By Eileen Oldfield, Staff Writer
The Board of Education tabled a recommendation appointing several district employees as summer secretaries at its Monday meeting, after concerns about the rates offered to staff members filling the secretary positions.
Under the district’s contract, summer secretary positions are first offered to the district’s current secretaries, and, if declined, are opened to other members of the district staff including higher-paid teachers, according to Human Resources Director Scott Rocco. In the past, the district paid teachers serving as secretaries the per diem rate for a teacher, he said.
”With all due respect to those who are secretaries as a profession, I am astounded by the per diem salaries we are paying for summer employment,” board member Frank Blandino said. “… I find this to be an extreme waste of our district’s funds. I don’t understand, and know we can contractually go outside to get other secretaries at secretarial rates rather than pay people at whatever rate their profession is.”
When creating its contract, the district did not establish salaries for summer work, meaning the employees filling the positions receive a per diem rate based on their job during the school year, District Superintendent Edward Forsthoffer said.
”What we did not negotiate were established salaries for these positions,” Dr. Forsthoffer said. “If we have someone else for these positions, they get their per diem rate.”
Board member Marc Rosenberg asked whether the other employees served as secretaries during the school year, and were receiving the per diem rate for their positions.
Only one person asking for the summer work does not serve as a secretary or a clerk during the normal school year, Dr. Forsthoffer said. With certain positions, the district is required to employ an in-district employee rather than searching for an outside employee. However, Dr. Forsthoffer was not certain whether the summer secretary work fit the regulation, he said.
Judy Haas agreed to amend her motion to pass the recommendation, but noted that the same person had been approved for 20 days of summer secretarial work at the same per diem rate during the May 18 meeting.
”I think we should do the proper thing and if this turns out to be a past practice and this turns out to be a grievance, we’re going to spend more money on legal fees than we are for paying this individual,” Ms. Haas said.
”I really don’t think it’s a good idea as a practice (to pay a per diem rate that does not align with the job an employee is filling) … People should be paid for the work that they do, and I really think the district needs to look into whether or not there could be a different system for summer pay, in which people are paid for their work.”
Mr. Rosenberg echoed Ms. Haas’ sentiments, and noted the possible legal issues regarding when the district could change the summer salary arrangement.
”In all the businesses I’ve ever done, you’re paid by the position, not the person,” Mr. Rosenberg said. “… This person wants to do secretarial work, fine, they get paid for the position, which is secretarial. The idea that you’re being paid a salary that is not commensurate with what you’re doing bothers me.”
Mr. Rocco said he would research the legal portion of the contract, what the district could do, and when, and would present his findings at a later meeting.
