Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Facts:
How
TUSD
Administrators
Cut
the
Pay
of
Substitute
Teachers
While
telling
the
board
and
the
public
J
outsourcing
=
pay
raises
J
1
Background
On
May
12,
2015,
substitute
teachers
in
TUSD
gathered
for
a
meeting
at
Rincon
High
where
they
were
told
they
could
have
their
questions
answered
about
having
their
labor
outsourced
to
a
company
called
ESI.
A
district
administrator
explained
that
the
district
had
to
do
this
because
of
requirements
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act.
Presenters
stressed
that
the
transition
would
be
seamless,
our
pay
rates
would
stay
the
same,
and
we
would
not
be
responsible
for
any
fees
the
outsourcing
company
charged.
The
presenters
also
told
us
we
would
no
longer
be
responsible
for
paying
into
the
Arizona
State
Retirement
System,
so
we
would
see
a
little
bump
in
take
home
pay
once
we
were
outsourced.
In
response
to
questions,
presenters
told
us
we
would
be
able
to
qualify
for
health
insurance
through
ESI,
but
they
would
not
directly
answer
a
question
about
how
many
days
a
sub
would
have
to
work
to
qualify.
Everything
was
presented
as
a
done
deal,
and
many
subs
expressed
anger
and
skepticism.
Indeed,
the
Affordable
Care
Act
did
pose
a
budget
challenge
for
large
employers
like
TUSD.
It
required
that
employers
keep
track
of
the
hours
worked
of
employees
who
worked
variable
hours,
like
subs,
who
may
work
one
day
this
week,
five
days
the
next
week
and
4
days
the
next
week.
Those
averaging
30
hours
per
week
were
supposed
to
be
offered
affordable,
employer-sponsored
health
insurance.
Dr.
Sanchez
estimated
that
providing
qualifying
subs
health
care
coverage
would
require
the
district
to
take
on
between
$1.6
million
and
possibly
up
to
$3
million
in
added
expense.
That
is
because
coverage
through
TUSD
costs
the
district
about
$5,385
per
employee
who
elects
coverage.
(Employees
pay
premiums
of
less
than
$48
per
month.)
If
the
board
decided
to
outsource,
it
would
not
only
avoid
the
expense
of
health
insurance
for
subs,
it
would
save
the
expense
of
the
contributions
it
had
been
making
to
the
Arizona
State
Retirement
System
on
behalf
of
qualifying
subs.
Subs
who
work
at
least
20
hours
2
per
week
over
20
weeks
must
start
paying
11.6
percent
of
their
pay
into
the
system,
and
the
school
district
must
match
that
amount.
Around
the
country
some
school
districts
bit
the
bullet
and
absorbed
the
expense
of
covering
qualifying
subs.
Others
responded
to
the
law
by
limiting
the
hours
subs
could
work,
which
isnt
really
an
option
at
TUSD.
Another
option
was
to
accept
fines
for
refusing
coverage
to
subs.
Or,
like
TUSD,
some
districts
outsourced
subs.
On
June
2,
2015
members
of
the
TUSD
Governing
Board
discussed
the
outsourcing
proposal,
and
on
June
9
board
members
voted
3-2
to
approve
outsourcing.
In
these
meetings
ESI
President
Phil
Tavasci
told
the
board
that
his
company
would
offer
qualifying
subs
health
insurance
that
was
less
expensive
than
the
kind
offered
by
TUSD,
and
that
his
company
intended
to
offer
a
401K
with
a
4
percent
match
to
employees
who
worked
at
least
20
hours
for
20
weeks.
Just
10
minutes
before
the
vote
was
taken
Chief
Financial
Officer
Karla
Soto
told
the
board:
But
potentially,
you
know,
like
the
long-
term
sub
rate
is
being
increased
by
25
percent,
and
the
daily
sub
rate
is
being
increased
by
33
percent.
A
subfor
examplea
daily
sub
working
every
day
of
the
school
year
would
make
$4500
more
in
a
year.
(3
hours
22
minutes
into
the
video
recording
of
the
June
9,
2015
board
meeting.)
Despite
such
a
clear
statement
that
subs
would
get
raises
under
outsourcing,
when
subs
returned
to
work
for
the
2015-2016
school
year,
they
found
pay
rates
had,
indeed,
been
cut.
