Community Matters

The tennis courts at Valley Forge Middle School received their reprieve at last night’s Zoning Hearing Board.  After 4+ hours of listening to various appeals, finally at 11 PM, the TE School District presented its case for a variance that would permit the additional parking spaces and keep the tennis courts.  The combined impervious coverage of the additional parking spaces and the tennis courts is slightly more than the township stormwater permits.  The District’s application to the ZHB sought a variance for the additional impervious coverage.

The fate of the District’s tennis courts was contingent on the ZHB ruling.  Had the ZHB denied the variance to the District, the VFES tennis courts would have been demolished.  After testimony from the School District attorney and architect plus members of the community, including impassioned remarks from VFMS neighbor Don. Detweiler, the ZHB members rendered their decision in favor of the variance.  With a 2-1 vote (chair Dan McLaughlin dissented), the tennis courts appear to have been saved.  Previously the Facilities chair Pete Motel voiced concern that to save the tennis would cost the District $14K to the contractor not to demolish the tennis courts. The Board of Supervisors waived the ZHB filing fee of $2K to the District. With the approval of the ZHB variance, presumably the School Board will approve the ‘saving of the tennis courts’ and the District will move ahead with the summer parking lot expansion at VFMS.

The audience was told that the decisions of the Zoning Hearing Board are not precedential to other appeals, so …  does that mean that others seeking relief from stormwater requirements will not be able to cite the tennis court decision?  Just asking the question …

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Community Matters, Don Detweiler, Pattye Benson, TESD, Tredyffrin Easttown School District, Valley Forge Middle School, Zoning Hearing Board | 4 Comments »

The saga of outsourcing continues in Tredyffrin Easttown School District … Last week at the infamous TE School Board meeting, we listened as the Administration and School Board members presented the case for outsourcing of aides, paraeducators and substitute teacher positions.  The business manager Art McDonnell, personnel director Sue Tiede and superintendent Dan Waters provided the background and the reasons for choosing Substitute Teacher Services (STS) as their preferred outsourcing vendor.

At the meeting, I asked McDonnell for the names of the other four outsourcing vendors and he was unable to remember the complete list. I do recall Kelly Services was one option however; the services and fees of the other vendors were not presented to the public.  I asked McDonnell if we could assume that STS was the low bidder at a rate of 22.5%.  Although McDonnell responded that the District was not required to accept the low bidder because no RFP (Request for Proposal) was required, he did offer that STS was indeed the lowest bidder. McDonnell further stated that the 22.5% was a negotiated rate, down from 34%.

Tiede, McDonnell and Waters repeatedly told audience members that STS would provide a great opportunity for our employees, that they would make more money with the outsourcing company, have the ability to contribute to a 401K, keep their same jobs and on and on.  We heard that even though STS was the largest employer of its type in the country, that the District would retain complete control over who worked in our schools and that interviews would be conducted on site, etc.   Waters volunteered that an administrative employee of STS would actually have an office in the administration building! In other words, the public sales pitch of STS knew no bounds.

During the District in-service training for aides and paras today, Waters announced that STS is no longer involved in the proposed outsourcing, stating that the company had pulled their proposal.  Eight days since the School Board meeting and the preferred outsourcing vendor is no longer a consideration and that replacing STS is CCRES (Chester County Regional Education Services).  Why the change … this made no sense to me.  Little over a week ago, the Administration led the community to believe that STS was the best fit for the employees and that the company offered the most experience and maximum cost-savings to the District.

Absent any details from the School Board or the District to explain this outsourcing vendor change, I contacted STS and spoke for 45 min. to Jay Godwin, the president of STS.  Although Godwin would have liked to work with the TE School District, his decision to remove his outsourcing proposal was two-fold.

The first reason that Godwin offered for withdrawing his proposal was the School Board’s decision to delay the vote on the outsourcing plan until June 17.  Godwin did not believe that there is adequate time between June 17, the earliest date that the Board could approve the outsourcing agreement and July 1, the start date of the agreement to meet all the necessary State documentation requirements.

According to Godwin, Pennsylvania state law requires school district employees provide certain documentation, including Act 34 (Pennsylvania State Police Criminal Background Checks), Act 114 (PA Department of Welfare Child Abuse History Clearance) and Act 151 (Child Abuse History Clearance). Unless TESD employees had this required background checks within the last year, all necessary background checks, etc. are required.

When asked, what he thought the adequate time frame to accomplish the necessary ‘paperwork’ to move 175+ employees to an outsourcing plan, his response was 3 months. Had the School Board approved the outsourcing plan at the May 13 meeting, although less than his preferred 3 months time frame, Godwin felt he could accomplish the task.  However Godwin was of the opinion that a 2-week turnaround timeline was not possible for his company,  STS. He was unwilling to say whether another outsourcing vendor could meet that 2-week requirement.

The second reason for withdrawing the STS outsourcing proposal was based on TE School District  resident and employee sentiment.  Godwin was overwhelmed by the anti-outsourcing feelings of the public and the employees.  Typically, when a school district is considering outsourcing, there is a longer timeline for public discussion. The District plan to outsource the aides and paras took the residents, parents and employees off guard; and was met with swift and immediate opposition. If you couple the short timeline with misinformation and inaccurate budgetary numbers from the District, the reaction should have come as no surprise to the School Board and Administration.

