Friday, February 25, 2022
Money, money, money to employees.
On February 22, 2022 why didn't the superintendent describe accurately (2:07:03) the recommendation to the school board by Administration for doling out surplus money to teachers and staff?
When I heard him describe "net after taxes", that got my attention. Employees are in different tax brackets, and a public entity should not award bonuses based on "net" to the employee. The proper bonus plan would be a fixed amount to full-time employees and a fixed amount to part-time employees.
The superintendent said "one time bonus of $1,000 net after taxes (that's what "net" means) to all full-time permanent employees and a one-time bonus of $500 net after taxes to all part-time employees."
That scheme would mean different gross bonuses to employees and would produce a lot of screaming over unfair pay.
The employees would have to receive different Gross amounts, based on their withholding declarations, if they are going to receive equal Net amounts.
Then I looked at the information in the document that was projected in the room.
The document for the bonuses read, "We recommend investing in our employees by giving a one-time bonus of $1,580 to all full-time permanent employees and $789 to all part-time permanent employees (roughly $1,000 and $500 after taxes, respectively)."
The superintendent probably should have called on Dr. Harry Miley to explain it. Dr. Miley would not have made that mistake.
The pay-out is by equality, not equity!!! But the superintendent wants the same outcome for all; right? That can't be done with money. At least, not legally.
Trustee-elect McKie repeated the error when she made the Motion. You can hear Holmes butt in on the phone with "Second", before McKie finished reading her motion. Trustee Scott seconded, and then Holmes butted in again to say "Second".
So what will the District have to do? Will the District office have to manipulate the gross amount for each of several thousand full-time and part-time employees to produce a Net bonus amount of $1,000 and $500, respectively?
The motion by the board did not agree with the proposed spending plan. Who will fix that?
|(Click to enlarge)|
So much for fairness.
After Trustee Agostini's motion was defeated, trustee-elect McKie made a motion "to uphold the Administration's recommendation to deny the grievance." (2:05:10) Seconded loudly by Caution-Parker (of course). During discussion, Trustee Agostini referred to stories that were inconsistent that were told (in the documentation).
Then McKie hopped in, completely unnecessarily, to state that executive session items cannot be discussed on the floor. Funny how she didn't challenge Manning when he referred to the 143 pages of documentation.
Regarding McKie's Motion, just who in the "Administration" recommended to deny the grievance? The superintendent, who IS the Administration? He should not have had any voice in the matter, because his wife and he were right in the thick of the disruption on January 25.
The District should have appointed an independent hearing officer. But even that would not have changed the vote of the bloc. The Core Four would have stuck together, no matter how the motion was worded.
Trustee Manning erred as Acting Board Chair at the 2/22/2022 meeting when he explained the meaning of Trustee Agostini's Motion to remove Item 8.2 (the grievance) from the Agenda near the beginning of the meeting.
So much for positive race relations at Richland 2!!! Shortly before the beginning of the executive session, and before the board members too...
Reporter Michael Smith of The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County contacted me for a comment after the Richland 2 Scho...
Take a look at the new "safety procedures" for Tuesday's board meeting. These were sent out to Media with the announcement of ...