By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, June 14 at 11:03 AM
Representatives from several labor unions addressed the school board yesterday in opposition to a proposal to look at bringing the district's maintenance work back in-house and ending a contract with Sodexho USA, the company which SLPS outsourced its maintenance work to two years ago.
Rudy Smith, of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 562, asked the board if SLPS would honor the raises already agreed upon between the unions and Sodexho if their workers again became employees of the district.
"Would they guarantee re-employeement or will they have to re-apply for their jobs and be treated like the teachers?" asked Smith.
The contract with Sodexho has been a source of controversy since it was first entered into by former Superintendent Bill Roberti and the management firm that he worked for. Many parents, teachers and board members have been critical of the level of service that the company has supplied to SLPS.
Many point to the maintenance issues at Cleveland High School which have led to the students being relocated as an example of the neglect which has occured at some schools under Sodexho's watch.
Near the end of last night's meeting, the board approved a motion by Peter Downs to ask the superintendent to present to the board in September a report on the feasability of bringing those employees back in-house.
Board member Bob Archibald said the move undermined the superintendent, who he said had already promised to do such a study.
The board passed the motion 4-3 with board members Archibald, Ron Jackson and Flint Fowler voting against it.
7 Comments:
Yet again, members Archibald and Jackson have the opportunity to ensure fiscal responsibility by reviewing a contractor's win-fall contract, but they take the road too often traveled (at least by them) and fail to vote for fiscal responsibility.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:03:00 PM
Great editing and shooting on these videos Antonio. This Sodexho trouble I'm sure is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unaccountable expenditures in the school budget.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:06:00 PM
We cannot be so quick to put all of the maintenance problems that district has had over the years on to Sodexho who was thrown into a situation I am sure they were truly unaware of. At the same time each building needs an engineer for anything else to make sure the heat is on and those schools fortunate to have air conditioning that it is working properly. However, much of the maintenance that these engineers were required to do was not done. Not to mention how many of these building engineers actually knew what they were doing. Most of the maintenance around the schools could have been corrected. But when talking with our building engineer all I got were excuses about how they didn’t have anything to work with. The district does not allow them to work beyond changing light bulbs or turning on the heat. When it came to something about fixing a sink, clearing or fixing gutters, or even re-hanging doors that do not close properly (which I fixed six of them myself) he had to call building and maintenance for the work to be done. This could take weeks, months, or even a year, if it got done at all. I work in one of the older school buildings and most of the time I found the engineer sitting in his office watching television. He still got paid for what turning a switch on and off for heat or changing light bulbs. Why is it that things have to get so bad before something actually gets done? Most of the maintenance issues could have been long corrected before bringing Sodexho on board.
If the district does decide to keep Sodexho then they need to hire more engineers that just the reported eight for all of the school. During the winter months my room barely reach 50ºF for two weeks. That sure helped in student learning and classroom management. Then we the heat did get turned on it was in the 80ºF. It wasn’t until after the winter break did the temperature stay at a comfortable level. That is only one of the many problems. The Sodexho employees who I encountered were saying much of the same things I was hearing when the engineers were in house. One person would come out and say they were not responsible for the leaky roof or clearing the gutters, fixing doors that do not close properly, shades that no longer continue to work. It was someone else’s job to fix that. I am sure the Unions love it because many of the problems that could have been fixed have not but they still get paid. When is this district going hold people responsible/accountable for the job that they were hired to do? What is Sodexho actually suppose to be fixing and maintaining? So before a new contract is issued evaluate what they have or have not done during the past two years. But keep in mind the issues that are facing Cleveland and many other St. Louis Schools were due to many years of neglect, these maintenance issues just didn’t happen during the last two years.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:49:00 PM
We cannot be so quick to put all of the maintenance problems that district has had over the years on to Sodexho who was thrown into a situation I am sure they were truly unaware of. At the same time each building needs an engineer for anything else to make sure the heat is on and those schools fortunate to have air conditioning that it is working properly. However, much of the maintenance that these engineers were required to do was not done. Not to mention how many of these building engineers actually knew what they were doing. Most of the maintenance around the schools could have been corrected. But when talking with our building engineer all I got were excuses about how they didn’t have anything to work with. The district does not allow them to work beyond changing light bulbs or turning on the heat. When it came to something about fixing a sink, clearing or fixing gutters, or even re-hanging doors that do not close properly (which I fixed six of them myself) he had to call building and maintenance for the work to be done. This could take weeks, months, or even a year, if it got done at all. I work in one of the older school buildings and most of the time I found the engineer sitting in his office watching television. He still got paid for what turning a switch on and off for heat or changing light bulbs. Why is it that things have to get so bad before something actually gets done? Most of the maintenance issues could have been long corrected before bringing Sodexho on board.