As much as Godwin wanted to be a part of the TE School District, he said that he knew there would be unhappy employees and an unhappy community, and that was something that he did not want for his company.  Based on the sentiment of the residents (and employees, many of which are also residents) Godwin is of the opinion that this “is not the time for outsourcing in TE”.    Godwin has worked with many school districts and the  community’s anti-outsourcing response is the loudest and most significant he has seen in his career.

We discussed the uniqueness of TE School District and the education and background qualifications of our current aides and paraeducators.  Godwin acknowledged that the high level of education and commitment of these employees was not typical and would probably not be achievable by an outsourcing company.  I do believe that Godwin intended to hire all our current TE School District employees – I think that he truly understood their value and credentials.  Personally, I think Godwin feared that he would lose many of our current TE employees if the District outsourced and, may have been concerned whether he could replace them with the same high standard.

Godwin and I discussed how helpful it would have been for the outsourcing company (in this case STS) to meet with the aides and paras before the School Board meeting.  Such a meeting would have given the employees an opportunity to ask questions, voice concerns, understand the benefits, healthcare, etc. etc.   School Board and Administration transparency was discussed, with Godwin agreeing that an issue as important as outsourcing needs all options thoroughly vetted, and discussed in public, as part of the decision-making process.  Godwin was forthcoming and extremely willing to answer all my questions — his candor much appreciated.

Based on my conversation with Godwin, I am left with many questions including:

1.  If the School Board approves the outsourcing plan on June 17, how is it possible for any outsourcing company to meet the deadline of July 1?
2. If STS was the preferred vendor offering the best cost-savings to the District, where was CCRES on the ranking?
3. How does CCRES propose to complete the necessary background checks, etc. within 2 weeks, should they receive the contract?
4. The Administration is not meeting with CCRES until tomorrow, when will the aides, paras, substitute teachers be given the proposed plan?
5. When does the School Board intend to explain that STS, the preferred outsourcing vendor has withdrawn their proposal?
6. Presumably the fee schedule, cost-savings, benefits change with a new vendor, when is the public given this information?

The taxpayers deserve to know what is going on in this District. Where is the leadership of the School District?

Following the last School Board meeting, I sent two emails to School Board president Kevin Buraks. The emails voiced concern on two topics – my opposition to outsourcing of aides, paras and substitute teachers and the issue of intimidation by the Administration towards the employees of this District. My first email ended with the following, “You must lead … the employees of the District deserve your support, they need your help.  It is no longer acceptable for District employees to live in fear of their jobs.”

I closed my second email to our School Board president with, “We need governance, we need leadership.   To say nothing and to do nothing is not an acceptable solution.”

For the record, there has been no response from Mr. Buraks.  Today is Primary Election Day and Kevin Buraks is on the ballot seeking re-election.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Art McDonnell, Community Matters, Dan Waters, Jay Godwin, Kevin Buraks, outsourcing aides, outsourcing paraprofessionals, Pattye Benson, STS | 108 Comments »

I am not writing today based on an isolated email from a disgruntled school district employee.  I wish that were the case.  Phone calls, text messages and emails have come to me from teachers, paraeducators, custodians, kitchen workers, support staff and aides all painting an eerily similar picture of the work environment inside our award-winning TE schools.

If you want to control someone, all you have to do is make him or her feel afraid.  It appears that the TE School District is now an environment of intimidation with administrators calling for loyalty, demanding public silence and leaving employees fearing for their jobs.

From the outside, the school district appears the image of excellence by any standard – impressive test scores,  high achieving students in all areas – academics, athletics and the arts, supportive parents and caring teachers and staff that believe in putting education and students first.

However, those working inside our schools describe an atmosphere far differently … a place of fear and intimidation … a place where our District employees, fearing retribution, do not feel like they have a voice.   One poignant email read in part, “We have signs all over about anti-bullying, yet the staff gets bullied.”  Another email contained these words, “If you speak out and they (administration) don’t like what you’re saying, and you’re not a ‘yes person,’ then you will literally … you could lose your place there. You could lose your job.”  I just read a comment posted on Community Matters that says TENIG employees were rebuked by the Administration for attending Monday’s School Board meeting.  If true, this level of harassment must stop.  School Board meetings are public meetings and all employees are welcome to attend.  There is a policy that only TESD residents may speak at Board meetings with the exception of TENIG and TEEA union presidents.

The TE School District is committed to a safe and civil education environment for all its students that is free from harassment, intimidation or bullying and the same right is extended to all District employees. TESD Policy, Regulation 4330  “Unlawful harassment by and of TESD employees” provides the procedure for an employee to report unlawful harassment to their immediate supervisor, or to the Superintendent of Schools, if the complaint involves that supervisor.  But herein lies the problem – if the District employees are scared of the Administration, and fear retaliation and possible loss of their job, how are they supposed to speak out? And where do they take their message?

This discontent between administrators and staff that has led to low morale in the schools did not just begin this week.  Although certainly exacerbated by the proposed outsourcing of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers, there is an unsettling picture that is beginning to surface; a workplace shrouded by fear and intimidation.