Instead
of
the
increased
earning
potential
Soto
had
assured,
a
daily
sub
who
worked
every
day
of
the
year
would
see
earnings
drop
between
$440
and
$5,940,
depending
on
the
mix
of
schools
served.
Upon
listening
to
video
recordings
of
the
June
2
and
June
9,
2015
board
meetings,
it
is
clear
board
members---and
the
public--
were
repeatedly
told
outsourcing
meant
pay
increases
for
substitutes.
There
was
apparently
never
any
explanation
given
to
board
members
about
the
complicated,
multi-tiered
way
the
district
structured
pay
in
2014-
2015,
nor
were
board
members
reminded
that
the
district
cut
pay
for
substitutes
rather
drastically
after
the
recession,
around
2011.
It
is
unclear
from
these
meetings
if
administrators
actually
intended
to
give
all
subs
a
raise,
but
then
diverted
the
money
3
elsewhere
by
time
the
school
year
started;
or
if
administrators
simply
failed
to
offer
an
accurate
description
that
explained
the
way
they
were
proposing
to
re-structure
pay
for
subs.
If
administrators
had
described
the
imposed
changes
accurately,
they
would
have
told
the
board
and
the
public
simply
that
they
were
proposing
to
replace
the
multi-tiered
pay
rates
for
subs
to
flat
pay
rates,
eliminating
the
lowest
rates
of
pay
as
well
as
the
highest
rates
of
pay
that
the
district
was
offering.
Administrators
would
have
had
to
acknowledge
they
intended
to
cut
the
earning
potential
of
someif
not
mostemployees.
Moreover,
not
only
was
pay
for
subs
cut,
but
the
promise
of
matching
funds
for
a
401K
never
materialized.
The
opportunity
to
receive
401K
matching
funds
was
supposed
to
be
the
reason
that
the
district
was
paying
fees
to
ESI
on
behalf
of
subs
that
were
higher
than
the
fees
return-to-work
retirees
employed
through
ESI
were
paying.
Statements
that
subs
would
qualify
for
health
care
with
ESI
appear
to
have
been
misrepresented,
as
well,
as
the
company
exploits
every
allowable
(and
perhaps
not
allowable?)
way
to
deny
subs
coverage.
If
subs
DID
qualify,
the
premium
cost
to
subs
is
$311
per
month,
which
is
not
affordable
on
a
subs
wages.
If
administrators
had
told
subs
upfront
at
their
May
12
meeting
that
outsourcing
meant
pay
cuts
in
addition
to
losing
state
retirement,
would
subs
have
stayed
home
from
board
meetings?
Would
the
same
number
have
returned
to
work
when
the
2015-2016
school
year
opened,
or
would
more
have
ended
their
employment
in
May,
finding
new
jobs
before
the
school
year
started?
More
importantly,
if
administrators
had
accurately
told
board
members
that
the
outsourcing
proposal
would
mean
pay
cuts
for
subs,
loss
of
retirement
benefits,
and
health
insurance
that
would
be
almost
impossible
to
attain,
would
the
proposal
have
garnered
the
three
necessary
votes?
Before
casting
his
vote
in
favor
of
outsourcing,
Board
Member
Cam
Juarez
said,
And
so
now
were
not
only
doing
the
cost-avoidance
but
now
were
also
looking
to
insureto
take
care
of
these
folks.
Or
make
sure
ESI
is
going
to
be
taking
care
of
these
folks.
I
think
were
talking
about
an
increase,
were
talking
about
health
insurancewhich
4
they
would
get
one
way
or
the
otherbut
also
were
also
talking
about
covering..[fees
to
ESI]
so
we
are
not
infringing
on
their
income,
essentially.
(3
hours
and
22
minutes
into
the
video
recording.)
Before
casting
her
vote
in
favor
of
outsourcing,
Board
Member
Krystal
Foster
said,
Again,
I
want
to
re-iterate:
it
is
a
higher
per
hour
or
per
day
rate,
and
its
a
401K
option
.
.
.(3
hours
24
minutes
into
the
video
recording.)
Board
Member
Grijalva
gave
reasons
for
supporting
the
contract,
but
asked
that
a
mid-year
evaluation
be
scheduled;
Juarez
added
that
he
would
want
to
see
some
kind
of
satisfaction
survey
conducted.
