With the passage of Measure A last week, the Board of Education on Wednesday was quick to rescind all of the 61 March layoff notices that were issued for Davis teachers. This despite the fact that the district may have to cut up to three million dollars from the upcoming budget, depending on what happens with the state budget and what state legislators do with education funding in light of the failure to put the tax extensions on the ballot.
The newly-appointed director of human resources, Assistant Superintendent Matt Best, said on Wednesday, “We promised we would bring these people back with Measure A. And that is what we’re doing.”
The hiring of Mr. Best himself has been a source of controversy, in part at least due to sloppy language by the Davis Enterprise reporter.
The Enterprise reported on May 8, “”Da Vinci Charter School Principal Matt Best is moving to the district office, where he will serve as the assistant superintendent for human resources.”
The article continues, “Best will take over French’s duties in the human resources department; an announcement is expected in a few weeks regarding who will provide administrative oversight for junior high and high school programs.”
The Vanguard reported and has confirmed with sources in the school district that there will be no net additional hires. Mr. Best takes over the human resources function. Someone else will take over Mr. Best’s position. The exchange is expected to save the district money.
To be clear, the district is not adding another administrative position. This was told to the Vanguard categorically on Wednesday and again on Thursday.
The Vanguard’s article on Wednesday responded to a letter in the Enterprise that was posted on their website well ahead of the Thursday publication in the print paper. Somehow that, too, triggered controversy among the Vanguard readers (or at least two of them) wondering how the Vanguard was privy to such a letter in advance.
Wrote one reader, “Your article appears to be preemptive damage control on behalf of the school district.” That individual never bothered to look online to see the time in which that was posted and failed to consider how the district would get ahold of such a letter in advance in the first place.
Mr. Kuhlman, in his letter to the Enterprise wrote, “Not to take anything away from Best, but the district and school board can’t be serious! Also, ‘an announcement is expected in a few weeks’ about who will take over the balance of French’s responsibilities.”
The author wrote, “What is going on here? We just barely approved Measure A to assess most homes in Davis an additional $200 to support the school district. Aren’t our principals, teachers and school staffs expected to do more with less? This should apply to the district staff also.”
He continued, “How many of the new $200 assessments will it take to pay for Best’s new compensation package and the compensation package for the additional administrator likely to be hired to fulfill the rest of French’s former responsibilities? This money can be better used in the classrooms.”
The Enterprise failed to note that there would be no additional hires other than replacing Matt Best’s current duties. The net result will be a savings of money.
Mr. Kuhlman seems to believe that a school district with over 1000 employees should not have an HR director.
As one reader correctly notes however, “Kuhlman misses the important role the head of HR plays in a school district. It is my experience that Asst. Superintendents of Human Resources are the ones who do the dirty work of laying people off and saying no in negotiations. Having a well compensated HR person can save a district lots of money.”
Nevertheless, confusion continues to reign as another reader pointed out, “The article by Jeff Hudson makes it crystal clear that Best will only take over some of French’s duties, and someone else will have to take over French’s remaining duties.”
But it is not crystal clear that that is what is happening. For one thing, even if Mr. Best is not performing all of Mr. French’s previous duties, there is no mention that those duties would be covered by a new hire.
The reader continues, “If the school district truly is not creating a new position, then I would suggest they clear the matter up by printing something in the Davis Enterprise to clarify.”
They ought to, because the Enterprise’s article certainly created enough confusion. However, I can categorically report that the district is not creating a new position and that this will actually save them money, although they lose Kevin French, who had a huge amount of respect and support from district employees and years of experience.
That should take nothing away from Matt Best, about whom I have only heard positives, as well.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A somewhat related article from California Watch — Teacher layoffs out of sync with budget impasse
[url]http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/teacher-layoffs-out-sync-budget-impasse-10207[/url]
[quote]The hiring of Mr. Best himself has been a source of controversy, in part at least due to sloppy language by the Davis Enterprise reporter.[/quote]
Or sloppy reporting to the Davis Enterprise by the school district.