The School Board Directors of Tredyffrin Easttown School District need to lead.  The taxpayers of this community pay the administrator salaries of the School District and we elected you as the overseers.  Now the community is  respectfully asking you stop deferring all your decisions to the Administration, and to  simply … govern.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Art McDonnell, bullying, Community Matters, harassment, intimidation, Kevin Buraks, outsourcing paraprofessionals, Pattye Benson, TEEA< Dan Waters, TESD | 139 Comments »

Taxpayers, teachers, PTO presidents, paraprofessionals, parents, substitute teachers, TENIG members and students brought their collective voices to the School Board meeting last night, and were heard, at least temporarily.

Standing three people deep and overflowing into the lobby, all attended the meeting for the singular purpose to oppose outsourcing of paraprofessionals in the TE School District.  For over three hours, one voice after another was echoing the same message to the School Board, “don’t outsource.”  For the record, not one person spoke in favor of the District’s proposed outsourcing plan.

With Fox News and ABC Action News filming most of the proceedings,Board members, District business manager Art McDonnell, personnel manager Sue Tiede and Superintendent Dan Waters repeatedly claimed that many of us had misunderstood and that the third-party outsourcing to STS would actually help ‘save’ the jobs of District aides and paras.  They wanted us to believe that STS would hire all the displaced TE employees and that our employees would be making more money working for STS.

According to McDonnell, the need for outsourcing is based on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the cost to provide healthcare for the aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers working 30 hours or more per week in TESD. These employees have never received healthcare coverage through the District.  McDonnell claimed the annual cost to provide healthcare coverage to these currently uninsured District employees would be in excess of $2.3M and further citing a potential fine of $1.2M annually for noncompliance.

By the time the last person had spoken out about outsourcing, it was abundantly clear that the District and the School Board had many more questions than answers.  McDonnell had predicated his evaluation of the healthcare coverage costs to the District on all 175 employees needing insurance.  As was repeatedly pointed out, most of these employees have insurance through their spouses and do not need the coverage.  The District’s cost to insure was based on all 175 employees working 30+ hours per week which had many in the audience asking why not reduce their hours (so the District would not be affected by the requirements of ACA).

Several residents spoke of personal experience with the Affordable Care Act and its requirements.  One in particular, a CFO for a local corporation, offered that the District’s analysis was incomplete and inaccurate, and suggested the Board seek healthcare benefit expertise so as to make an informed decision. Example of inadequate District analysis — The Affordable Care Act does not stipulate that the healthcare coverage must be the same as offered to the teachers and administrators.  Rather than plugging in the cost for a ‘basic’ healthcare coverage in their outsourcing analysis, the McDonnell used the cost of the Cadillac-type of healthcare coverage of the administrators.

The most striking comments of the evening were from those who had called the proposed outsourcing company, STS to learn about the company and their employment requirements.  They were told that STS employees only need graduate from high school, or a GED will suffice. (Remember all the aides, paras and substitute teachers working in TE have 4-year degrees and many have Master degrees). When asked if any additional training was needed to serve as a school district paraprofessional, the response from the company HR — was one evening of their STS Academy training (!).  One young woman in the audience spoke last night who works for TESD but is also a STS employee.  She explained STS hiring procedure and the shocking revelation that STS hired her with no interview required.

Personnel director Sue Tiede repeatedly countered the low employment standard of STS that should District use this company, they would be required to meet the TESD requirements.  We also learned that STS has no experience with this type of job outsourcing.  Although McDonnell and Tiede offered that a couple of Lancaster County school districts employ STS, we learned quickly from audience members that these contracts were only recently signed … therefore leading to the speculation that our award-winning school district would serve as the company’s outsourcing guinea pig.

Facing many unanswered questions from audience members and an outsourcing analysis that did not stand up to public scrutiny, at 11:20 PM, the School Board voted unanimously to table the discussion of outsourcing for the night.  By the Finance Committee meeting on June 10, the administration and the Board will seek a better understanding of the Affordable Care Act (and its requirements) plus work to answer the many questions and possible solutions offered by the public last night.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: ABC Action News, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Art McDonnell, Community Matters, Dan Waters, Fox News, Kevin Buraks, outsourcing, Pattye Benson, TEEA, TENIG, TESD | 114 Comments »

In advance of tonight’s School Board meeting, all  aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals working in the TE School District received the following Q&A Fact Sheet this afternoon from Dan Waters.

Is the message to the District employees and the taxpayers supposed to be — don’t bother to show up tonight with your questions because the District and the School Board has already made up its mind on outsourcing?  Where’s the public discussion?  Don’t the opinions of the residents in this District count for anything?  We elected these nine School Board members to represent ‘US’ — where’s our representation!  

According to the email from Waters,  the Board has received 31 emails from people that misunderstand the outsourcing plan.  Why do you suppose that people misunderstood?  The only time I know that the outsourcing  ’plan’ was ever discussed was at the Finance Committee meeting and I can tell you that the School Board did NOT know all the answers.  We were told that outsourcing did not have to do with the Affordable Care Act, yet in this Q&A, it states that as a reason.  It was clear at the Finance Committee meeting that the District CANNOT and WILL NOT mandate that STS hire the TE paraprofessionals.  It was specifically stated that all the District could do was ENCOURAGE the hiring of the the TE employees.   Read the PR statement from the District and they would have us believe that it’s an absolute that the employees keep their jobs.

