To: ICCSD Board Members

From: Nicholas Johnson

Re: "Casework": Food Service Employees Pay Periods; Payment for Use of School Facilities for School Fundraising Purposes; Employee Dissatisfaction with Health Insurance Administration

References: (1) e-mail from [Person 2*]; (2) e-mails from [Person 3*]; (3) Nicholas Johnson, "Board Functions," October 10, 1998 ("Ombudsperson"), and (4) discussion at "board retreat" of November 16, 1998.
 

In accordance with our November 16 decision to have board members report on "casework" here is what has come my way since then.

I really do not want to re-open our November 16 discussion of an "ombudsperson," and do accept (at least for now) our decision to reject that idea. But each of the following items reflects the need for someone other than (a) central administration and (b) board members to investigate disputes.

I have not "investigated" any of these concerns.  I have not attempted to weigh the concerns, on the one hand, against the reassurance from central administration, on the other.  I have not tried to find "the truth."  I do not "take sides." I simply relay to you what I have been told.

Because each involves actions by central administration, however, I think that someone other than central administration will need to be involved in resolving the matter -- if, as I presume the Board wishes, those raising the concerns are to be convinced that we have taken them seriously and resolved the matters fairly.

Moreover, although two of these three individuals are willing to have their names used, I have been informed with regard to others' concerns at other times that the person contacting me is somewhere between apprehensive and terrorized regarding the possible recriminations that may result from pursuing disagreements with central administration.

Food Service Employees Pay Periods.  Because this information came to me in a phone conversation, and I do not recall if I cleared the use of the employee's name, I will attempt to restate the concern.  It has to do not with pay, in the sense of total earnings per year, but rather with the number of pay periods.  Apparently some food service employees wish to receive their pay as earned, over nine months.  (Others are content to be paid 1/12 of their annual earnings each month.)  It is alleged that (a) our prior practice with food service workers, and (b) our continuing practice with other employees, permitted nine-month pay schedules.  It is alleged there were representations during the first week of the new school year that the nine month option would be available, but that the 12-month schedule was subsequently unilaterally imposed.

Questions: What is our policy?  If it does, in fact, deny food service workers the nine-month option, does this represent a change?  What is the rationale for the policy; what does the District gain by requiring all employees to accept a 12-month pay schedule (aside from a slight bit of interest, as alleged, on the "employees' money")?  What would be the loss/costs of permitting a nine or 12-month employee-choice option?  Finally, if the District changed policy was this done unilaterally, without consultation or notice to the food service employees?  And, if so, what was the need/reason for that procedure?

Payment for Use of School Facilities for School Fundraising Purposes.  At the last Board meeting, November 17, I passed along a citizen's concern that the District was charging for the use of school facilities related to fundraising for school activities.  I was assured at that time that this could not possibly have happened because (a) it is not our policy and (b) the City High auditorium is undergoing construction.

It is now alleged that the information given me at that Board meeting was wrong, and that there was, in fact, a charge in excess of $500 for the use of the West High auditorium to raise money for the music program, "Work in Progress."  As it happened, my wife and I attended that series of performances -- which we very much enjoyed -- so I know that the event occurred.

I have been offered (but have not yet seen) a copy of the bill, and check, for this occasion.

It is alleged that, although organized by a non-school organization, it derives no financial benefit from the fund raiser, as all money goes to the District's music program.

Based on the assurances I received at the last Board meeting, we have here a clear (as we say in law school) "fact question" that needs resolution by somebody.  Once that is resolved, we may very well have a Board policy question as well.
 
I have attached an e-mail from [Person 2] of November 19 setting forth some of the details.

Employee Dissatisfaction with Health Insurance Administration.   As with all concerns, as explained above, I have not investigated these charges regarding our health insurance carrier.  The charges must speak for themselves.

The attached two e-mail messages from [Person 3] indicate that employee complaints about what is alleged to be a new health insurance company have been forwarded to Jerry Palmer, and may well become the basis for a formal grievance.

However, I thought Board members would want to know of the very disturbing details first hand rather than simply hear generalizations about "employee dissatisfaction."

Therefore, two e-mails from [Person 3], November 18 and 19, are also attached.

[*Note added to this version of the memo only:  This uploaded version of the memo to the board  includes neither the identity of those raising the concerns nor the e-mails they sent to me.  Although the petitioners agreed to be identified to the board I did not ask permission to post their concerns on the Web.  Thus, aside from the substance that is included here, the primary reason for posting this memo is to indicate the means I have chosen, as of November 24, 1998, for handling citizen concerns.  -- NJ]