By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
"The cause of the deficit," Dahlander concluded, "is much more complex than that."
Yeah. Yes. No. The hiring process at DISD is sort of fungible. After the summer hires Dahlander was talking about, hundreds more hires were made on Olson's watch. So which ones put the district over the top, above its so-called "staffing ratios"? The ones before she came on board? Or the ones after?
At various points along the way Jack Lowe and Superintendent Michael Hinojosa have argued that the staffing ratios were at the heart of the whole thing, when they weren't arguing it was daffy accountants or bad computers.
The staffing ratios, set out in a manual, define exactly how many teachers should be on the staff of each school based on the number of students per school and on special needs, special programs, special factors, blah-blah. It's a precise formula. When the bottom fell out and the district got caught with no pants to put on, one of the more alarming discoveries was that the overall staff was far more numerous than called for by the formula.
I read Dahlander's note. I called and left a message for Olson. I went back and reviewed the portion of my notes regarding a school board meeting last September when trustee Ron Price tried to get Olson to explain why she had authorized hiring that put the district's total staff far above levels prescribed by the ratio manual.
Price asked her how principals get new or extra teachers for their schools. What's the drill?
Olson, a retired army colonel, answered with military precision. She explained that principals don't go to the personnel office to request more teachers. They go to the budget office. The budget office OKs each hire before personnel ever hears about it.
"Once that position was allocated and loaded into the system," Olson said, "the principal would call HD [personnel] and say, 'I have authorization by budget to hire another individual. Would you please put it on the vacancy list and go out and find us a teacher?'"
Olson said, "We did not hire folks without proper allocations from the budget department. Our staff is actually evaluated on whether they stay within the confines of the allocated, budgeted positions of the district."
Price then asked a great question. What if the budget office were wrong? What if budget somehow made a mistake? Perhaps budget might approve hiring levels that exceed the staffing ratios. What did Olson's people do in order to reconcile the level of hiring with the formula set forth in the hiring ratios manual?
"We in HD did not budget to the formula [inaudible]," she said. "We budgeted to the budget allocation. It was budget's responsibility to take it from the formula to the budget. Our staffing managers do not have that manual nor do they look at that to see what campuses are authorized."
Price was clearly nonplussed. "So HD never had the staffing allocation?" he asked.
"Not to my knowledge," she said. "I've not seen it. No, sir."
That was the exchange I found in my notes last week after hearing from Dahlander. No sooner had I finished listening to my recording of the meeting to confirm the accuracy of my notes than my desk phone rang, and who should be on the other end but Colonel Olson? I was taken aback. Top DISD people never call back. They always make poor Dahlander carry water for them.
Olson was direct, clear and to the point. She and I went back over the exchange that I had just listened to from the board meeting, and she explained the process in even greater detail, which I will spare you.
Basically it came to this: Once a principal had persuaded the budget people to approve a new position, that new position was represented as a plus sign on a form. When the personnel people saw the plus sign on the form, they filled the position. It was not their place, nor did they have the means or the authority or any direction to ask questions or do anything else.
Plus sign. New position. Fill it.
This "system" of fractured responsibility was—is—wedded to a budgeting process that has no discipline built into it. None. All of the incentives and the permissions are for spending, growing, fattening. Nowhere does the system pick up a manual, do a couple of quick calculations and then say, "Nix that. Forget it. Put it out of your mind. It's over. Shut up."
That truly is not the fault of Olson. On the phone, as she did in the meeting where I watched her, she came across as bright and competent. I know lots of really smart people who work at DISD.
The problem is not with them; it's with the really stupid people at the top. Especially on the board. Also in the group of old, rich "business leader" geezers who keep poking their noses in so they can put their thumbs on the scale when the building contracts are handed out.
All kinds of bad things happen when you have dumbbells at the top. Bad news can't move uphill. Nobody at the top has the energy or the sense to come downhill and look around.
That's the real story. I don't care how many new gunslingers they hire. DISD is dead in the head. Until that changes, there is no story.