Is the intention of this email from Dan Waters to intimidate aides and paraprofessionals from speaking out tonight?  

Is the intention of the email to silence TENIG members because they are next up for outsourcing?

Is the public supposed to be intimidated by Dan Waters, Art McDonnell and the 9 School Board members?  Are we not entitled to ask questions and receive answers?  

Any misunderstanding of the outsourcing plan is completely ‘by design’ by the District … keep us in the dark, with limited information.  Give us ‘fuzzy math’ and tell us that the District is saving money.  Promise aides their jobs when they get outsourced but privately know there’s no guarantee.  Tell the paraprofessionals that they will make more money because they get to keep their 7.5% pension contribution.  If people in this community want a ‘voice’, they are going to have to show up tonight and claim it!

This draft Question and Answer Fact Sheet was prepared to be sent to affected employees if the outsourcing of the work of aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals was approved at this evening’s School Board meeting. As of this time, the Board has received 31 emails with a common misunderstanding of the plan. The following Fact Sheet regarding the transition to STS as the employer describes the District’s plan for outsourcing this work while accomplishing the Board’s goal to maintain our current aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals in their current positions.

Dan Waters
Superintendent of Schools
Tredyffrin/Easttown School District

Questions and Answers regarding Transition to  Substitute Teacher Service, Inc.

The District appreciates the work of the support service personnel in assisting our children to succeed. This shift to Substitute Teachers Service, Inc. (STS) does not diminish your contribution to the students which is appreciated by all. The budget strategy was delayed for the past three years, but the state-required increase in the District’s contribution to the PSERs fund and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act require this shift of the work to an outsourcing management company. We encourage you to attend the STS transition meeting to begin the process of employment with STS at TESD.

1.  What was the District’s motivation in making this change?

The District’s motivation is to retain current employees in the same building with the same hours while increasing the typical aide, para-educator or paraprofessional’s total compensation.

2.  Why is the District doing this now?

The Affordable Care Act is now law. The aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals were not eligible for healthcare benefits in the past. With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act the District would have to reduce aide, para-educator and paraprofessional hours below the 30 hour threshold which requires that healthcare benefits be provide to employees who work for school districts.

3.  What is the District’s goal for outsourcing the work of the aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals?

Outsourcing the work of aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals has been considered as a budget strategy for the past three budget years by the Board.  The goal of the strategy is to maintain the current personnel with comparable hours within a long-term financially sustainable budget. The mandatory PSERS increase as a percent of  salaries for individuals employed by the District, along with the implications of the Affordable Care Act, coupled with declining revenues made it necessary at this time to implement outsourcing the work of the aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals.

4. Will the current employees in these roles be offered the opportunity to keep their current positions next year while working for STS?

Yes. The goal of the strategy remains that current employees whose performance is deemed satisfactory will be encouraged to accept the opportunity to be hired by STS.

5.  When will STS become my employer?

The contract with STS begins on July 1, 2013. Your work year would follow the typical schedule and would begin with the start of school in the fall of 2013.

6.  The Board approved contract with STS begins July 1, 2013. Will I be separated from employment by the District before being hired by STS? 

Yes. In June, all aides, para-educators and paraprofessionals will have their employment with the District ended. The separation will appear for Board action in the June 17th Board agenda. The employee will be given the opportunity within the next few weeks to meet with STS and begin the STS employment process. Again, the goal of the District strategy is to transfer the management responsibility to STS, while maintaining employees in their current roles at TESD.

7.  When would I begin working as an employee of STS? 

It is the District’s desire that our current support staff members will return to their assignments in the District in the fall as employees of STS.

8.  What do I need to do to be hired by STS? 

You will be invited to attend a transition meeting with the District and STS.  This meeting will be held at a District school to be announced.  At this meeting, you will be able to begin paperwork to become an STS employee at TESD in the fall of 2013.

9.  Will I need to provide new clearances and a TB test to be considered for employment by STS?

Yes.  These are state mandated forms and the STS employee is responsible for the cost.

10.  Since I will be separated from the District and will not receive a reasonable assurance letter to return to work in the fall of 2013 as a District employee, am I eligible to apply for unemployment compensation during the days I am not employed in the summer? 

Possibly yes. Depending upon the extent and nature of any work you perform over the summer, you may be able to choose to apply for unemployment compensation for the days you are not employed by the District in the summer.  If you are uncertain about your unemployment compensation entitlement, you may file for unemployment benefits with the Unemployment Compensation Bureau. The District will not file for these benefits on your behalf.

11.  Will my current paid holidays be changed in the first year when I am employed by STS? 

You will continue to have 10 paid holidays per year and 2 paid floating holidays in the 2013-2014 school year when you are assigned to the T/E School District as an employee of STS. The floating holidays earned during 2012-2013 but not used will be paid out in June 2013 as is our practice.

12.  What will my paid sick time allotment be in the first year when I am employed by STS? 

STS will provide you with 10 paid sick days during the 2013-2014 school year.

13.  Would my assignment next year be at the same school with the same total hours per week if I am employed by STS?

Generally speaking, yes.  Typically, we have some employees who work in new locations each year; however, most support personnel return to the same building for the same total hours as they worked in the previous year.

