Friday, October 3, 2014

Mendocino County Office of Education employees discuss grand jury report


September 20, 2014
Ukiah Daily Journal
By Karen Rifkin

The following was written from an interview with long-time Mendocino County Office of Education employees (all of whom wish to remain anonymous) working in different departments at MCOE. It includes findings by the Mendocino County grand jury; responses from Superintendent Paul Tichinin or Executive Director of Human Resources/Technology Richard Lamken; and discussion by the employees.

Finding 1:
Cuts in funding at River School resulted in a number of classified employee layoffs.

Response
False, there were no classified employee layoffs at River School for the 2013-14 school year.

Employee discussion
The program secretary from the alternative education program received a layoff notice in January 2013, from a position she had held for 13 years.
With 60 days notice, she left the position in March, resulting in three seniority bumps, disrupting the services of three departments. Although the reason given by management were funding and reduced ADA, her salary had clearly been budgeted through the fiscal year. It was a mid-year layoff, a highly unusual event.

Finding 2:
Due to budgetary cuts, some services and programs have become unavailable to the River School students.

Response
False, there have been no reductions in services or programs at River School in the 2013-14 school year.

Employee discussion
The woodshop teacher was notified in the spring of 2013, mid-year, the day after he returned from bereavement leave for the death of his father, that his job would be terminated.
There is no longer a woodshop or construction- related course with continued high interest from students for such a class. A position for a sustainable ag teacher was filled in January, leaving a cut in services for six months.

Finding 3:
The absence of woodshop classes is a loss to students who could reap great benefits from them.

Response
False, the woodshop was not closed due to budget cuts.

Employee discussion
This response ignores the finding and ignores the issue.
The alternative education program presently houses two full-time classrooms; in 2010 the third classroom, the junior high classroom was closed.
For the past three years management has waited for attendance to reach critical mass, between January and March when referrals come in from other schools in the area, before opening a third classroom, causing the classrooms to become overcrowded and uncomfortable and requiring a second move for students when the third classroom is eventually opened.
There is a lack of seats and books for the students, as well. The classroom can temporarily go from 12 to 26 students until the third room is opened.
It would make better sense to preplan and open the classroom in January to make it easier for the transition for students and staff.

Finding 4:
Reductions in services in YPP (the Young Parents Program) have resulted in a waiting list of young parents who would like to enroll in the program.

Response
False, reduction in services at YPP did not cause a waiting list for young parents.

Employee discussion
We have had personal experience with students who said there was a waiting list and could not get into the program for this school year.

Finding 6:
Employees have been denied personal necessity leave if they failed to supply a specific "compelling personal concern," which contract language protects and does not require.

Response
Agree, employees have been denied personal necessity leave if they failed to supply/identify a specific "compelling personal concern." That is the definition of personal necessity leave. Disagree, that the "contract language protects and does not require" a specific compelling personal concern. There have been no grievances filed on this item.

Employee discussion
Our contract stipulates that we are allowed a certain amount of personal necessity days that are taken out of our sick time leave. In the past we did not have to specifically explain the reason, but in the last three years HR stated that we had to specify the reason for personal necessity days.
The contract language did not change but it became an arbitrary change in policy. Managers were directed to tell their staff that personal necessity day requests required approval or an explanation.
Some departments had to submit requests directly to the HR department (highly unusual even for a bureaucracy of this nature). There have been multiple instances of arbitrary denial of personal necessity days following bereavement days and instances of being questioned specifically creating a sense of fear around denial of receiving leave and the need to lie.
The bottom line is the contract language does not require such specificity. No grievances were filed out of fear and frustration.

Finding 9:
The HR Director failed to follow the contract when a Supplementary Time Card was altered to the detriment of an employee.

Response
Disagree, the Executive Director, Human Resources, together with the Business Office, rectified an error on a submitted timecard and made sure that proper procedure and policy were followed and that the employee was correctly paid their daily rate.

Employee discussion
Several employees attended a one-day workshop during the summer; when they received their pay, their hours were crossed off, Stipend Only was written in and they received one-half to one-third of their normal daily rate. It was corrected only after a grievance was filed.

Finding 11:
For three consecutive years, the superintendent increased the salaries of more than 20 managers, directors, and supervisors, who also received step and column increases. During that time, contract employees received only step and column increases.

Response:
Disagree, managers were never given more increases than other staff. Both managers and staff who take on more responsibility or new duties are appropriately compensated.

Employee discussion
In the last 5 years, there has been an increase in managers. Of the 21 people working in the business office, 10 are managers; in Curriculum and Instruction there are seven managers and at SELPA there are six managers. Those are only the three biggest departments. Many are managers in name only, not really program managers. For example, there are accountants, executive assistants and grant writers whose title is manager. As managers they are at-will employees, non- union, more vulnerable, giving top management more control over them and not in a position to question authority.

Finding 13:
MCOE administrators' dismissive behavior toward employees and their concerns contribute to the employee low morale.

Response
Disagree, MCOE administrators are not dismissive in their behavior towards employees. No evidence has been presented to support this finding.

Employee discussion
The union conducted an extensive morale survey; it was safe and people could respond anonymously. Of the 41 respondents, 85 per cent said morale was low; other concerns included lack of communication and respect and work overload. The results of the survey were presented to Tichinin and his cabinet as a Power Point presentation at the end of the school year; there was no acknowledgement, no response to anyone in any way, shape or form. Commonly when a concern is brought from staff to management, the answer is to get over it or you can go work somewhere else.

Finding 16:
The self-evaluation process is not being used for the betterment of employees.

Response
Disagree, the superintendent is not aware of any issues with self-evaluation. Administrative evaluations and self-evaluations do not always agree. Self-evaluation is only one part of the whole process.

Employee discussion
The contract stipulates evaluations be done every other year; a 20-year employee was evaluated twice during her tenure. Some supervisors evaluate as required in the contract, some don't. The head of HR does not follow the agency's policy and influences managers of other departments in pointing out those who need to be evaluated because of perceived personal bias.

Finding 18:
The grand jury was unable to obtain needed information when potential witnesses declined to be interviewed for fear of being identified.

Response
MCOE has no information to determine whether or not this is true.

Employee discussion
Those participating in this interview would only do so anonymously.
As one of the individuals interviewed by the grand jury, I found them to be intelligent, honest and interested in the truth. I had hoped that those who responded---Tichinin, Lamkey and Stephanie Hoy, president of the MCOE Board of Education—would have taken the GJ's findings to heart, responding in an independent, thoughtful manner, instead of the cut and paste format, in many sections word for word, identical to each other. (Anonymous)

No comments: