Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wccusdtalk] Follow Up Questions on Site Supervision

Expand Messages
  • Marsha Williamson
    Hi Kathy, With regard to: 2.. Each school was given a dollar amount based on their funding last year. It was up to the principal to decide how to staff based
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Kathy,

      With regard to:

      2.. Each school was given a dollar amount based on their funding last
      year. It was up to the principal to decide how to staff based on the
      amount
      provided.

      Are you saying that each principal was given exactly half the dollar
      amount for site supervision that he/she was given last year, then asked
      how to allocate the money? What latitude could they possibly have? Were
      they allowed to create more part-time positions, so fewer people got
      laid-off, with the net result being fewer hours/employee? I just don't
      get how the principals had any decision-making power at all in this.
      Marsha Williamson

      Kathy Rollins wrote:

      > Sarah:
      >
      > Sorry I missed the mtg Monday night. However, here are my answers
      > best I
      > know right now:
      > 1.. Some schools have paid for additional site Supv. from site funds
      > in
      > the past. Certainly the state has some categorical funds that site
      > Supv.
      > can be paid from. Mr.. Kilmartin discussed paying for the new
      > Construction
      > Campus Safety Technicians out of some if bond funds cannot be used.
      > 2.. Each school was given a dollar amount based on their funding
      > last
      > year. It was up to the principal to decide how to staff based on the
      > amount
      > provided.
      > 3.. I am not aware of Principals using the funds elsewhere. It is
      > my
      > understanding that they are very concerned about the staffing levels
      > based
      > on the funds being reduced by 50%.
      > 4.. There was twice as much money which probably meant more staff
      > than
      > twice because a significant portion of the positions were only funded
      > for 3
      > hours. This meant that subs worked in them meaning that the District
      > saved
      > money and could afford more subs or to work the subs more hours than
      > was
      > budgeted for the position. However, the District is saving funds by
      > making
      > Student Supervisors 10 month rather than 12 month. This means that
      > locker
      > changes and assignments was not done this summer unless a site paid
      > for it
      > on a time card.
      > 5.. Since the District laid off all of the staffing in these job
      > classes
      > and eliminated their old positions, the action for tonight provides
      > for the
      > positions that the Principals allocated with their funds to be
      > established.
      > There are not additional positions being authorized. Authorizing the
      > establishment of the 5 student supervisor positions and 24 site
      > supervisor
      > positions is a consent item- E-15.
      >
      > Kathy Rollins
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: SarahCreeley@... [mailto:SarahCreeley@...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:44 AM
      > To: krollins@...; Ruth.Vedovelli@...
      > Cc: March4Education@yahoogroups.com; wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [wccusdtalk] Follow Up Questions on Site Supervision
      >
      >
      >
      > Hi Ruth and Kathy,
      > At our last M4E meeting we came up with these follow up questions
      > regarding
      > the information below. If you can answer any/ all of them it would
      > be
      > great.
      > Thanks!
      > LOVE,
      > Sarah
      >
      > 1. Can Site Supervisors salaries come from any other sources than
      > General
      > Funds?
      > 2. Why are schools different in their amount of Site Supervisors;
      > Did
      > Principals express different needs?
      > 3. Are Principals sacrificing Site Supervisors to get other school
      > needs
      > met?
      > 4. Were there double this number of Site Supervisors last year,(32)
      > ?
      >
      > Finally in looking at the Agenda for tonight's School Board meeting,
      > it is
      > unclear to me whether an increase of current positions is being
      > requested
      > for
      > approval, or lay offs of Site Supervisors will be discussed. Can
      > either of
      > you
      > clarify this point? I'm pasting the parts of the Agenda I'm
      > referring to
      > below. Thanks, again, for your help with this!
      >
      > *CI E.15 Establishment of Classified Positions:
      > Student Supervisors 5.0 FTE @ 208 day calendar
      > Secondary Site Supervisors 24.0 FTE @ 208 day calendar
      >
      > Comment:
      > Secondary school principals determined what positions they
      > needed
      > to provide campus safety and security.
      > This will implement the plan as designed by the secondary
      > principals.
      > Recommendation:
      > Recommend Approval
      >
      > *CI E.16 Restoration of Certain Classified Positions
      > Previously
      > Eliminated by the Board of Education
      >
      > Office Manager Jr. High 1.00 FTE
      >
      > Comment:
      > The staff recommends to the Governing Board the restoration
      > of
      > certain positions that were eliminated
      > Earlier. These changes result from the passage of Measure B
      > on
      > June 8, 2004.
      >
      > Recommendation:
      > Recommend Approval
      > F. ACTION ITEMS
      >
      > * F.1 Appointment of Administrators for the 2004-2005
      > School
      > Year (Estimated time 2 minutes)
      >
      > Comment:
      > The following administrative appointment for the 2004-2005
      > school
      >
      > year will be reported:
      >
      > Elementary Vice-Principal
      > High School Assistant Principal
      > Staff Support Coordinator
      > Assessment Coordinator
      >
      > Recommendation:
      > Recommend Approval
      >
      > * F.2 Resolution No. 26-0405: Authorization to Eliminate
      > Classified Positions and Layoff
      > Classified Employees.
      >
      > Comment:
      > A lack of funds necessitates elimination of the attached
      > classified positions.
      >
      > Recommendation:
      > Recommended Approval
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Kathy Rollins wrote:
      > Sorry that my chart did not arrive as I typed it and thus is so
      > confusing.
      >
      > Yes, this is staffing for this school year (04/05) and it represents
      > the
      > 50%
      > cut in funds. All positions are now 10 month. The District said
      > this
      > staffing is based on the desires of each Principal.
      >
      > Middle Schools:
      > Adams, Crespi and Pinole Middle will each have 1 Student Supv and a
      > 1/2
      > time Site Supervisor.
      > DeJean and Portola will each have 2 Site Supv.
      > Helms will have 1 Student Supv and 1 Site Supervisor
      >
      > High Schools:
      > DeAnza, Hercules, Kennedy , Richmond will each have 3 Site Supv.
      > El Cerrito will have 2.5 Site Supervisors.
      > Pinole Valley will have 1 Student Supv and 1 Site Supv.
      >
      > Gompers and North Campus will have 1 Site Supervisor each.
      >
      > Also, I wanted to let you know that we did not find any specific
      > staffing
      > requirement for site supervision at secondary schools in the Ed
      > Code. The
      > language that Scottie identified is what we identified as requiring
      > a
      > safety
      > plan at each site. I am not aware of the Site Councils doing this
      > for
      > each
      > school. The district hired a consultant to come up with the
      > district
      > plan.
      >
      > Did you get the breakdown from the District yet on the funding of
      > their
      > four
      > administrative positions?
      >
      > I am going to try to get to the meeting tonight but have to see
      > after a
      > family member in the hospital first.
      >
      > Kathy Rollins
      > 510 222 5012
      > fax 510 222 8858
      > krollins@...
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: SarahCreeley@... [mailto:SarahCreeley@...]
      > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 1:09 PM
      > To: krollins@...; march4education@...;
      > wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Site Supervision
      >
      >
      > Hi Kathy,
      > Are these numbers you sent for the coming year? Does 1 0.50 ,
      > as in
      > Adams, mean 1 fulltime postion and a half time person? Are these
      > half of
      > the
      > positions from last year? I need to report on this info tonight at
      > our M4E
      > meeting at 6:30 at 3720 Barrett in Richmond.
      > Can you come, Kathy to help fill us in?
      > LOVE,
      > Sarah
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > --
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
      >
      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT
      [click here]