14.  What will my total compensation be as an employee of STS? 

The total compensation as an STS employee includes a reduced hourly rate of approximately 12%; this new rate will not require a 7.5% employee contribution to PSERS; the employee will have the ability to choose to file for unemployment compensation benefits.  This new annual total compensation may be the same or greater than it had been as a TESD employee, because the PSERS contribution is not required and you may choose to file for unemployment compensation.

15.  What about the PSERs retirement funds that I have accrued? 

The District will arrange to have a representative from PSERs present a seminar on this topic to separated employees.  This PSERs seminar will be held in the District, as soon as possible.  The goal of this PSERs seminar is to provide employees with information which will assist them in making an informed decision about their PSERs account once they are no longer employed by the District.

16.  As an STS employee will I be required to use KRONOS? 

Yes.

17.  Will my hours be reduced as an STS employee? 

Generally speaking, no.  Most STS employees will work the same total hours as in the previous year. A few STS employees may see adjustments in their hours due to needs at the various buildings.  These personnel hour adjustments happen annually for certain employees.

18.  Does STS provide access to employees for a self-funded retirement savings fund? 

Yes, STS will provide the employee with access to a 401(k) type of retirement savings program. This 401 (k) type retirement savings program is funded by the employee, not by STS.

19.  Will STS provide any medical benefits to the employees?

No. The current TESD aide, para-educator and paraprofessional are not eligible for health care coverage. The same will apply to STS employees.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Art McDonnell, Community Matters, Dan Waters, Kevin Buraks, outsourcing, Pattye Benson, TESD | 10 Comments »

At the Monday TE School Board meeting, our community’s taxpayers, parents and School District employees deserve an open and honest discussion on the impact of outsourcing.  If the jobs of aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers are outsourced with a third party contractor, we deserve to know the long-term costs and financial benefits, if any.  Based on the numbers provided at the Financial Committee meeting, I am not convinced that outsourcing is a cost-savings measure.

Outsourcing subjects our most vulnerable students, those with special needs, to a revolving door of low-paid, less qualified replacements hired by the low bidder outside contractor. Is this better for children with special needs than keeping the dedicated longtime TE employees who parents and students trust and respect?

And what about the taxpayers in the community who don’t have children in the school district …  the issue of outsourcing affects you too.  To date, Tredyffrin and Easttown Township residents  have enjoyed stable real estate values; the reputation of the T/E School District a key to the sustainability. The quality of a school district affects local property values and as a result, homeowners are willing to pay a premium.  With the outsourcing of paraprofessionals in T/E, I think we will see the beginning of a downturn in our home values.  Everyone needs to understand that if the School Board votes on Monday to outsource the aides and paraeducators, the jobs of the District’s custodians, kitchen workers and support staff will not be far behind. The homeowners in this School District should have assurances that living in the T/E community will continue to mean sustainability of the home real estate values. 

Upon his election as T/E School Board president in December 2012, Kevin Buraks stated, “We’re benefiting families with kids who are in school because they’re getting a top-level education that they’ll have for the rest of their lives. I think we’re also benefiting families who don’t have kids in school, because we’re keeping high property values because the schools are ranked in the top of the state”.  Contrary to what you stated 5 months ago, I would argue Mr. Buraks that outsourcing of aides is not beneficial to our families and outsourcing will certainly not keep our property values high.   Perhaps, President Buraks should review his own words prior to the outsourcing vote.

Scott Dorsey sent in a comment for the last Community Matters post but rather than have it buried in the stream of comments, I am adding it to this post.  Mr. Dorsey is a School Board candidate and voices strong opposition to outsourcing. Opposing Dorsey in Tredyffrin Region II is currently serving School Board Director Rich Brake.  In Tredyffrin Region I, incumbent Kevin Buraks is challenged by Peter Connors.  The four Easttown Region III candidates are Doug Carlson, Virgnia Latner, Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim. 

Primary Election Day is May 21 and knowing where candidates stand on issues has never been more important than in 2013.  I invite current School Board Directors Buraks and Brake and candidates Connors, Carlson, Latner, Piccioni and Kim to submit a personal statement on the issue of outsourcing.   Similarly to Scott Dorsey’s statement,  all statements received prior to Monday night’s meeting will appear on Community Matters.  (Although Betsy Fadem and Anne Crowley are not seeking re-election, they are welcome to submit outsourcing statements as well Pete Motel, Jim Bruce, Liz Mercogliano and Kris Graham.)

From Scott C. Dorsey …

As a resident of Tredyffrin, I stand firmly against any proposal that would outsource the jobs of my fellow neighbors. I truly believe there is an assault on those who have no union representation and it is time for our community to let its voice be heard.

I am saddened by the latest actions of our School Board. The Board has lost its way in giving our top administrators a sweet pay increase and retirement bonus while pushing paraprofessionals out to the lowest outsourcer bid. I understand the Board struggles to find financial opportunities to keep the school district solvent, but do we stoop to tactics of harassing nonprofit organizations by questioning their tax status or attempting to tear down neighborhood popular tennis courts? Do we discard loyal and valued employees who contribute to our students’ success?

