Paying Salaried/Exempt Employees Overtime Compensation

I voted against 9 contracts tonight for supplemental education services (SES) providers. The reason for my no vote, which I discussed in depth at the School Board Workshop on Friday, was because a section of each of these contracts (20. A.) specified that for route management services, the SES providers would pay $500 per school for this service. I have no issue with charging these third-party, SES providers this fee—the issue is that the contracts also specified that this entire $500.00 fee would go directly to the route manager assigned to each school—the district would not receive a penny of the money! I had no intention of going on and on about my reasons for voting no last night at the meeting, until each and every board member took a turn saying they strongly supported this plan and then the superintendent took a turn saying this was the right thing to do.  And they all talked about "student safety" and "no cost to the district" and other red herrings were thrown out that did not coincide with the reality of my disagreement with the issue.  So, After they all spoke, I  again addressed the issue and explained my precise reason for the no vote for the record.

The fact of the matter is that I looked deeply into this issue, and I could find no other transportation department in the state doing what Escambia is proposing.  Not One.  At the Department of Education, I spoke with transportation specialists that had never heard of anything like this being done.  So, I did not gingerly jump into this issue.


Now, if these route managers were hourly and not salaried employees, I would not have an issue with their receiving additional compensation. These route managers in Escambia County, however, are well-paid, salaried employees that earn as much as $61,000.00 yearly.  They are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement and therefore can be made to work overtime without additional compensation.   And this extra work they will be doing will be on district computers, using expensive district software. I think appropriate compensation for these employees could have been “comp” time—with the monetary payments staying with the district. I was alone in that feeling, which is not surprising given my background as a small business owner. My colleagues on the board and the superintendent are all long term government employees. We see things differently.

Now, I’m told that these route manager employees only work on the SES routing “after their regular work-day hours”—however, because they are salaried and not hourly employees, how could this ever be verified? How do we know that these employees do not fit this additional work into their workday and daylight for this extra compensation?  I'm not going to go down there, and this is out of my lanes in terms of what my role is in the district.  But the question does come to my mind.

Our attorney did look into this issue and her opinion is that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, additional

Should Parents Be Notified Before Police Interviews of their Children on Campus?

I believe the answer is YES.

This question is on my mind as I look at the news and see 14 year old students being arrested.  This issue is on my mind when I think of other incidents of which I am aware where law enforcement officers are questioning students as young as seven years old without prior notification to parents.  I’m thinking as a parent with three kids in the district—I want to be notified and given the opportunity to be present for any interviews police officers wish to conduct with my children at school.

I believe most responsible, caring parents would want this same courtesy if their children wind up in a situation where an interview with police is initiated.  And I’m not talking about routine encounters with School Resource Officers who are doing school related policing (fights, drugs, theft, weapons, etc).  I’m most concerned when the questioning is initiated for law enforcement purposes.

Most of the parents in our community are probably unaware that under current School Board Policy, notification of parents prior to police questioning of their children is not required.  From page 27 of the students rights and responsibilities handbook, under Chapter 7: Safe Schools “…If any officer wishes to question a student at school, a suitable place will be provided after the officer has presented proper identification…..The school shall make a reasonable effort in a timely manner to notify the parent(s)/guardian(s), when appropriate, that the student has been questioned or has been placed under arrest.”

I have never been comfortable with a lack of parent notification, and therefore I have instructed my own older children to always request to have me present if they are ever asked to consent to any interview at school by authorities.

In light of recent Supreme Court Rulings which call into question some interview techniques used by law enforcement at schools, I feel compelled to work with our school board attorney to craft a more robust policy concerning the questioning of students at school by law enforcement.   I’m not proposing this to stymie law enforcement in any way—to the contrary I am doing this to ensure that the rights of students (and their parents) are not being trampled upon. Recent rulings seem to be placing more onus on the schools to provide parental notification prior to the questioning of students on campus by police.  If our policy does not help guide this process--then criminal cases built utilizing improper interview techniques and the resultant evidence obtained could be surpressed at trial--potentially wasting precious taxpayer-funded law enfocement resources.  Nobody wants to waste taxpayer resources of any kind in this  recessionary environment.

A.A. Dixon Amendment to Amended Charter Coming to Board for Action

This item, an amendment to the amended charter agreement between A.A. Dixon and the Escambia County School Board, will come to the Escambia School Board for action this month.

As discussed previously, the terms for the continued operation of A.A. Dixon, hammered out in an email exchange between the superintendent and the charter school board chair, are being memorialized and incorporated into the existing charter.

I'm convinced that this additional layer of oversight will allow the district the flexibility to support this charter school and help them be successful. 

If, however, the benchmarks (financial and academic) agreed upon in this amendment are not realized, A.A. Dixon school will voluntarily close at the end of this school year.

It is time now for the school to perform and honor their contractual agreement.

October 13th School Board Discussion Meeting Agenda Finalized

Here are the topics that will be discussed at a special meeting this Thursday, October 13th at 3:00 PM at room 160 of the Hall Center.