[quote]The Vanguard’s article on Wednesday responded to a letter in the Enterprise that was posted on their website well ahead of the Thursday publication in the print paper. Somehow that, too, triggered controversy among the Vanguard readers (or at least two of them) wondering how the Vanguard was privy to such a letter in advance.
Wrote one reader, “Your article appears to be preemptive damage control on behalf of the school district.” That individual never bothered to look online to see the time in which that was posted and failed to consider how the district would get ahold of such a letter in advance in the first place.[/quote]
So why the need for a preemptive strike, before many of us had a chance to read the article in the print paper? Was the idea to defang Kuhlman’s letter, before it had a chance to hit its mark?
[quote]Mr. Kuhlman seems to believe that a school district with over 1000 employees should not have an HR director.[/quote]
I carefully reread Kuhlman’s letter. Nowhere does it state or even hint at Kuhlman believing that a school district should not have an HR director. This is a completely fabricated accusation. If I am wrong about this, please show me the exact quote where Kuhlman says the school district does not need an HR director.
What about Kuhlman’s other issue? Kuhlman notes: “Someone at the district will probably say, “Funds for administrator compensation are different than funds for classroom support.” Funds from the taxpayers are funds from the taxpayers.” It addresses a fundamental point. The funding from parcel taxes frees up money to be spent on any number of other things, including administration. So the claim that parcel taxes can only be spent on certain things is illusory.
The Vanguard concedes a mistake in reporting was made (by whom we cannot be sure), yet Kuhlman is being trashed for understandable confusion, confusion many of us had from the Enterprise article ourselves. Others have been lambasted for not understanding why the Vanguard felt it necessary to excoriate Kuhlman’s letter before it even came out in the print paper. Why the venom against anyone who is in any way critical of the school district? The venom in this case seems to be highly misplaced…
[quote]With the passage of Measure A last week, the Board of Education on Wednesday was quick to rescind all of the 61 March layoff notices that were issued for Davis teachers. This despite the fact that the district may have to cut up to three million dollars from the upcoming budget, depending on what happens with the state budget and what state legislators do with education funding in light of the failure to put the tax extensions on the ballot.[/quote]
If the school district rescinded all 61 lay-off notices, even tho there is a possible upcoming budget cut of up to $3 million looming, does that mean the district will somehow find some “fat” somewhere else to cut funding other than laying off teachers? Or does it mean the lay-off notices would be reinstated and the current rescission is disingenuous?
[quote]”The hiring of Mr. Best himself has been a source of controversy, in part at least due to sloppy language by the Davis Enterprise reporter.”[/quote]But mostly due to the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s rushed out, vaguely worded attack on Mr. Kuhlman.
The lack of attribution, few testy responses to [u]Vanguard[/u] readers’ questions and comments, and the tone of the report itself made it appear that you just reacted to Mr. Kuhlman’s yet-to-be-published letter as soon as you saw it online. And, that you fired off without doing the level of “due diligence” you keep demanding of Dunning during this continuing soap opera.
As far as I can see, the controversy, as you’ve called it, has been limited to the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s loyal following–questioning your writeup and the conclusions you drew from the same materials we read.[quote]”Mr. Kuhlman seems to believe that a school district with over 1000 employees should not have an HR director.”[/quote]Why do you repeat this? Is your view based on an interview w/Mr. Kuhlman? His letter certainly doesn’t make it apparent that he holds this view.
[quote]”To be clear, the district is not adding another administrative position. This was told to the Vanguard categorically on Wednesday and again on Thursday….But it is not crystal clear that that* is what is happening. For one thing, even if Mr. Best is not performing all of Mr. French’s previous duties, there is no mention that those duties would be covered by a new hire….I can categorically report that the district is not creating a new position”[/quote]It would help readers if you’d attribute such statements rather than reporting them as though they’re some gossip column fodder and continuing to protect your source(s) is a consideration.
