Saturday, November 08, 2008

I want to know who s/he is.

Winston Brooks is pretty sure that the APS has too many employees. link

He is not sure whether the district has "too many administrators, too many teachers, or too many custodians".

Over the last year, we paid some senior APS administrator
more than a hundred thousand dollars
to make sure that
we had exactly the right number of administrators,
and teachers, and custodians.

Not only did s/he not get the proportions right, but
s/he doesn't even know in which direction they are skewed.

Either that, or s/he got the proportions wrong,
knows which way it is skewed (too many administrators),
but won't tell Winston Brooks.

So Winston Brooks has to show his ass to stakeholders
and reveal that nobody in his entire administration
has the slightest idea whether they have

"too many administrators, too many teachers,
or too many custodians".

If I were Winston, and somebody did that to me,
I would be pissed.

In fact, I would be so pissed that I would name the name
of the APS senior administrator who was paid $100K
to keep track of administrators, and teachers, and custodians,

but did not.

Then I would fire him, or her
for their incompetence.

This whole picture is a perfect illustration of the need for
a full scale accountability audit of the leadership of the APS.

It is also a perfect illustration of their need to prevent that audit.
And of their need to keep the need for an audit, secret from stakeholders.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The number of appropriate administrators, custodians and teachers depends upon funding levels, is what HR will say, don't you think?

The number of police and security and other ancillary roles, often are determined by pay levels that the employees themselves can influence through Association or Union membership. If they prove to HR that they do duties above and beyond the present job description, they can get pay bumps. Those pay bumps mean they will not get much more help, that staff levels will stagnate. That as people leave, they may even eliminate positions.

Many factors go into determining staff levels. But for Brooks to ADMIT there is a lot of fat to be cut? Sounds like a Brooksian Revolution - he will take down low hanging and opposing fruit in key posititions, then install people loyal to him.

Then, he will have done something, he will make an announcement about PLEADING with the unions to accept no raises so they can help the KIDS!

Oh wait, I think it is a good thing for anyone already making over 50k to accept no pay increases, but Orwell's ghost would kick my ass if I thought this was anything else but a power play and switching of one Good Old Boy Team to another.

Brooks could try something the military did for one year in the Air Guard - everyone got a specific amount of money for a raise, they said "we have this much money for raises, eryone gets an equal share in actual dollar amount, not a percentage of pay."

that meant everyone got an equal amount dollar raise, instead of the 100k/year making administrator recieving a 10 thousand dollar raise and the EA making 15k/year getting a 1500 dollar raise. Both at ten percent, but always widening the pay gsp? Or split the cash equally, or even let the EAs and other people making under 50k "catch up" before any raises occur for the best paid APS Employees?