If the district does decide to keep Sodexho then they need to hire more engineers that just the reported eight for all of the school. During the winter months my room barely reach 50ºF for two weeks. That sure helped in student learning and classroom management. Then we the heat did get turned on it was in the 80ºF. It wasn’t until after the winter break did the temperature stay at a comfortable level. That is only one of the many problems. The Sodexho employees who I encountered were saying much of the same things I was hearing when the engineers were in house. One person would come out and say they were not responsible for the leaky roof or clearing the gutters, fixing doors that do not close properly, shades that no longer continue to work. It was someone else’s job to fix that. I am sure the Unions love it because many of the problems that could have been fixed have not but they still get paid. When is this district going hold people responsible/accountable for the job that they were hired to do? What is Sodexho actually suppose to be fixing and maintaining? So before a new contract is issued evaluate what they have or have not done during the past two years. But keep in mind the issues that are facing Cleveland and many other St. Louis Schools were due to many years of neglect, these maintenance issues just didn’t happen during the last two years.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:50:00 PM
I agree. The easy target is Sodexho, but they are just the hired hand. They do not run the operation nor do they have the ability to do what they do regardless of wht the district wants. The root of the problem lies in the decision makers at the board. When the Sodexho contract was signed, several options for levels of service were presented to the Board. They chose the cheapest one. To get the job done like the community wants, it is going to cost more, regardless of who does it. Maybe it's time for the Board to stand up and be accountable for its actions and not hide behind the agreed upon actions of a contractor.
Whether you bring the employees back in house or continue with Sodexho is not the real issue. What is missing is a plan which outlines what you want done, what will it take to accomplish the goal, how much it will cost to reach the goal and do you have the money to pay for it.
Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:51:00 AM
Good points by all of the above. Yes the problems existed pre-Sodexho, but Sodexho is not the answer. Maintenance had some of the best employees that I ever had the pleasure to work with. They also had some of the worst. I base this on my private sector experience on some of the larger projects foreign and domestic. Maintenance also had one of the finest leaders I've ever seen until he tragically died. This was when downtown administrators decided to intervene and subject themselves to appointing the most inept indivuals available who lobbied for jobs because the were, quite frankly, unemployable anywhere else. Department Directors recommendations and interview scores were changed to hire the friends of the Human Resource Director and the Superintendent. Once the patronage employees were in place they did little to no work and were deemed "untouchable". Some of the "do nothing" employees are still "working" for Sodexho and there is little anybody will do to correct this situation. The supervisors are now backed into a corner where the have to use their worst employees for the easiest and most hideable task. There are a few that don't have to do anything because they won't do anything and nobody is going to make them do anything because the inmates are running the institution. I clearly remember one incident when an employee was suppose to check the heat of a building daily for over a week. Many hours (including overtime) were paid out to have this employee do this task. I had to go to the site for some other business an noticed that the snow on the ground for the past 2 weeks was undisturbed. I questioned the supervisor (parallel position to me) how the building could be checked and overtime charged without leaving footprints in the snow leading to the doors. Within an hour my supervisor directed me to back off and leave it alone.
There is nothing that anyone can do until the decision is made that EVERYONE will be held accountable. As long as administration runs scared from a "possible" repercussion from running a business like a business nothing will change. Has anyone ever thought of having the supervisors track and report production, (without adjusting the numbers)? It won't matter if the staff is in house or hand picked private if no one person is held accountable. In days gone by the commissioner knew the buildings, operated the buildings, and was held responsible for same. This is not a job for a downtown administator. It is a job for a building and business person.
Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:06:00 AM
anonymous 1 wants to hire more engineers!!!! for years the engineers hid behind a lie that it was against the law to not have an engineer. he says if nothing else they need to be there to see if the heat and a/c is working. i think the custodians who have been operating the (low pressure)boilers for years should be capable of knowing if the heat is working. if it is not call a repairman who is QUALIFIED to make the necessary repairs. yes there were a few engineers who knew what they were doing and would work for a living but as anonymous 1 said, most of the time they were in their rooms watching tv. i agree that most of the engineer issues could have been address without sodexho, but when the supt office and human resources insist on a power play by micromanaging something they know NOTHING about, the featherbedding, card carrying chief engineer will call all the shots. why don't they get somebody who knows what they are doing to actually be responsible for the buildings. yes it will require a salary but it don't have to include the overhead and profit that a contractor requires.
Friday, June 16, 2006 5:50:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home