Can you also categorically deny Hudson’s report/Elaine’s comment*? Can you confirm that Best will be taking over [u]all[/u] of French’s duties and that no one else will need to “take over French’s remaining duties”? You wouldn’t have to tell your readers to: “…call up Winfred Roberson and ask him yourself”–if you already have confirmed your report with (and attributed your facts to) him.
I understand how busy you’ve been since your original post. Maybe this story/commentary should have waited until you had time to verify things yourself.
I understand that DJUSD has developed a history of bad timing, but imagine how different public perception would have been if their first announcement following Measure A would have been the teacher layoff recision instead of the Best report stating he’ll have fewer duties that his predecessor!
______________________
*”Nevertheless, confusion continues to reign as another reader pointed out, ‘The article by Jeff Hudson makes it crystal clear that Best will only take over some of French’s duties, and someone else will have to take over French’s remaining duties’.”
“That individual never bothered to look online to see the time in which that was posted and failed to consider how the district would get ahold of such a letter in advance in the first place.”
yeah, I saw your sarcastic answer to my other post with the word “duh” and I did not realize that the enterprise posts editorials a day in advance online. yet I still wonder if you were somehow tipped off by certain people. Sort of (as someone else put it) a preemptive strike.
But in in your categorical defense of the district, for all of your ranting the truth of the matter is buried at the end:
“But it is not crystal clear that that is what is happening. For one thing, even if Mr. Best is not performing all of Mr. French’s previous duties, there is no mention that those duties would be covered by a new hire.”
that’s right. you do not know how they plan to take care of this. and now the cat’s out of the bag, maybe the school district will scrap what they were originally planning – to create a new position, since you concede how the article reads.
“The lack of attribution, few testy responses to Vanguard readers’ questions and comments, and the tone of the report itself made it appear that you just reacted to Mr. Kuhlman’s yet-to-be-published letter as soon as you saw it online. And, that you fired off without doing the level of “due diligence” you keep demanding of Dunning during this continuing soap opera.”
I spoke to officials in the district, unfortunately after the Dunning story, the district is cracking down on who can officially talk to the press. So while I can get assurances from people in the district, I cannot directly attribute people in the district.
The problem I have Musser is that you have asserted faulty information and as far as I can tell have never bothered to check any of the information. You cast aspersions without checking their merit first. And then you complain about me making a sarcastic answer? Really.
“you do not know how they plan to take care of this”
Yes I do know. They told me that they are not hiring an additional administrator. That’s really the extent to which we need to know from a fiscal standpoint.
[quote]The problem I have Musser is that you have asserted faulty information and as far as I can tell have never bothered to check any of the information. [/quote]
I’d say that’s the pot calling the kettle black, since you attributed to Mr. Kuhlman something he never said (the school district does not need an HR director). And as far as I can tell, you never bothered to check w Mr. Kuhlman before you printed your unfair diatribe against him…
[quote]Yes I do know. They told me that they are not hiring an additional administrator. That’s really the extent to which we need to know from a fiscal standpoint. [/quote]
Yes, that’s what the “school district” says now (no one specifically in the school district will take direct credit for saying anything to you apparently), after the school district got caught with their proverbial pants down based on the article appearing in the Davis Enterprise. How do we know what the school district’s ORIGINAL INTENT WAS?
It also seems clear from the article that Best is not up to the job he is being promoted to. Someone else is going to have to take over some of French’s duties rather than Best.
And I have to agree w Just Saying about the timing of all this, including the timing of your complaint against Mr. Kuhlman before many readers had a chance to even read Mr. Kuhlman’s letter… Your article appears to have been a preemptive strike to discredit Mr. Kuhlman’s letter before many readers could peruse it if they do not obtain the Enterprise online…
And by the way, in reference to your “duh” comment, I do not get the Enterprise online bc for some reason I have never been able to access the Enterprise through some glitch which has never been corrected by the Enterprise, despite my repeated attempts to clear up the problem. Seniors in particular may not even own a computer. So, “duh”, not everyone reads the Enterprise online or thinks to look there…
“I spoke to officials in the district, unfortunately after the Dunning story, the district is cracking down on who can officially talk to the press.”
