Employee Health Clinic Concept to be presented for Board Consideration

As an addition to the School Board of Escambia County’s organizational meeting that will be held one week from today, on November 22, 2011, a presentation on the recently completed Health Clinic Feasibility Study will be given to the board.

In November of 2010, this item was discussed by members of the board; however there seemed to be no really strong support for this concept at that time.  The matter was set aside, referred to the benefits committee.

Fast forward one year, with health costs skyrocketing, premiums soaring, and more and more out-of-pocket costs being foisted on district employees—and the timing seems ripe for the district to establish a clinic for employees, dependents, and eligible retirees as a mechanism for controlling costs to our self-funded health insurance plan.

The feasibility study does not definitively recommend the establishment of a clinic, but rather discusses the potential savings and costs associated with starting up a clinic.

The upside is that lower paid employees could utilize such a clinic and save on out of pocket co-pays and some drug costs.  Currently there are some employees who forego doctor’s visits because of the costs, which could lead to more expensive treatments down the line for these persons.

The district health trust fund saves if utilization by employees grows and employees with chronic conditions utilize the facility.

To be successful, the district must market this clinic as a convenient and less expensive alternative to seeing one’s primary care physician for minor or routine visits.

Also, the district must choose the clinic location wisely and be prepared to sustain some initial start up costs for the first several years.

I’m hopeful that my fellow board members will carefully consider this concept as a benefit to the employees and a cost saving, long-term employee wellness vehicle for our workforce.

AA Dixon Charter School Struggles Continue--The Good, The Bad, and the ..............

At yesterday's workshop of the Escambia County School Board, a presentation on the progress of the embattled AA Dixon Charter School was given.  Some interesting information was disseminated, but curiously-- no local press coverage of this school's progress report occurred.

An updated but not yet official (?) revised Corrective Action Plan was handed out to members of the board, along with other documentation. A verbal presentation was given by AA Dixon Principal Cathy Culbert as well.

The good:  The school has made an effort to recruit students and their enrollment spiked to 165 students for the October count  (it has subsequently receded to around 148 students).  Additionally, anonymous donors have given the school a significant number of books and the principal reports that the library at this school has been established. (this has been an ongoing concern for me personally--what elementary school does not have a library with books in it for the students?) So many books have been donated that students were given books to keep and take home. This is very good.  Also, some unknown, anonymous but generous donor has given the school over $30K in monetary support--a much needed boost for this financially troubled school.  Additionally, the school reports that they are working to purchase and repair excess busses from the Escambia district in an effort to save on transportation costs. (Currently Dixon charter is outsourcing their transportation to Durham School Services)  In addition to these positives, a local hotel chain company has pledged assistance with mentoring students at this school--an extremely helpful part of the puzzle if this school is to succeed.  We were also given minutes from their newly constituted, locally recruited school board which was a nice addition to the presentation.

The Bad:  As was discussed at many previous meetings, the financial condition of this school continues to erode fast. Their latest P&L statement has a negative fund balance of (-$2,689.00).  Unreserved fund

Law Enforcement Investigators Questioning Students at School Part III

At this afternoon's meeting of the Escambia County School Board, I initiated discussion of the district's policy regarding student questioning by law enforcement at school.

As I have discussed previously here and here, I believe the district needs a better policy which affords parents the opportunity to be present when their children are questioned at school for serious incidents which could potentially lead to civil or criminal liability (for the student and/or the parents).

At the meeting, members of the sheriff's office were present to advocate for the continuation of the existing policy which they described as "working well".  They want to keep the status quo on this issue.

But I have seen some issues arise which I believe necessitate a better policy.

Mrs. Hightower requested time to digest the data I brought to the meeting, and Mrs. Moultrie suggested she may be open to a policy change if  it is developed in coordination with law enforcement.

Mr. Thomas expressed his support for the current existing policy "as-is", and Mr. Boone expressed no opinion one way or another.

Mr. Slayton expressed support for the status quo with respect to the current policy, in alignment with Mr. Thomas and the Sheriff's department.

I will attempt to meet with members of the Sheriff's department over the course of the next month to get their input into a better policy, and  I will bring this revision to next month's discussion meeting.

Law Enforcement Investigators Questioning Students on School Property, Part II

Last month I expressed an interest in modifying our existing policy with respect to how students are questioned at school for non-school discipline related or law enforcement purposes.

At the meeting, I explained that because our attorney was not present I would put this item back on the agenda for the following month.

Between then and now, I have worked with our attorney to craft draft policy that is legal and appropriate based upon how the state of Illinois handles this same issue.  Our school district has the right to carefully and thoughtfully control access to its students by Law enforcement investigators and according to recent legal rulings I believe we should be doing this.

At Wednesday's discussion meeting, I'll be bringing this proposed language to discuss with my fellow board members with the intention of gaining a consensus for the idea of inserting this language into current policy.

School Board Discussion Items For Wednesday, November 9

The following items will be on the agenda for a special discussion workshop to be held this Wednesday, November 9, 2011:

1. Protocol for Questioning of Students on School Property by Law

Enforcement - Jeff Bergosh (5 minutes)

2. Procedures for Organization of School Board - Jeff Bergosh (5 minutes)

3. Services for Students that Don't Qualify for Tutorial Service
Programs - Linda Moultrie (5 minutes)

4. Methods of Notification from Schools to Parents of Informational
Items - Linda Moultrie (5 minutes)

5. Operational Audit for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 - Patty Hightower (10 minutes)

6. House Bill 163 - Bill Slayton (5 minutes)

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.