels.
The above statement tries to place the Board's decision into the context that it is acting under the current contract to make the final decision. I have not seen that current contract. It makes sense that some formal resolution in the case of an impasse to keep every one operating could be contained in the contract. And I certainly do not have the legal background to constructively comment that what the Board is doing is legally questionable. I think though from a humane perspective, from a public relations perspective they, the Board, just put the bus in a ditch.
However, currently, there is a contract being dispersed throughout the school district in teacher's mailboxes and some teachers are under the belief that if they do not sign this contract they will be fired. This document is dated October 19, 2009. Other teachers, I hear, are packing their bags, if not now, then at the end of this year.
Here is a link to the contract teachers found in their mailboxes this week. I've posted a photo copy of a contract with personal information removed.
If the Board is continuing to operate underneath the old contract then what is this "other" contract all about? Why does it come without clear instructions on intent to the teachers? It has at-will employment law clauses in the new contract and it labels a long-standing teacher as a non-probationary employee. This would be, my assumption, bad faith actions if it was handled while active mediation was ongoing. That is at a minimum. If negotiations have now formally ended, and if the current contract is null and void because there wasn't any consensus reached, then is the Board indicating that it will fire any teacher unwilling to sign this new document or is the Board just trying to edge out the Union by breaking off chunks of the membership and getting them to sign independent of the Union while things are in transition? Certainly newbie young teachers without anything to gain in experience ratings or salary increases might be tempted to sign this contract under the duress of losing their job.
Where is the District's highly-paid Superintendent in all these matters? Why hasn't the Superintendent addressed her staff and the public?
My hope is that the Union is seeking to call a meeting ASAP for the teachers. That meeting needs to give teachers the ability to ask Union lawyers some good questions. For example, what does it mean if I sign this contract with the School District (union teachers say they have not been asked to personally sign a contract in years--the Union negotiates their contracts for them). Does this mean I am bound to a contract without representation of my union? How can I be forced under duress of losing my job into signing a contract? Those are just beginners.
It seems a wonderful coincidence that the Board has danced this long with this Union until right up before the election cycle. Perhaps the Board has confidence that the Greeley public will not be supportive of the teachers considering the voters may turn away the Mill Levy Override. Even if the Mill Levy Override passes the District Board will be sitting pretty because they have strongly emphasized through out the Mill Levy Campaign that certified staff (teachers) will not receive any pay benefits from Measure 3A. So the District won't be needing to go back and revisit their current decision to abort negotiations and render a nonconsensual contract on their teachers.
A nice pickle to put the Union in. A nice pickle for the Union to get itself into.
A scenario: If the District 6 Board pushes teachers into a panic mode and gets several teachers to sign these contracts what does that mean to the Union and their representation of the teachers. Is the Board trying to alienate teachers from their Union with this dog and pony show?
That isn't the only benefit the Board might receive. If teachers get upset and walk off the job they can be replaced with newbies. If teachers sign the contract being shoved under their pen and then leave at the end of the year when public rancor has died down--the Board will get to hire "newbies".
It doesn't get more corporate than the above scenario folks. Public education is not a business for a reason. Making teachers into manipulated widgets does not build the type of experiential investment needed to produce the results necessary for Greeley kids to compete in the big world. All efforts should be made to retain experienced talent and to mix in new and rising talent along the way. It is all part of a good human resources personnel. Teachers are the productive asset in any education system.
With the Tribune trumpeting the Board's position and the District Superintendent Ms. Lang nowhere within the common public reach and Mr. Eads being allowed to be the district spokesperson it is going to be up to the teachers and the public to demand real answers to the budgetary questions. It is a very easy time frame in which to manipulate public opinion against the teachers.
Unfortunately there are a lot of other scenarios that could be at play here. Parties within negotiations and mediation often are tongue-tied for good reason. Contracts can have some funky clauses on "what happens next". Hence stories and rumors coming to the outside world can get very distorted. Both the Board and the GEA will need public support as this gets touchy. It would nice to think that one or the other group will play fair and openly with the community. Public relation manipulation is yesterday's game plan. Today it is all about being honest and transparent. It is only fair that the Board be allowed to clear up their actions by better informing, clearly and meaningfully, the strategic purpose of their plans.
This Board appears to have little credibility based on past performance--perceived or actual. That image problem, in and of itself, regardless of the source which began the problem, has put the Board in a poor position on community leadership. Credibility is essential in your governmental systems and this Board's credibility is on the line. Will the Board obfuscate and make the situation worse? Or will they be forthcoming and transparent with their teachers and begin taking some steps toward healing. Poor press management and poor spokesperson choices is likely just to darken the skies ahead.
Certainly the Board, and the Board's employee Superintendent Lang, would have known for a while that by keeping experienced teachers around there would be step increases and other associated rise in labor costs. The bottleneck is a sign of long term poor planning. It can't all be about the economic downturn.
Previous Articles:
New Contract Offerred to Greeley District 6 Teachers
The following are scans of a contract document placed within a Greeley Colorado District 6 Schools envelope and placed in the mailbox of a long time Greeley Colorado District 6 teacher who is also a member of the Greeley Education Association Union. To enlarge these documents for viewing click on the document icon and it will expand into the window. I have referred to these documents in the next posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
