|
|
|
Articles
|
| Council passes personnel reform bill |
VOICE writes, "By VICTORIA SOLOMON
Current Staff Writer
The D.C. Council voted initial approval for contentious legislation giving Chancellor Michelle Rhee expanded authority to fire non-union central office staff, despite the staunch objection of several members.
Ward 8 Council member Marion Barry, Ward 5 member Harry Thomas Jr. and at-large member Phil Mendelson opposed the bill in the 10-3 vote, saying it would take civil service protections away from workers.
"Due process was put in the trash can," Barry said of the bill. "This bill does an injustice."
Other members said the legislation should give the schools administration the "tools" it needs for swift reform.
"If we're going to talk about justice, I'll tell you what is at risk," said Ward 3 member Mary Cheh. "The justice for children."
Council members approved amendments to the bill that add protections for workers, and the bill might be revised even further before members take a final vote on Jan. 8."
|
Even with the amendments and expected further revisions, Fenty and Rhee hailed the vote as a victory.
"I think that what this shows is that the Council of the District of Columbia is committed to reform and to our schools being excellent," the mayor said at a news conference following the vote. He commended Council Chairman Vincent Gray's leadership in orchestrating the bill.
As introduced by the mayor, the legislation laid out a plan to designate hundreds of non-union central office staffers as "at-will" employees, meaning they could be fired at the discretion of the chancellor and without what Rhee described as a burdensome system that protects inept workers.
Gray added amendments that outline firing rules and call for hiring procedures because, he said, "a fair and transparent system must be established."
Under the amended bill, the first year of employment in the central office is an employee's "probationary" period, during which the employee can be fired without notice or evaluation. After this period, supervisors must evaluate employees within six months of any firings and provide a severance notice 15 days prior to termination.
The bill also requires that the mayor establish hiring procedures and hire based on merit, with "appropriate regard" for affirmative-action goals, to prevent what Gray called a "return to a spoils system."
The legislation does not allow employees to appeal a firing, a right they currently have.
The chancellor said the bill is neither meant to allow a one-time clearinghouse nor will it apply only to a limited number of non-union employees. The law will be used not just for her administration, she said, but for future employees under future chancellors who are not performing up to task. Any upcoming firings will not happen "in one fell swoop," Rhee said during the news conference.
The bill "shows incredible leadership and vision on the part of the mayor and council," Rhee said, and the amended version "allows us to do everything we proposed to do under the original legislation."
Rhee also said a number of superintendents in school districts elsewhere in the country have contacted her and said they were "praying" for this measure in hopes that it would influence similar change in their own systems.
While leaders in other districts have been watching the legislation, so have a number of D.C.'s own education groups. In particular, the unions that represent employees in the public school system have vociferously opposed the law, saying that it will decrease workers rights and allow the chancellor to fire on a whim.
Even with the amendments, Washington Teachers' Union vice president Nathan Saunders said the bill "is not a good piece of legislation for employees."
The Washington Teachers' Union joined with several other unions that represent D.C. Public Schools staff to oppose the legislation through testimony to council members and radio advertisements. Non-union central office staff "really didn't have a voice," Saunders said.
Before he voted, Council member Mendelson made similar points.
"I can't support tossing civil service out the window," he said. "We will inevitably see abuse," such as managers giving bad reviews because they do not like employees, he predicted.
Council member Thomas, too, said the bill would cause the central office to lose good employees. "In essence, what I'm saying is that we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water," he said.
Thomas offered an alternative bill that would have reserved even more employee protections than the version Gray introduced, but the Council voted down his bill 10-3.
At-large member Carol Schwartz, who wavered on the bill during a hearing on the legislation last month, voted in favor after seeing the changes. "This [amended] legislation gives me some comfort," she said.
Schwartz said she may look to make additional changes before the final reading next month.
|
Posted on Dec 24, 2007 15:38pm.
(Return)
|
|
|
|
|
Categories
|
|
|
