Another take on PPS Superintendent’s latest move
Isaac Laquedem, a PDX blogger I hold in high esteem, argues in a post today that Phillips is making a mistake – not in firing unpopular HR head Steve Goldschmidt (which he predicted a few months back), but by not honoring his $357,000 previously-negotiated severance package. He agrees that “yes, it’s a lavish severance provision; yes, the district didn’t have to put that into his contract; and yes, it’s a waste of money” – all points I agree with him wholeheartedly on, of course.
Here’s where we differ. Isaac says that “she should have the district pay up…the government should honor its contracts.” And in most cases, I’d agree with him here as well.
BUT I believe Phillips is using this dismissal to send a very clear message to several groups. And while Isaac lives in a black and white world where a contract is a contract – I come from the world where perceptions matter – and need to be as carefully managed as any contractural obligation.
I believe here’s what she’s telling us:
To teachers, staff, and union officials: “I get it. I heard you. He’s gone. And there won’t be more like him here.”
To taxpayers without kids in the system (many still grumbling about the ITax: “I hear you about financial accountability. There will be no more golden parachutes. And I’ll clean out my own house before asking for future handouts.”
And to parents who’ve been watching and waiting to see if she’d take on the 600-lb elephants in the middle of the room: “See, I’m willing to do what needs to be done.”
As Isaac says, it was Canada’s contract. It’ll be no skin off her nose if the district eventually has to pony up. And I do believe it’s all but certain Goldschmidt will get some, if not all, of a severance package (unless, of course, there’s another scandal lurking in the wings.)
But don’t think she’s not using this opportunity to send some very clear messages.
I, for one, am listening. Applauding. And waiting for the next move.
This decision is from the same Superintendent that threatened to act unlawfully just before the ITax. The state statues require a minimum number of teaching days and Ms. Phillips virtually promised to cut days . . . instead of presenting labor with a last best offer that fit within the district’s budget and kept schools open.
The message is clear all right, and it is blanket support for PAT members who are also members of the tier-one PERS statewide company union.
There is a thousand fold larger pile of money on the table than Steve’s salary. It is sitting in an account controlled by the state treasurer . . . and is derived from borrowed dollars. Tier-three (PERS status) teachers have a claim to that money too and they are being denied representation by all.
The district prohibited me from delivering a one page flier to each of the new teachers at their August orientation while they paid for the new recruits to be paid while they listened for two and half hours of stuff from PAT.
Accountability has been thrown out long ago in favor of outright thievery masquerading as public policy.
Betsy-
You have captured my sentiments exactly…and did it much more succinctly than I did on Issac’s site.
Is Steve’s salary the only one that concerns you? His salary would not cause schools to close 5 weeks early. The few administrators that the policy change applies to do not add up to big dollars in relation to the total budget.
If there is real support for labor then I expect an immediate return to negotiations by the district with the fired janitors.
The savings from the decision to contract out janitorial services were include in the budget and thus raised the amount of money that was available for PAT members. This item is fully within the scope of the Local Budget Law that is applicable to the Portland Public School District and thus is not something that can be blamed on the state. PAT should have intervened to support the janitors, so as to assure consistent application of labor law. Instead, PAT must have been on Steve’s side to smash labor rights. This is surely a curious twist that makes a mockery of claims that the district and the teachers union have not been cooperative.
Just before the vote on the Itax it was Vicki that came out and threatened to call a strike to commence five weeks before the end of the school year. The call for a strike is reserved for the PAT members under state law, and Vicki saved them the embarrassment and head ache.
Vicki does seem to favor political statements, notwithstanding the unlawfulness of her conduct. This does not enhance accountability.
(There is still that 400 million dollars to retrieve from the state . . . leaving that 400 million dollars off the table for the local budget is a much bigger political statement than firing Stave.)