School district spending

Local teacher union press release outlines questionable school district spending:

2010-2011 the district spent $278,364 on legal bills to Harris and Company (Vancouver), money that could have been spent on sports equipment, science lab equipment, technology, or library books.
The district also is spending $800 on a consultant (even thought they have a complete complement of upper management people).

Many questions could and should be asked by local taxpayers. I hope the local papers run the story based on the teacher’s press release.

[quote=“newtpeople”]Local teacher union press release outlines questionable school district spending:

2010-2011 the district spent $278,364 on legal bills to Harris and Company (Vancouver), money that could have been spent on sports equipment, science lab equipment, technology, or library books.
The district also is spending $800 on a consultant (even thought they have a complete complement of upper management people).

Many questions could and should be asked by local taxpayers. I hope the local papers run the story based on the teacher’s press release.[/quote]

Do you have a link to the press release? If so, post it here for us all to read.

Looks like the advertorial thing that arrives on Wednesdays got your memo…

thenorthernview.com/breaking … 96681.html

Discuss at length

Has anything changed since 2010? Heavy cost of education consultants in Prince Rupert

I concluded at the time that since Doi had recommended Stigant, his assistant superintendent in Okanagan Skaha for seven years prior to Stigant’s retirement in 2006, and Hauptman, who had been Okanagan Skaha’s director of instruction, that he had done the work free of charge.

Or maybe … has anything changed since 2009?

Nothing was done about it then, why does anyone expect anything to be done about it now? That would be admitting something was wrong in the first place, no? Best to just keep on doing what you’ve always done.

From 2010: "At a time when three elementary schools are studied for possible closure in Prince Rupert, their board paid an acting superintendent $800 per day for his services and another consultant $23,000 to help find a replacement for a superintendent who was abruptly replaced (at a cost of $144,802 for the remainder of his contract).

The two consultants are familiar to Herald readers – Dave Stigant and Gary Doi, both who were previously employed here by School District 67."

Unless it has something to do with feral cats or a fender bender at Lester…don’t expect any serious coverage from NV.

Wait… someone hit a feral cat with their fender at the Lester Center? It must have been the Port’s fault.

… Oh wait…

  1. I have a lot of respect for many of the people at the board office and on the school board. But, I also believe that this an extremely important story that needs more attention than it has been given. It needs to be resolved.

  2. What exactly does a consultant do? When Mr. Stigant was first hired, his job was to find a replacement for the departing Mr. Mercer. Now some people may disagree, but I am willing to concede that hiring a consultant to find a new superintendent is an appropriate use of money. BUT, to be continually consulted at a cost of some $125,000+/per year for four years after the new superintendent has been hired… Let’s just say, the optics are poor.

  3. In the 38 years I have been in Rupert, the school district administration has always included a superintendent and an assistant superintendent and/or a director of instruction. In other words two or three people. When Mr Mercer was here, I believe there were only two people. The past couple of years we had 2.5 people PLUS the essentially full time consultant. In the spring, the school board hired a full time Human Resources person and then in June changed the half time director of instruction into a full time assistant superintendent. So we are back to three full time people. This despite the fact that we have closed three schools, enrollment and teaching and support staffs are smaller, and we don’t have the same working relationship with the village schools. AND, for some reason, we still appear to need the $100,000+/year consultant. Again, the optics are all wrong.

  4. Whose advice led to the decisions to make the changes that led to grievances? Can these problems be resolved by the two sides sitting down and hashing it out without the huge expense of going through the highly expensive grievance procedure?

  5. People can debate all day on whether or not the money spent on a consultant is money well spent. But there will be a debate and resentment. Money spent on classrooms and students and supplies and programs and adding teachers and support staff is also money well spent without the debate.

  6. Finally, and as trivial as this may sound, but I ask it in all seriousness, how do you bill for 15.79 or 8.74 days. How long is .79 of a day?

I’m not sure I understand, so please fill me in if I’m misunderstanding this…

  • Mr. Mercer “terminated” and paid out his contract.
  • Mr. Stigant hired as temporary superintendent? Recommended by Mr. Doi, who was very well paid to “find” Mr. Stigant.
  • Mr. Doi then hired to find a permanent superintendent. He was supposed to find a list of names, but only comes up with one? He “found” Ms. Hauptman.

Both Ms. Hauptman & Mr. Stigant were former colleagues of Mr. Doi – they all worked together in the same office? Yet somehow it cost a heck of a lot of money for Mr. Doi to “find” these ideal candidates.

Do I have that right, or am I getting the order wrong?

Of course they need to keep paying him, because to all of a sudden not require him would be admitting they really didn’t need him in the first place, right? What does he do? He validates the need to have hired him in the first place. That’s worth $800 a day.

Can you file grievances on grievances… Exponential grievances for everyone!

Anyways, the world would have better luck having Captain Kirk and Captain Picard sing a duet in the new Star Trek film scheduled for 2013.

I’ll be happy when everything is resolved and we can turn our attention to Enbridge and the rest of the new industries wanting to come here!

Remember… the sky is not blue.

[quote=“Sir Ryan of Last”]

Can you file grievances on grievances… Exponential grievances for everyone!

Anyways, the world would have better luck having Captain Kirk and Captain Picard sing a duet in the new Star Trek film scheduled for 2013.

I’ll be happy when everything is resolved and we can turn our attention to Enbridge and the rest of the new industries wanting to come here!

Remember… the sky is not blue.[/quote]

Sometimes I can never figure out if somebody is mocking, making light of what I consider an important story. My point: we have more grievances now than we have had in the past. Who is advising the board to make the decisions that are leading to the grievances? The union is not responding to past complaints from five and six years ago. They are responding to the present.

