...lead to head-scratching confusion

By ABBY FOX

The school committee’s vote Tuesday night – actually, three different motions and three votes – to rethink administrators’ salaries, left the few members of the public who were there with one question: what just happened? First, member Skip O’Day made a motion to give administrators a 2.4-percent raise this year and a 2.4-percent raise next year, with a fifteen-percent co-share this year and a 20 percent co-share next year, with $125 in buyback reductions the first year, followed by $500 the second year. He and member Merrill Friedemann thought administrators didn’t need to get the same 2.7-percent increase as the teachers have received.

So why re-visit the matter, after already voting on it?

“I didn’t understand what we voted on,” member Jean Ann Guliano said, while Friedemann shot back that she wasn’t being straightforward. “There was no ambiguity,” Friedemann said. “How could you not understand? Maryanne Crawford [the director of administration] was very clear.”

At this meeting, though, O’Day’s first motion failed, 4-3, because Guliano, Anne Palumbo and Susan Records were against, with Records saying 20 percent was too high and Guliano and Palumbo saying 2.4 percent for the first year wasn’t high enough.

Next, Guliano made a motion for a 2.5-percent raise for this year and next year, with a fifteen-percent co-share this year, and a 20-percent co-share next year, with $125 in buy back reductions this year and $500 next year. Guliano said the next day she made that motion as a compromise between the 2.4-percent approved in April and the 2.7-percent that the teachers have received. Her motion failed, because only Guliano and Palumbo, voted for it.

Finally, O’Day made a motion for next year only, of a 2.4-percent salary increase, with a 20- percent co-share and a $500 reduction in buy backs. It was identical to the motion made at the last meeting, and it passed, with Guliano, member Mary Ellen Winters, chair Sue Cienki and O’Day voting in favor.

Cienki and Winters didn’t explain their vote, while Guliano said she went with 2.4 in the end because “I thought this was the best we were ever going to get.”

 The committee decided, for a reason that could be described as arbitrary, to wait until the May 20 meeting to vote about raises for this school year, even though the year is almost over.

Guliano said after the meeting that she wanted to give a raise closer to the 2.7-percent the administrators were asking for because “they took on a lot of extra responsibility during the teacher strike and they deserve it.” But, “now we’re left with the administrators hanging and that’s not fair to them. Perhaps I didn’t fight harder. I should have.” (Note: no administrator was at the meeting in the audience to explain what administrators actually wanted.)

The meeting’s cacophony, with loud voices, interruptions and even the occasional giggle, made it hard to decipher what each member was doing. Records maintained that 20 percent for co-share is “over-the-top.” Friedemann castigated everyone for re-voting because of pressure from administrators, saying “this is unreal,” and “this is unbelievable.” And Cienki, as chair, was eager to hustle the committee to the next agenda item.

“They go so fast,” clerk Virginia Giuliani said, the next day.

After the meeting adjourned, reporters standing in the parking lot noticed four committee members were chatting in the lobby with Superintendent Charlie Meyers. When reporters knocked on the door, finding it locked, the door opened and they asked why people talking privately in a de-facto meeting. Guliano said they weren’t discussing business, just listening to Meyers, and the group dispersed.

Switching to Aramark

Rhode Island Department of Education Finance Director Carolyn Dais walked the committee through the bid process that led the department to go with Aramark for a statewide bid for food services. Aramark was the top candidate among three, including Chartwells and Sodexho, the company the school is using now.

The committee voted to engage in conversations with Aramark and hop onto the statewide bid.

Director of Administration Maryanne Crawford said afterward that it was too soon to say what the costs would be. She didn’t specify how Aramark’s service would be different from Sodexho, other than her hope that this be a “seamless transition,” and that Aramark would be able to do new things such as allow parents to purchase children’s lunches online.

“They’re a leader in the industry,” Meyers said. Friedemann said she had two concerns: no deficit, and “good food for the kids.” Dais told the committee, “I think you’re going to be very happy.”

Mini-grants planned

Records and Cienki are taking money out of their monthly $150 salary as committee members to start up a “mini-grant” program for next school year, where teachers can be rewarded for innovation in the classroom. Members estimate they can give each school $500 to $2,000 to inspire teachers.

Out-of-district re-organizing

High school administrators are exploring the potential of bringing a few of the students who need out-of-district tuition for special needs back into East Greenwich.

At this week’s meeting, committee members gave them the go-ahead to keep working out the alternative learning program proposal. It would require a new hire, but not job description has been finalized yet, they said.

Administrators talked about transitioning students back into the mainstream, integrating counseling with academic work and providing “opportunity for credit recovery” so students can graduate on time.

It’s not a program for all special needs students, but it would help as many as eight of them, they said.

It’s estimated the district can save as much as $19,483 by taking three students, for example, back into the district.