However,
it
seems
that
instead
of
publicly
hearing
these
reports
before
renewing
the
contract
with
ESI
a
year
later,
the
contract
renewal
was
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
with
40-some
other
items
on
June
14,
2016.
The
consent
agenda
was
approved
3-2,
without
hearing
any
progress
report.
Board
members
did
not
hear
a
report
of
survey
results
and
costs
associated
with
the
ESI
contract
until
the
next
month,
on
July
12,
2014.
Numbers
from
the
July
12,
2016
report
indicate
by
outsourcing
TUSD
avoided
the
cost
of
insuring
potentially
as
many
as
156
qualifying
substitute
employees.
If
all
eligible
employees
opted
to
have
themselves
covered,
the
district
would
incur
expenses
of
($156
X
$5,385=
$840,060
for
health
insurance,
plus
an
unclear
additional
amount
for
state
retirement
benefits.
(The
report
shows
the
district
avoided
$248,826
in
retirement
contributions
by
outsourcing
several
categories
of
employees.)
Of
course,
if
the
district
stopped
outsourcing,
it
could
stop
paying
fees
to
ESI
on
behalf
of
these
employees,
which
could
help
pay
some
of
the
cost
in
taking
them
back.
The
adoption
and
renewal
of
the
ESI
contract
that
outsourced
substitute
teachers
was
based
on
misinformation.
The
pages
that
follow
show
how
pay
for
substitutes
has
compared
during
various
years,
and
they
document
misrepresentations
administrators
and
ESI
publicly
made
about
pay
and
retirement
benefits
subs
would
receive
if
the
board
voted
in
favor
out
outsourcing;
it
hypothesizes
that
misrepresentations
were
made
about
employee
access
to
health
care
coverage,
as
well.
Based
on
this
data,
this
contract
should
be
5
terminated
as
soon
as
possible,
and
substitutes
should
once
again
be
employed
by
TUSD.
10
PAY
(continued)
information.
In
point
of
fact,
ALL
day-to-day
subs
lost
earning
potential
with
the
switch
to
ESI.
In
2014-2015
a
daily
sub
who
worked
all
180
instructional
days
would
earn
a
minimum
of
$17,000,
but
as
much
as
$22,500,
depending
on
which
schools
the
substitute
covered.
Under
ESI
a
daily
sub
working
every
day
earned
$16,560,
representing
a
loss
of
between
$440
and
$5,940.
When
Maiden
says
But,
again,
we
wanted
to
equal
the
playing
field
so
everybody
would
go
to
whatever
school
needed
them
because
the
higher
rates
werent
helping
getting
them
to
go
there,
either,
she
gives
the
impression
that
the
board
has
had
multiple
discussions
on
the
merits
of
paying
different
rates
at
different
schools.
Did
the
board
in
fact
have
such
discussions?
Did
the
board
see
data
comparing
fill
rates
at
various
schools
from
year-to-year
and
consider
what
factors
were
impacting
those
rates?
October
1,
2016
Kristel Ann Foster-TUSD Governing Board Member Subs make $20 more a day with
ESI,, but do not qualify for state retirement (because ESI is not a public school district)
So there are pros & cons. Subs had to work full time to qualify for that retirement, and
not all subs worked full time. We didn't want to leave those depending on this benefit
high & dry so we created itinerant teaching positions so they could stay with us if thy
chose. Like I wrote above, we have had less vacant classes with no sub, because there
are more subs to fill our need. We said we'd try it and revisit the decision, which I am
open to doing. Again, these decisions are hard, and no decision will make every person
happy.
Like Reply 1 October 1 at 8:45pm
Fact
Check
and
Commentary:
16
months
after
the
board
approved
of
outsourcing
with
ESI,
a
very
studious
board
member
was
apparently
still
under
the
impression
that
subs
were
making
more
money
per
day
with
ESI
than
before
ESI,
and
distributing
this
misinformation
on
her
Facebook
page.
There
are
absolutely
no
scenarios
where
any
sub
was
earning
$20
per
day
more
with
ESI.
Even
though
there
were
pay
boosts
for
many
employees
within
their
first
40
days
of
employment,
those
same
employees
were
expected
to
absorb
pay
cuts
imposed
on
days
41
to
180.