Why are they making these decisions without the full input of the community? Where is the transparency?

Government can’t solve all the problems on its own, but Tredyffrin has been a community where people of all backgrounds can raise their families and provide their children a great education. In recent years, our educational system has come under attack. It is time to have public meetings and hear the voices of our neighbors before making decisions that will radically change the character of our schools.

Outsourcing will not save the district money or be a better deal for aides and paraprofessionals, as some School Board members have suggested. I beg my friends on the Board to listen to the people. It is time to focus on investing, not slashing the greatness of our community. I ask all my neighbors to come to the School Board meeting on Monday night to oppose the outsourcing of our educational system. Let us fight to protect those who are oppressed. May God bless us to find the right solutions that will preserve a great school district by investing in its children and valued employees.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Community Matters, Kevin Buraks, outsourcing, Pattye Benson, Scott Dorsey, TEEA, TENIG, TESD, Tredyffrin Easttown School District | 21 Comments »

It is almost impossible to believe that we live in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb with award winning, nationally ranked schools and our School Board is voting whether to outsource 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers at Monday’s School Board meeting.

Since attending the Finance Committee meeting and writing about it this week, I have heard from parents, residents, aides, TENIG members and teachers.  Not a single person contacted me to say that they support outsourcing, touted as a cost-savings measure by the District.  I understand that there is pressure to cut costs in the District budget but cutting costs should not be at the expense of our most vulnerable students.

Although the District business manager Art McDonnell presented a couple of slides at the Finance Committee meeting about outsourcing, many in the audience left short on answers and confused.  Here’s a review of what I think we know at this point about the outsourcing.  According to McDonnell, the staff researched outsourcing opportunities and met with five different vendors. We were not given the names of the other vendors, only the recommended vendor – Substitute Teachers Service, Inc. (STS). During the evening, it was repeatedly stated that STS is one of the nation’s largest outsourcing vendors and has been in the business for 25 years.

The “Analysis of Outsourcing of Aides and Paraeducators” slide indicated that the 2013-14 anticipated wage and benefits costs for aides and paraeducators is $3,359,784. The cost to the District to outsource with STS is 22.5% of actual wages paid to the aides and paraeducators.  STS will pay all benefits form the 22.5%.  It was unclear what those ‘benefits’ were beyond the required Social Security, etc.  The agreement with STS will be for 3 years.  The increased costs to the District for outsourcing in Year One is $126,307 and Year Two is $59,678.  In Year Three, the District will see a projected savings of $529,544. How does the District go from losing money ($190K) the first two years to saving $500K?  I have no idea.

The anticipated wages and benefit costs for substitutes for 2013-14 is $842,250.  Like the aides and paraeducators, if outsourced to STS, the cost to the District is 22.5% of actual wages and vendor pays all ‘benefits’ out of the 22.5% and is a three-year agreement.  The increased cost to the District is Year One of $76,500, Year Two of $60,112 and Year Three of $44,275.  It is my understanding that the District will not see a savings until Year Six if the substitute teachers are outsourced!  By outsourcing, the District loses money for 5 years before recognizing savings … and this is viewed as a solution?

To be very clear, should outsourcing occur, there is no guarantee that the aides and paraeducators will still have jobs in our school district.  How do I know this absolutely … I asked that specific question at the Finance Meeting and was told by Sue Tiede that the District would ‘encourage’ STS to keep our employees.  I asked if the District’s agreement with STS could mandate that the outsourcing company hire our employees and the answer was NO.  I don’t view encouraging a vendor to hire our employees as any guarantee to the 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers.

When I asked the Board if STS would compensate the TE employees at their current pay level, the answer from Art McDonnell was no, he indicated that their pay would be lower if outsourcing occurs. However, by the end of the outsourcing discussion, that response shifted with Dan Waters stating that the outsourced employees would actually be paid more if they were outsourced.  The rationale behind this claim – when outsourced, the paraprofessionals will not be making the 7.5% PSERS contribution so therefore the employee makes more money. What? This is not more money as the contribution was the employee’s money in the first place.

I’m asking the question again, ‘Where’s the fairness”? Three months ago, the School Board approved raises for the highest paid employees — the administrators.  Now the Board is contemplating outsourcing the employees with the least amount of power, making the least amount of money.  If you recall, the administrator raises were buried in a consent agenda; and we came very close to see a repeat performance with the outsourcing.  The game plan at the Finance Committee meeting was to add outsourcing on the School Board meeting consent agenda. However, thanks to Board member Anne Crowley speaking out, outsourcing will be a priority discussion, which allows for public comment prior to the Board vote. How does the District balance raises to administrators against the outsourcing of aides … interesting interpretation of ‘shared sacrifice.’

In closing, I am including excerpts from some of the emails in the last few days in regards to the District’s proposed outsourcing:

From a District aide …

“These individuals have direct contact with our children on a daily basis. They are our greeters in the lobby, the aides who work one on one with special kids in the classrooms, they monitor lunch periods and recess, they work in the library and in the office , they assist teachers in the classroom, accompany our children on field trips and the do so much more. Many live in our community, have children in the school system. They are our neighbors and friends. 