      >
      > ---------------------------------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
      >
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Marsha Williamson
      I believe you misunderstood , Sarah. You may also have been wrong and misled. I was never under the impression that principals were given additional money.
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I believe you "misunderstood", Sarah.
        You may also have been wrong and misled.
        I was never under the impression that principals were given
        additional money. That's why the whole thing is such a joke.
        See my previous comments/questions back to Kathy R.
        Marsha Williamson

        SarahCreeley@... wrote:

        > Thank you Kathy,
        > I think that's an important point. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
        > Scottie
        > or Ruth, but my understanding, (perhaps, my own misunderstanding), was
        > that
        > although site supervision was being cut in half, Principals were being
        > given
        > additional $ to deal with this cut in the ways that suited their
        > particular sites.
        > It seems I was wrong or misled about that.
        > Please Clarify!
        > LOVE,
        > Sarah
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT
        [click here]

        >
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kathy Rollins
        I don t know that they were really given power in this, but they were told what amount they would get which reflected the 50% reduction in funding and was
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't know that they were really given power in this, but they were told
          what amount they would get which reflected the 50% reduction in funding and
          was given the responsibility of how to best use it for their site. The
          District even created a new job class for them to be able to use which would
          be paid more money than the existing classes. In the end, no school
          implemented the new class. I do not know the funding dynamics for North
          Campus and Gompers. For example, Gompers had 1 site supervisor last year.
          This year it will still have 1.