1) Video Streaming of School Board Meetings - Jeff Bergosh (5 minutes)

2) Protocol for Questioning of Students on School Property by Law

Enforcement - Jeff Bergosh (5 minutes)

3) Scenarios Regarding Various District Insurance Plans - Jeff Bergosh (10 minutes)

4) Half Cent Sales Tax Reallocation for District-wide Programs - Jeff Bergosh (5 minutes)

5) Update on Foundation for Excellence - Gerald W. Boone (5 minutes)

6) Update on Transportation Issues for N. B. Cook Elementary - Linda Moultrie (5 minutes)

7) IPad Issues - Bill Slayton (5 minutes)

8) Proper Protocol for Informing Parents of Incidents Involving Their

Child's School - Bill Slayton (5 minutes)

9) Funds for Advertisement for Adult Education Classes for District - Bill Slayton (5 minutes)

FSBA 2012 Platform Evaluation Matrix

Each year the Florida School Boards Association (FSBA) combines individual School Board member inputs from around the state into a platform from which they can advocate.

As has been the custom in the past, every school board member has the ability to provide input on the final draft platform and priorities for the Governor and the 2012 Legislative Session.

I'm in strong agreement with the lion's share of what has been proposed, but strongly against several of the planks of this year's platform, particularly the ones that seek to create new taxes and the one priority that calls for elimination of penalties for districts that violate the class size law (like Palm Beach County did last year, saving their taxpayers $50Million dollars)

The complete Matrix and platform components with my input is here.

Who Should Be Atop the "Loser" List?

Should it be Rick Outzen of the InWeekly?

Rick outzen, publisher of Rick's Blog and Inweekly,  put me on his loser list for not supporting A.A. Dixon Charter School.  But I voted to accept their Corrective Action Plan to give them the rest of this year to come out of financial and academic challenges.

Here's my email to Rick:

Rick,


I see that you've placed me atop your weekly list of losers, which I feel is a bit unfair.

Remember, I voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation to accept A.A. Dixon's CAP at the last meeting. (which is recorded online--go look for yourself) In fact, it was a unanimous 5-0 vote. I don't think they are out of the woods, but I voted to give them a chance. This makes me a big "loser" in your opinion?

A.A. Dixon violated their contract with the district and have some significant financial issues which necessitated close scrutiny by the school board--surely you don't find fault with that?

And in your outtakes, you make an assertion that the school district has failed to address education in the inner city--however you are wrong in this. The district, and I, have stood shoulder to shoulder with Jackie Harris Prep, just ask Celestine Lewis.

We also have made tremendous strides at Weis, Montclair, and yes, Warrington Middle.

Look, it is apparent that you dislike me--I get that. But if you want to call me a loser, try to find a subject to base this upon which is reflective of reality. With respet to A.A. Dixon--you are wrong

But this is not the only time you've made baseless, inaccurate accusations about the district that you've been proven wrong about:

1. You said we violated law with respect to DCF reporting protocols at Tate--you were proven wrong, no retraction

2. Recently, you stated in your blog that the district was going to pocket Title I money that was earmarked for A.A. Dixon, and this was the reason we were motivated to close this school. (totally false) Again, this was proven to be false yet you offer no retraction.

3. You state we fail at offering educational opportunities in the inner city, yet we've just spent $20Million at GLA which serves inner-city youth--you neglect to mention this as you attack us for being failures while you skip the ribbon cutting at GLA.

Try to get some of these stories about the district right for a change, why don't you?

If you can't, don't, or won't--how about just putting yourself on the top of the "loser" list, as that is what you will be (are?).



Jeff Bergosh

Escambia County School Board, Dist. 1
850-469-6147
http://www.jeffbergoshblog.blogspot.com/
jbergosh@escambia.k12.fl.us

Benefits Premium Schedules for 2012 Plan Year Approved by Board

At a special meeting of the Escambia County School Board on Friday evening, the premium schedule for the 2012 plan year was voted on and approved by the School Board.

The meeting, which began at 5PM and ran about 45 minutes in length, featured union representative Bill Vincent speaking out saying he felt the district could have put more money into the plan.  Superintendent Thomas also spoke, expressing a continuing committment to put an RFP out for the 2013 plan year in the hopes of finding a better solution.  The superintndent also said the employee walk in clinic idea was moving forward and a feasibility study was already in the works regarding the clinic concept for the district.

Members of the board also spoke, with board chair Jerry Boone expressing dissatisfaction with the communication between the superintendent's office and staff and the board. 

Patty Hightower expressed disappointment with the fact that more money could not be found to augment the district's contribution.  Mrs. Hightower also suggested that 2 Employee family premiums (currently free for the first two levels of coverage) may need to be looked at for next year

Kevin Windham, district Risk Manager, and I had a back and forth dialogue where the issue of equity of coverage percentages was discussed.  I stated that I felt like everyone needed to pay something for their coverages, to have some "skin in the game".  I also said that I felt the two employee family coverage for free was problematic and needed to be looked at for next plan year.

I expressed my disappointment with the overall process--but I also re-stated my belief that as bad and as dysfunctional as it was, the expedited impass resolution process worked for this year.  If it could work this year--with the numerous big problems addressed--it was a process that needed to be kept in place, in my opinion.