A small group of concerned employees attended the Monday night board of education meeting to express their concerns about the potential outsourcing of their jobs.
The board heard from two members of the "blue group" who said they made significant concessions in order to save their jobs from outsourcing in 2009.
Richard Hall, a bus driver in the district for the past five years, has been a resident of Rochester since 1963.
"I love my job," Hall told the board. "Look at more than just the bottom line ... I'm not sure I could take this kind of pride with a private company."
Hall invited board members to ride along with him any day, beginning at 6:30 a.m., to see how the drivers interact with students.
The board voted 6-0 in favor of a resolution that will seek proposals for outsourcing non-instructional services including custodial, transportation, partial grounds services and parking lot attendants. The existing bargaining groups will also receive the request for proposals.
The state, through the School Aid Bill, has said that seeking competitive bids for noninstructional services valued at $50,000 or more annually is one of five "best fiscal practices" for K-12 public school districts.
According to a memo from Superintendent Fred Clarke, the district could save more than $2 million annually if it outsourced the services.
Jason Grant, a district resident and custodian in the Rochester district, echoed Hall's message. He told the board he takes pride in his job and continues to do it because of the kids.
"I am very disappointed in the direction this board is taking," Grant said.
Energy cost-saving program
The board approved a recommendation to participate in an energy cost-savings program with Energy Education Inc.
The program, developed specifically for schools, will require a new position to be created for an Energy Specialist, the salary and benefits of which will be paid by Energy Education.
During the first six months, the district will be on a "fast track" to savings and will keep every dollar of savings — an estimated $192,000. After the first six months, the district will share savings with Energy Education. The program is set to start Feb. 1; the first two months will focus on filling the position of Energy Specialist.
Energy Education estimates the district will be able to reduce it's consumption by 20 percent. Any upfront investment costs will be covered by Energy Education. The board was assured that student comfort will not be compromised in order to achieve the savings.
Budget amendment, projections
In a 6-0 vote, the board approved the 2011-12 General Fund Budget Amendment presented Monday.
The amendment shows a slight improvement in the projected bottom line due to several factors, including an increase in pupil head count and a reduction in employment benefits. The budget still anticipates a $12.4 million deficit.
The fund balance estimated for June 30, 2012 is $23.4 million or 14.5 percent.
The preliminary projections for 2012-13, however, leave a fund balance of $12.7 million or 7.8 percent. The district requires a fund balance of between 9 and 11 percent in order to avoid borrowing money to meet cash flow obligations.
The budget projections for 2012-13 were presented to the board by Dan Romzek, new superintendent for business, on his first full day on the job. Romzek replaces William Mull, who left to work with Oakland Schools.
The elimination of one-time per-pupil funding, a retirement rate increase and the cost of full-day kindergarten all contribute to next year's shortfall.
Moving forward, the district will meet with school principals and administrators will update the board on March 26, addressing potential cuts. April 16 is the target date for making a decision regarding non-instructional outsourcing. The board must adopt a budget by June 30 for the 2012-13 school year.
I know teachers do not want to take pay or benefit cuts. Perhaps some can suggest other feasible actions our Board can take to bring our expenses in line with our income. Getting more money from the state is NOT a feasible solution as our Board can neither take that action or ensure that the legislature does. I did find another part of this very interesting. The Blue Group took significant pay cuts to save the district $2.2 million a few years ago. Now the district is saying they can still save $2 million a year by privatizing the Blue Group. Does this mean that, until recently, the district was paying about $4.2 million more per year for custodial and janitorial services than what the private sector would have paid? Are there other areas where we would see similar wage differentials?
Some highlights from the article: * The report recommends districts "Perform due diligence before conducting the procurement. Public utility companies, state agencies and others may offer free energy consulting services. Take advantage of free services before entering into costly consulting contracts. Remember, contracts paid for through energy savings are not “free” or “no cost” services." * This Office is aware that it is EEI’s practice to provide specifications and contract documents to school districts for use when procuring energy management services. We have found in several instances, that the specifications EEI provides are proprietary in nature, that is, that specifications are written so restrictively that only EEI can provide the needed services, and that the contract terms strongly protect EEI, perhaps to the detriment of the school districts. This Office recommends against the use of vendor supplied specifications as they often tend to severely limit competition while at the same time increasing the cost to the school districts.
* The ten year projection used to market and sell the program is not guaranteed and the district is contractually obligated to pay EEI’s fee regardless of whether the district ever achieves the projected savings. * In order to receive EEI’s guarantee, EEI clients are required to purchase software, to measure energy savings. The version of the software that EEI recommends, EnergyCAP Professional, is provided by Good Steward Software, LLC, costs $12,000 and requires an annual $2,000 renewal fee. According to some school districts, EEI informed the district that it had to use the EnergyCAP Professional software and that using other software could compromise the program and EEI’s savings guarantee....When this office contacted Good Steward with specific questions about how the software calculates savings, we were referred to EEI. When we asked EEI how clients could get answers about calculations made by the software, EEI stated that they should communicate directly with Good Steward, the software vendor...[N]ot knowing how the savings are calculated makes it impossible for this office to attest to the validity of the savings claims.
Also note: The custodian companies that bid told the district "not to expect the buildings to be as clean" as our own staff keep them. A cheaper lower quality product is NOT a bargain. We also need to look at some other near by districts that outsourced transportation up to 5 years ago now. Some of their "vendors" significantly increased their cost upon contract rewnewal. (after busses wer sold and staff dissapated)