Just a personal observation, but I am of the opinion that the board-union working relationship is as low as I can remember. I think that alone - not just the incredible amount of money that has been spent - makes this an issue that needs immediate attention.

[quote=“DWhite”]

Can you file grievances on grievances… Exponential grievances for everyone!

Anyways, the world would have better luck having Captain Kirk and Captain Picard sing a duet in the new Star Trek film scheduled for 2013.

I’ll be happy when everything is resolved and we can turn our attention to Enbridge and the rest of the new industries wanting to come here!

Remember… the sky is not blue.

Sometimes I can never figure out if somebody is mocking, making light of what I consider an important story. My point: we have more grievances now than we have had in the past. Who is advising the board to make the decisions that are leading to the grievances? The union is not responding to past complaints from five and six years ago. They are responding to the present.

Just a personal observation, but I am of the opinion that the board-union working relationship is as low as I can remember. I think that alone - not just the incredible amount of money that has been spent - makes this an issue that needs immediate attention.[/quote]

Part of the problem could also be that, in light of the bitter collective agreement battle, the union is tossing as many grievances at management as they can, out of spite. I’m not saying they are, as I’m not privy to the grievances, but it isn’t uncommon.

[quote=“drummerboy”]

Part of the problem could also be that, in light of the bitter collective agreement battle, the union is tossing as many grievances at management as they can, out of spite. I’m not saying they are, as I’m not privy to the grievances, but it isn’t uncommon.[/quote]

I am not privy to the grievances either but the bitter collective agreement battle was with the provincial government. These grievances are with the local school board. I don’t think they are connected at all.

But the grievances are a side issue. Let’s try this one more time.

A consultant is hired to find a superintendent to replace Eric Mercer. I have no problem with the use of a consultant in this case although Bob Loblaw’s outline does pose some concerns. A district sometimes does not have the time, personnel, expertise etc. to complete a job so consultants are hired. Not too long ago consultants were used to suggest various ways that the schools could be configured to address the problem of declining enrollment. A very specific task is given and when the job is completed the consultants are no longer necessary.

In this case, we needed to find a superintendent. One was found, so the job should be over. But the consultant has been retained. For four years. At a cost of over $100,000/year. Despite a board office with a full complement of personnel. And at a time when budgets are constrained.

Am I the only one who thinks the optics are lousy.

My question to the School Board is much more basic:

  1. Why hire a consultant (or consultants) for the same services that are provided for free by a BCSEA-approved website that caters to school districts for free?
  2. Why hire a consultant to provide ongoing training for the initial hire?
  3. Why keep a consultant(s) to hire/train subsequent appointments (case in point, Director of Instruction) that have been replaced numerous times for various reasons?
  4. Remember, they were hired from within the district!)
  5. In the real work world, I have never heard of a 4-year training period for management positions. They get a ‘probationary period’ to show positive results or thyy’re replaced. Maybe the new, industry-proven HR Director can bring the Board out of their "La-La land.

Are the Board minutes available online for the voting public?

There has not be alot of stabilty in the senior adminstration fo the School District during the past decade. It does not reflect well on the competency of the School Board to hire people and then support them.

Secreatry Treasuers

Name Employment
Dan Rodin 2001 - 2007
Kim Morisson 2007 - 2009
Cam McIntryre 2009 - TBA

Superintendents of School

Bob David 1997? - 2001
Peter Porte 2002 - 2004
Brian Kangas 2004 - 2007
Eric Mercer 2007 - 2009
Lynn Hauptman 2009 - TBA

Other Administation

Brian Kangas 1999- 2004 Director of Instruction
Bill Ford 2005-2007 Director of Instruction (or something)
Leah Robinson 2008 - 2010 Assistant Superintendent of Schools ( on paid leave for third year)
Marcy Van Koughett 2009 - 2010 1/2 Human Resources Director
Sandy Jones 2010 - TBA Director of Instruction ( I think)

Consultant

Gary Doi 2008
Dave Stigant 2008 - TBA

Mr. Stigant was the superintendent after Mr. Mercer.

The issue about the consultants, especially Mr. Doi & Mr. Stigant, was that they both worked closely with each other, and with Ms. Hauptman.

Mr. Doi, for example, was well paid to search for a list of candidates when he proposed Ms. Hauptman. I don’t know how extensive of a search it was, but it cost a lot of money.

Mr. Stigant was superintendent, and then came back as a consultant.

Both of them were recommended by Mr. Doi: As Janet Steffenhagen wrote some years ago: “I concluded at the time that since Doi had recommended Stigant, his assistant superintendent in Okanagan Skaha for seven years prior to Stigant’s retirement in 2006, and Hauptman, who had been Okanagan Skaha’s director of instruction, that he had done the work free of charge.”

Of course, nothing was done free of charge, was it?

The following is a discussion forum debating the Doi, Stigant and Hauptman issue(s) at Pentiction Skaha and Prince Rupert school districts.

forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.ph … 0&start=15

Thanks, there was an updated link to Janet Steffenhagen’s 2010 post.

blogs.vancouversun.com/2010/03/1 … ce-rupert/

It cost the district $23,000 for Mr. Doi to recommend Mr. Stigant and Ms. Hauptman. These were two people he worked closely with. Did he even interview others? Did the board interview others, or did they just take his word for it?

I was told by somebody who sat on the selection committee that made Ms. Hauptmann our current superintendent that Mr. Doi suggested to the committee to hire Ms. Hauptmann. That was the only candidate he proposed to them. He told them if they didn’t want to hire her he would give them the resumes of the other candidates. Whether he had others lined up is unknown, since the committee followed his advice and she became superintendent.