          Please note that I am not saying or implying that the Principals feel that
          what they were given to work with was adequate or will result in a safe
          site. I don't believe they do. I am only relaying the task given to them.

          Kathy Rollins
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Marsha Williamson [mailto:mswilliamson@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:44 PM
          To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com; Kathy Rollins
          Subject: Re: [wccusdtalk] Follow Up Questions on Site Supervision



          Hi Kathy,

          With regard to:

          2.. Each school was given a dollar amount based on their funding last
          year. It was up to the principal to decide how to staff based on the
          amount
          provided.

          Are you saying that each principal was given exactly half the dollar
          amount for site supervision that he/she was given last year, then asked
          how to allocate the money? What latitude could they possibly have? Were
          they allowed to create more part-time positions, so fewer people got
          laid-off, with the net result being fewer hours/employee? I just don't
          get how the principals had any decision-making power at all in this.
          Marsha Williamson

          Kathy Rollins wrote:

          > Sarah:
          >
          > Sorry I missed the mtg Monday night. However, here are my answers
          > best I
          > know right now:
          > 1.. Some schools have paid for additional site Supv. from site funds
          > in
          > the past. Certainly the state has some categorical funds that site
          > Supv.
          > can be paid from. Mr.. Kilmartin discussed paying for the new
          > Construction
          > Campus Safety Technicians out of some if bond funds cannot be used.
          > 2.. Each school was given a dollar amount based on their funding
          > last
          > year. It was up to the principal to decide how to staff based on the
          > amount
          > provided.
          > 3.. I am not aware of Principals using the funds elsewhere. It is
          > my
          > understanding that they are very concerned about the staffing levels
          > based
          > on the funds being reduced by 50%.
          > 4.. There was twice as much money which probably meant more staff
          > than
          > twice because a significant portion of the positions were only funded
          > for 3
          > hours. This meant that subs worked in them meaning that the District
          > saved
          > money and could afford more subs or to work the subs more hours than
          > was
          > budgeted for the position. However, the District is saving funds by
          > making
          > Student Supervisors 10 month rather than 12 month. This means that
          > locker
          > changes and assignments was not done this summer unless a site paid
          > for it
          > on a time card.
          > 5.. Since the District laid off all of the staffing in these job
          > classes
          > and eliminated their old positions, the action for tonight provides
          > for the
          > positions that the Principals allocated with their funds to be
          > established.
          > There are not additional positions being authorized. Authorizing the
          > establishment of the 5 student supervisor positions and 24 site
          > supervisor
          > positions is a consent item- E-15.
          >
          > Kathy Rollins
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: SarahCreeley@... [mailto:SarahCreeley@...]
          > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:44 AM
          > To: krollins@...; Ruth.Vedovelli@...
          > Cc: March4Education@yahoogroups.com; wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [wccusdtalk] Follow Up Questions on Site Supervision
          >
          >
          >
          > Hi Ruth and Kathy,
          > At our last M4E meeting we came up with these follow up questions
          > regarding
          > the information below. If you can answer any/ all of them it would
          > be
          > great.
          > Thanks!
          > LOVE,
          > Sarah
          >
          > 1. Can Site Supervisors salaries come from any other sources than
          > General
          > Funds?
          > 2. Why are schools different in their amount of Site Supervisors;
          > Did
          > Principals express different needs?
          > 3. Are Principals sacrificing Site Supervisors to get other school
          > needs
          > met?
          > 4. Were there double this number of Site Supervisors last year,(32)
          > ?
          >
          > Finally in looking at the Agenda for tonight's School Board meeting,
          > it is
          > unclear to me whether an increase of current positions is being
          > requested
          > for
          > approval, or lay offs of Site Supervisors will be discussed. Can
          > either of
          > you
          > clarify this point? I'm pasting the parts of the Agenda I'm
          > referring to
          > below. Thanks, again, for your help with this!
          >
          > *CI E.15 Establishment of Classified Positions:
          > Student Supervisors 5.0 FTE @ 208 day calendar
          > Secondary Site Supervisors 24.0 FTE @ 208 day calendar