David, really? This tax payer funded government agency is now putting clamps on who can officially talk to the press? I thought this was Davis, not China.
I spoke to officials in the district, unfortunately after the Dunning story, the district is cracking down on who can officially talk to the press.”
perhaps dunnings comments struck too close to the truth?
“The problem I have Musser is that you have asserted faulty information and as far as I can tell have never bothered to check any of the information. You cast aspersions without checking their merit first. And then you complain about me making a sarcastic answer? Really.”
lol, like elaine says that is the pot calling the kettle black. these “articles” you are posting are pro-district editorial hit-pieces to criticisms of the district without much fact checking ahead of time. case in point – you still do not know how the district is going to deal with the extra load.
I think the district has sent exactly the right message by rescinding the layoffs as the first order of business after the passage of the tax measure. That message: these funds are to retain teachers. Not for pay raises. Not for facilities. So at least as a symbolic gesture, this is excellent.
Don, that would have been great if it were true. But, it isn’t. Did you miss the real first order of business, selecting a new HR director who apparently will undertake only a portion of the previous director’s duties? David has been agitating about this first order of business for two days.
Maybe you were taking a well-deserved Vanguard vacation. In any case, DJUSD chose to the announce the layoff recision as their [u]second[/u] order of business after passage of Measure A for reasons beyond comprehension.
Two questions:
1) For David : Do you think that the reluctance of your sources to be specifically quoted applies to all journalists equally or is this specific to you for some reason?
2) A two part question for anyone who may care to respond.
What is your evidence that Matt Best is not qualified for this job ? His not being assigned all the same duties as Mr.French could be due to
any number of different considerations only one of which would be his qualifications. Anyone who has ever been involved in the
restructuring of an administrative team will recognize this.
Secondly, why does anyone thing it is of major significance which announcement came first after passage of Measure A since they were
made within a few days of each other ?
it would seem to me that the controversy around Measure A is now being replayed with proxy issues. We certainly have enough pressing issues as a community to move forward rather than vent over which announcement should have been made first.
One person’s take on your two-parter, medwoman:
1. I think that some people base their comments about Best’s qualifications on the [u]Enterprise[/u] report that he’s not taking on a significant portion of the responsibilities that French handled when he held the position. David suggests this was sloppy reporting, but then adds to the confusion with his own uncertain waffling on the matter.
First, he incorrectly argued that the unassigned duties were part of Best’s old job, then, today, observes that “it is not crystal clear that that (Best not assuming all of French’s duties) is what is happening” and adds “even if Mr. Best is not performing all of Mr. French’s previous duties….”
People who were preconditioned by past, confusing reporting on questionable DJUSD actions probably found all they needed to support their concerns about the district management. That it will require two people to handle the job than French handled himself–when other organizations are combining jobs–might have been a little much for them.
I’ve no opinion about Best’s qualifications, but I can see how people could have suspicions that his capabilities were the reason for reducing the duties. I’m sure you’re correct that some more complicated reorganization is underway here, one that will result in fewer (or the same number of) leadership positions. I only wish the district had waited until the strategy was determined, since Best already was handling his new job in an “acting” basis.
2. The “first action” issue is only of a public relations significance, in my opinion. It was a missed opportunity for the district, which would have benefitted by moving out on the teacher “rehiring” instead of the Best announcement which set off Mr. Kuhlman which set off David and brought bad publicity to the district.
This was simply an observation on my part; I didn’t intend to be “venting.” I just was responding to Don’s non-venting, non-proxy-issue observation.
In fact, my only continuing interest in this matter is my concern for the integrity of our vital [u]Vanguard[/u]. Sometimes, David strays off-base in his reporting. Once in awhile, he doesn’t realize he’s ended up way out in left field–as he has on the Measure A battle. (Haven’t you ever just wanted to SHAKE HIM!?) So, I’m interested in the topic as long as he’s reporting on it.