Personally, I worry that non-local strangers will be brought into our schools and not give the same quality of care and attention to our kids that my colleagues or I would. Our current aides have a college degrees and many master’s, they go through rigorous security screening by the district and by the school staff. Many have been working here for several years. “

From a resident …

 “I challenge the School Board to spend some time really thinking about the outsourcing decision before you vote. Spend some time; really know what these people do, because those paraprofessionals have among the hardest jobs in the building. I’ve done that job; I respect the heck out of those people.”

From a TE teacher …

“This outsourcing will affect all students in various ways none of which are good.  Paraprofessionals are partners to the teachers in the education process.  They pick up where the teachers leave off.  They are there to lend a hand when one or a few students need it, so teachers can continue teaching the other students in the classroom.  I think the important message here is the fact that the role of paraprofessional in TESD is a very important one and I urge the Board to weigh the financial savings against the impact on our students.  I’d like the Board to think about the students first.  I think we’ve lost our way a little bit with regards to our students.”

From a parent of a special needs child … 

“I completely support the paras of TE.  They do this job because they love it and they love being with the children.  The paras make very little money and many have teaching degrees.  To me, as a parent, it makes me feel very comfortable sending my child who has special needs to school each day.  I know what it would do to my child having a different face in class each day who doesn’t know what to do or how to help.  Cutting costs should not come at the expense of our students. Both special needs and typically developing children benefit from having para professionals in our schools that are there every day.”

If you care about the future of 175 aides, paraeducators and substitute teachers  in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District plan on attending the upcoming School Board Meeting.  Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a paraprofessional, a TENIG member or a resident and oppose outsourcing, join me on  Monday, May 13 at  7:30 PM at the T/E School District Administration Offices (TEAO), West Valley Business Center, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Art McDonnell, Community Matters, Dan Waters, Kevin Buraks, outsourcing, Pattye Benson, TEEA, TENIG, TESD, Tredyffrin Easttown School District | 57 Comments »

FREE WORKSHOP FOR HOMEOWNERS, “ENERGY EFFICIENCY 101”

WILL BE PRESENTED ON MAY 13 AT UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP BUILDING

PHILADELPHIA (MAY 8, 2013): Homeowners can learn how to improve their home’s energy efficiency – and save money on utility bills – during the free “Energy Efficiency 101”workshop taking place on Monday, May 13 at Freedom Hall, Upper Merion Township Building. The 90-minute workshop will start at 7 p.m.

The workshop is being presented by the Upper Merion Township Environmental Advisory Council, and will feature expert advice for homeowners on how to make their homes more comfortable; how to improve energy efficiency and save money on utility bills; and how to take advantage of the low-cost loans for home energy efficiency improvements available through the regional EnergyWorks program. All workshop attendees can enter to win a free home energy assessment valued at $400 and a free programmable thermostat, among other items.

Advance registration for the free “Energy Efficiency 101” workshop on May 13 is required via email tojserfass@umtownship.org or by calling 610-205-8506.  Freedom Hall, Upper Merion Township Building is located at 175 West Valley Forge Road in King of Prussia, PA 19406.

Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Program, EnergyWorks was launched in 2010 to assist residential and commercial building owners in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties with planning, financing, implementing and assessing energy savings projects. The program brings together all available rebates, tax credits, low interest loans and qualified contractors to make these improvements simple, affordable and reliable.

All EnergyWorks projects are designed to produce increased energy efficiency of at least 25 percent, with many designed to reduce energy use by as much as 40 percent. Along with increasing home comfort and lowering homeowners’ energy usage and bills, a whole-house or targeted EnergyWorks home improvement project – such as air sealing and insulation, upgrading heating and cooling systems, and other measures – can also improve a home’s Home Energy Score (HES), helping to increase its resale value.

More information about EnergyWorks can be found at www.EnergyWorksNow.com.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Community Matters, energy efficiency, Energy Works, Pattye Benson, Upper Merion Township | No Comments »

Rising pension and escalating health care costs are putting intense pressure on school districts to lower costs. Tredyffrin Easttown School District is no different and there will probably be outsourcing discussion at Monday’s Finance Committee meeting.  Fueling the discussion of outsourcing TESD aides and paraeducators is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  As of January 1, public schools are required to provide health care coverage to all employees working more than 30 hours per week. The penalty for not providing health care coverage will be steep and school districts will face significant fines for noncompliance.

There are around 150 aides/paraeducators working in the District.  This group of employees is not included in the TENIG union and does not have benefits.  Although TENIG is comprised of ‘non-instructional’ workers, I wonder if it would be possible to expand their membership to include the aides and paraeducators.  There is strength in numbers; by increasing their membership could help TENIG when they fight their own outsourcing battle.

The District is currently not legally required to provide benefits to non-unionized support staff.  Based on a right-to-know request filed by Keith Knauss, it appears that this group of employees does not have healthcare coverage.  In response to Keith’s request for the benefit records of non-unionized staff, Art McDonnell’s response was, “The documents do not exist in School District records.”  I take that to mean that the non-unionized staff receives no benefits.  As a follow-up, I asked Keith about the benefits of non-union employees in Unionville-Chadds Ford School District.  His response was that none of UCF’s 250+ support employees is unionized.  However, most all are full-time and those that work 30+ hours per week receive standard benefits (healthcare, sick days, personal days, disability, life insurance).