          >
          > Comment:
          > Secondary school principals determined what positions they
          > needed
          > to provide campus safety and security.
          > This will implement the plan as designed by the secondary
          > principals.
          > Recommendation:
          > Recommend Approval
          >
          > *CI E.16 Restoration of Certain Classified Positions
          > Previously
          > Eliminated by the Board of Education
          >
          > Office Manager Jr. High 1.00 FTE
          >
          > Comment:
          > The staff recommends to the Governing Board the restoration
          > of
          > certain positions that were eliminated
          > Earlier. These changes result from the passage of Measure B
          > on
          > June 8, 2004.
          >
          > Recommendation:
          > Recommend Approval
          > F. ACTION ITEMS
          >
          > * F.1 Appointment of Administrators for the 2004-2005
          > School
          > Year (Estimated time 2 minutes)
          >
          > Comment:
          > The following administrative appointment for the 2004-2005
          > school
          >
          > year will be reported:
          >
          > Elementary Vice-Principal
          > High School Assistant Principal
          > Staff Support Coordinator
          > Assessment Coordinator
          >
          > Recommendation:
          > Recommend Approval
          >
          > * F.2 Resolution No. 26-0405: Authorization to Eliminate
          > Classified Positions and Layoff
          > Classified Employees.
          >
          > Comment:
          > A lack of funds necessitates elimination of the attached
          > classified positions.
          >
          > Recommendation:
          > Recommended Approval
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Kathy Rollins wrote:
          > Sorry that my chart did not arrive as I typed it and thus is so
          > confusing.
          >
          > Yes, this is staffing for this school year (04/05) and it represents
          > the
          > 50%
          > cut in funds. All positions are now 10 month. The District said
          > this
          > staffing is based on the desires of each Principal.
          >
          > Middle Schools:
          > Adams, Crespi and Pinole Middle will each have 1 Student Supv and a
          > 1/2
          > time Site Supervisor.
          > DeJean and Portola will each have 2 Site Supv.
          > Helms will have 1 Student Supv and 1 Site Supervisor
          >
          > High Schools:
          > DeAnza, Hercules, Kennedy , Richmond will each have 3 Site Supv.
          > El Cerrito will have 2.5 Site Supervisors.
          > Pinole Valley will have 1 Student Supv and 1 Site Supv.
          >
          > Gompers and North Campus will have 1 Site Supervisor each.
          >
          > Also, I wanted to let you know that we did not find any specific
          > staffing
          > requirement for site supervision at secondary schools in the Ed
          > Code. The
          > language that Scottie identified is what we identified as requiring
          > a
          > safety
          > plan at each site. I am not aware of the Site Councils doing this
          > for
          > each
          > school. The district hired a consultant to come up with the
          > district
          > plan.
          >
          > Did you get the breakdown from the District yet on the funding of
          > their
          > four
          > administrative positions?
          >
          > I am going to try to get to the meeting tonight but have to see
          > after a
          > family member in the hospital first.
          >
          > Kathy Rollins
          > 510 222 5012
          > fax 510 222 8858
          > krollins@...
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: SarahCreeley@... [mailto:SarahCreeley@...]
          > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 1:09 PM
          > To: krollins@...; march4education@...;
          > wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Site Supervision
          >
          >
          > Hi Kathy,
          > Are these numbers you sent for the coming year? Does 1 0.50 ,
          > as in
          > Adams, mean 1 fulltime postion and a half time person? Are these
          > half of
          > the
          > positions from last year? I need to report on this info tonight at
          > our M4E
          > meeting at 6:30 at 3720 Barrett in Richmond.
          > Can you come, Kathy to help fill us in?
          > LOVE,
          > Sarah
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -


          > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          > --
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
          >
          > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service.
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT
          [click here]

          >
          > ---------------------------------------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
          >
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service.
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT





          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          --
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/

          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.