“think the district has sent exactly the right message by rescinding the layoffs as the first order of business after the passage of the tax measure. That message: these funds are to retain teachers. Not for pay raises. Not for facilities. So at least as a symbolic gesture, this is excellent.”
to a certain extent, the district really has no alternative but to rescind the layoff notices. how would it look if they threw out layoff notices to people after a wad of cash was just handed to them? It would definitely add fuel to anti-district forces and they did not want that.
in short, they are covering their political butts.
furthermore, sheila allen touched up on what people already suspected, the district is trying to get voter approval for another tax increase in the future. In other words, they do not dare not rescind the layoff notices if they know what is good for them.
“David, really? This tax payer funded government agency is now putting clamps on who can officially talk to the press? I thought this was Davis, not China.”
Rusty: Most government agencies have official press offices where you can only talk to press people. In fact, most companies work the same way. It sucks for the reporter to have to get the official spin from the professional mouthpiece, but it’s something everyone does.
JustSaiying
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think that your points are probably also reflective of some others motivation as well.
I also think it is very generous of you to attribute preconditioning by past confusing reporting on questionable DJUSD actions as the source if some people’s concern. However, I feel that the subsequent comments of Musser would be more supportive of my theory about not being willing to let go of a loss and move on.
The comments that they “had no alternative but to rescind the layoff notices” and that they are “covering their political butts” and “they do not dare not rescind the layoff notices if they know what is good for them” are superfluous, vitriolic, and a but ridiculous given that saving teacher and other support positions was the stated goal of measure A, not something that was done to make them look good.
And to Musser:
An honest question : why the level of vitriol in your posts about the board?
Some have asked what will happen if the board suddenly has to cut $3 million. I think that’s a reasonable question. This is conjecture on my part. The first point is that we do not know what the number will be. The budget has not been set on further cuts. I think there is still hope that a tax measure can be placed on the ballot at some point.
The district will probably try to buy time to allow the DSF to raise some of that money. But unfortunately if the state budget ends up being all-cuts for the last $14 billion that means $3 million for our budget, which means we will have to lay off teachers, counselors, maybe some other support staff because that’s what is left to cut.
But they can’t cut it now, which also poses a problem.
[quote]In fact, my only continuing interest in this matter is my concern for the integrity of our vital Vanguard. Sometimes, David strays off-base in his reporting. Once in awhile, he doesn’t realize he’s ended up way out in left field–as he has on the Measure A battle. (Haven’t you ever just wanted to SHAKE HIM!?) So, I’m interested in the topic as long as he’s reporting on it.[/quote]
My continued interest in this matter is twofold: 1) The Vanguard’s unfair trashing of Kuhlman (and others) for expressing opinions, contrary to the rosy pictures painted for the public by the school district, based on reasonable assumptions taken directly from an Enterprise article; 2) the lack of objectivity by the Vanguard in regard to Measure A/school district decisions w/o proper investigation/contemplation/objectivity.
To explain further:
It is important to report on issues as factually as possible; separate opinion from fact; and remain civil to those who disagree. It is entirely possible to deplore the school district for the way it handled Measure A, but still support approval of Measure A. In fact, what I have been so diligently trying to do, w/o much success it would seem, is point out the school district’s deficiencies, in the hope they will not make the same mistakes again. We have parcel tax extensions coming up – Measure A only just barely passed. If the school district wants to assure success in the future with its advocacy of parcel tax extensions, it is imperative for them to clean up their act and remain above board. As dmg has said many times before, it is all about PROCESS, PROCESS, PROCESS.
Mr. Kuhlman’s letter was well written, pointed out important issues, and the school district has as yet to clarify. The school district then conveniently/self-servingly rescinded 61 teacher lay-off notices, but it is not clear if that was a political maneuver and merely illusory, only to have the lay-off notices reinstated at a later time when the next set of parcel taxes are up for renewal. Shouldn’t the lay-off notices have been kept in place until the actual state budget is approved and private fund- raising carried out, and the real fiscal situation is fixed/known? After all, is it not very possible some/all of those 61 lay-off notices will have to be reinstated if things don’t go well?