If the interpretation of Art McDonnell’s response is correct and the aides/paraeducators do not receive health care benefits, then there is little doubt that the District is seriously considering outsourcing before the Affordable Care Act takes effect.  While outsourcing may save the District money, is it really the right option?  Special needs children and their families depend on the District aides and paraeducators.  Mainstreaming children with special needs so they may interact and share a ‘regular’ education experience is an important task.  Integral to a successful education experience is the consistency and established relationships with the support staff.  How can the School Board consider outsourcing those employees who share the most personal, one-to-one relationship with our District’s students? It makes no sense that the children who need the most consistency will be subject to “outsourced” caretakers who can feasibly change daily based upon the staffing circumstances of the outside company.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention the obvious safety concerns that comes with wholesale turnover of 150 familiar District employees by outsourcing.  Is the newly hired safety consultant aware of the District’s possible outsourcing?  Have the consequences of outsourcing been thoroughly discussed by the District Safety Committee? We know that making our school buildings secure is important but so are background checks and appropriate oversight for those in contact with our children.

Is outsourcing aides and paraeducators to avoid the cost of complying with the Affordable Care Act the right alternative for TE?

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Affordable Health Care, outsourcing, paraprofessionals, TEEA, TENIG, TESD, Tredyffrin Easttown School District | 50 Comments »

May 1 was the deadline for the School District to submit their variance application to the Township in order to be listed on the Zoning Hearing Board’s May 23 meeting agenda.  According to Township Manager Bill Martin, the application was received today. Some of the neighbors of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts may think there is nothing to stop the ZHB from awarding the variance, but that may not be the case.

The combined impervious coverage of the tennis courts and the additional parking spaces exceeds the township stormwater requirement. Based on the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) there appears to be no legal basis for Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board to grant a variance to the School District.

Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) a zoning hearing board “may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.”

According to the MPC, the School District needs to show an economic hardship for ZHB to grant a variance in this matter. However, the additional parking spaces at VFES are optional (not a requirement) for the School District and therefore do not constitute an economic hardship. I have been forced to accept that using the logic that the impervious coverage (of the tennis courts plus the additional parking) is only a ‘little over’ will not satisfy the MPC requirement. There is also the matter of a strict stormwater policy in Tredyffrin, and an important issue that is unlikely sidestepped.

A solution that would save the tennis courts, allow the additional parking spaces and not require a ZHB variance was presented to the School District and Township by John Petersen, a former ZHB member.  I was copied on the following email sent to Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin Buraks, President of the School Board and the Township and School District solicitors, Vince Donohue and Ken Roos, respectfully.

Here’s a suggestion…

The BoS offers up a zoning amendment that creates an exception for what is counted as impervious coverage: tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. that are available for public use (defined as owned by either the township or school district) that exists on or before the date, the zoning amendment is ratified. A possible permutation is that the first 1K square feet is exempted.

I normally don’t endorse amending the ZO based on specific facts. Like everything, there are always exceptions. For an exception, there must be some solid criteria to support such:

1. The items covered by the exception can never increase

2. Its not de-facto spot zoning because there are any number of places where this applies

3. Not likely to have an adverse impact on storm water (TESD will still have storm water issues to deal with in the parking long construction)

4. There is a strong public policy argument in retaining recreational facilities

I don’t think you will get much, if any push back on this. Is it legal? That’s up to you guys to figure out. In my opinion, this is not objectionable, unlike the recent C-1 amendment. The school district is not just any ordinary landowner.

Baring this, there is no way to keep the courts and build the additional parking. There are no legal grounds to grant a variance.

There’s an old saying that bad facts make bad law. In this case, bad facts sometimes require us to re-visit the law. In 1,000 cases, there may be one time when we should do that. I think this is one of those times. The change is very limited and is in keeping with public policy and finally, no material adverse impacts to storm water. The school district should hot have to choose between courts that have been there for 40+ years and the need to add much needed parking.

John

Although there were follow-up emails sent, to date no one has responded to Mr. Petersen’s suggestion.  The four people receiving Petersen’s email (Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos) are all attorneys and therefore presumably understand the standard required by the Municipalities Planning Code for the Zoning Hearing Board to issue a variance. In fact, if memory serves me, Michelle Kichline served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors. Considering the legalities of the MPC, why should the School District bother to submit a variance application?  If not economic hardship, on what grounds is the School District seeking a variance?

Even if the Township reduces the fees to the School District, there are professional costs (legal, architectural) involved with the ZHB variance application.  Why not consider a zoning amendment – the tennis courts are saved and the parking lot is expanded.  Looks like a win-win for the Township, the School District and the residents who use the tennis courts!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note: I am sending this article to Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos asking them to comment directly to me on (1) the grounds for the ZHB to issue a variance to the School District and (2) the consideration of a zoning amendment.  Their responses will be posted on Community Matters.

Filed under: Tredyffrin Township
Tags: Community Matters, impervious coverage, Ken Roos, Kevin Buraks, Michelle Kichline, Municipalities Planning Code, Pattye Benson, stormwater requirement, Tredyffrin Easttown School District, Tredyffrin Township, Vince Donohue, Zoning Hearing Board | 20 Comments »