[quote]The comments that they “had no alternative but to rescind the layoff notices” and that they are “covering their political butts” and “they do not dare not rescind the layoff notices if they know what is good for them” are superfluous, vitriolic, and a but ridiculous given that saving teacher and other support positions was the stated goal of measure A, not something that was done to make them look good.[/quote]
And the Vanguard’s responses weren’t equally “superfluous, vitriolic and a bit ridiculous” – as well as unfair? To me, that is the crux of the issue. The Vanguard viciously and preemptively went after Kuhlman, attributing to him things he didn’t even say, bc it would appear the school district can do no wrong according to the Vanguard. Those who supported Kuhlman’s questioning of the school district were also viciously attacked in the Vanguard(remember the “duh” comment?). But if we were to all take a step back and view the matter objectively, it would seem the school district needs to provide some clarification. Even you said as much…
ERM: [i]The school district then conveniently/self-servingly rescinded 61 teacher lay-off notices, but it is not clear if that was a political maneuver and merely illusory, only to have the lay-off notices reinstated at a later time when the next set of parcel taxes are up for renewal. Shouldn’t the lay-off notices have been kept in place until the actual state budget is approved and private fund- raising carried out, and the real fiscal situation is fixed/known? After all, is it not very possible some/all of those 61 lay-off notices will have to be reinstated if things don’t go well?[/i]
May 15 is a “drop-dead” date for signing teachers on for the following year. I think the district had to honor that date with respect to the passage of Measure A. March 15 is a warning that the pink slipped teachers don’t have a guaranteed job the following year based on the proposed budget.
May 15 is a final notice, based on the May revise (which is coming out on Monday), and any teacher whose pink slip isn’t rescinded should start looking for other options come next fall. The screwy problem with all this is that school districts still have to plan for the following school year, even if the state hasn’t passed the budget. School district budget planning goes by what the governor proposes, unless somehow the legislature passes the budget early.
In some special circumstances, school districts can issue emergency layoffs of teachers beyond the May 15 deadline, but it becomes progressively difficult to do so. The link that I posted as the first comment explains that the sequence of deadlines that must be followed is out of sync with reality.
School districts have to operate by more conservative budgeting principles than does the state. Yes, there will probably be another bunch of pink slips issued next year if a parcel tax renewal isn’t passed by the March 15 deadline. The district isn’t allowed to budget on money that isn’t guaranteed. You can suggest that there is cynical political manipulation going on, but there are mandated deadlines and rules that are being followed. If they aren’t followed, then the Davis schools risk go under state control, and then the budget is designed without regard to local interests.
I highly doubt that the district will reinstate any layoff notices this year. The Davis school district budgeted based on the assumption of an all-cuts budget from the state. That’s where we’re heading right now.
ERM
I agree with you that there are sometimes derisive or dismissive comments made by David. This is equally true from many others.
Examples as I noted above and the common use of “LOL” and similar comments.
I realize that this is only one woman’s point of view, but I would find it preferable if both sides were to attempt to put forth their own point of view, and make rebuttals of others points without resorting to stereotypical terms such as ” PC” or “right wing” which tend to polarize rather than elevate the discussion.
medwoman and Elaine: I agree.
David and wdf1: What happens if we find ourselves with no pink slip notices in force and a more dramatic cutback than we expected in funds from the state after all the deadlines have passed?
[i]What happens if we find ourselves with no pink slip notices in force and a more dramatic cutback than we expected in funds from the state after all the deadlines have passed?[/i]
I don’t know all the codes and law in play, but I believe that’s when the district could likely bring on more pink slips after the May 15 deadline.
One thing to keep in mind is that although that situation would be tough for DJUSD, it would be more devastating to most other districts in the state.
I don’t think that all of the legislators necessary realize that there is strong statewide support to keep K-12 adequately funded. I think that was part of the reason that the Republicans didn’t make a stronger showing in the legislative elections in 2010. In fact, the Republican lost Roger Niello’s assembly seat to the Dems for a net overall loss.