11
Minimizing
the
real
cost
of
ESI
fees
At
the
June
9,
2015
board
meeting
at
which
the
board
voted
in
favor
of
outsourcing,
Dr.
Sanchez
repeatedly
referred
to
the
fee
that
ESI
charged
per
substitute
employee
as
a
2
percent
fee.
The
district
in
fact
pays
ESI
$8
per
day
for
each
sub.
So
if
the
sub
earns
$92
per
day,
the
fee
due
to
ESI
is
actually
a
fee
of
higher
than
8
percent,
but
one
wonders
if
the
repeated
references
to
the
2
percent
fee
planted
the
idea
in
some
board
members
minds
that
the
fee
really
wasnt
very
much.
June
9,
2015
3
hours
15
minutes:
Sanchez:
I
know
there
was
some
question
about
the
two
percent
so
we
are
going
to
give
folks
on
top
of
the
$92,
$8
dollars
to
cover
the
2
percent.
So
theyll
get
$92
as
their
take
home
and
on
top
of
that
well
give
them
the
$8
to
cover
the
2
percent
so
that
they
can
cover
the
two
percent.
The
two
percent
isnt
going
to
come
out
of
that
$92,
thats
money
were
giving
them
on
top.
Commentary:
After
this
statement,
both
Stegeman
and
Juarez
ask
about
ESI
fees,
repeating
Sanchezs
language,
calling
it
a
2
percent
fee.
Soto
then
clarifies
that
for
subs
the
fee
will
be
an
$8
flat
fee,
saying
it
is
the
same
fee
paid
for
the
return-to-work
retirees
who
arent
subs,
which
for
them
is
2
percent.
The
information
did
not
sink
in
for
Juarez,
who
then
makes
a
statement
referring
to
the
2
percent
fee.
Foster
also
makes
a
reference
to
2
percent
in
a
thought
she
did
not
complete,
so
it
is
unclear
if
she
was
referring
to
the
fee.
12
RETIREMENT
Thesis
2:
ESI
and
TUSD
administrators
misled
board
members
into
believing
if
the
outsourced
subs,
subs
would
have
access
to
a
401K
pension
that
matched
their
contributions
at
4
percent
after
they
worked
20
weeks/
20
hours
per
week.
In
fact,
ESI
does
not
offer
any
matching
funds.
June
2,
2015,
1
hour
16
minutes
30
seconds
http://www.tusd.k12.az.us/contents/govboard/gbvideo060215.html
Dr.
Stegeman:
You
said
you
were
just
adding
a
401K
provision.
Is
that
the
same
as
exists
in
your
current
contract?
Tavasci:
Yep,
we
currently
have
a
401K,
weve
had
it
since
our
inception.
Stegeman:
Ok
Tavesci:
Now
for
the
first
time
were
looking
at
adding
a
match.
The
reason
being
is
all
of
our
past
employees
are
return
to
work
retired
ASRS
employees.
A
401K
match
has
never
been
important
to
them.
With
some
of
these
subs,
that,
that
are
losing
the
ability
to
contribute
to
the
ASRS
through
the
20/20
rule
we
are
now
going
to
look
at
offering
a
match
for
those
folks.
Stegeman:
But
thats
not
in
the
current
contract.
So
youre
basically
saying
thats
something
you
are
going
to
plan
to
negotiate
with
the
district.
Tavesci:
Correct.
Stegeman:
And,
of
course,
at
some
cost
to
the
district.
You
are
not
going
to
just
going
to
throw
this
money
in
(unclear)
Tavesci:
It
comes
out-in
comes
out--
of
our
fee.
Our
current
fee.
Dr.
Stegeman:
I
guess
the
issue.
.
.
I
wasnt
being
quite
clear,
so
let
me
step
back.
I
need
to
understand
for
my
purposes
how
the
401K
option
is
going
to
compare
to
the
existing
option.
So
those
are
both
pre-tax
options,
so
you
are
comparing
two
different
pre-tax
options,
but
what
is
the
impact
on
the
employee?
ESI
President
Phil
Tavasci:
Great
question.
The
ASRS
is
a
defined
benefit
pension
plan.
Our
401K
is
a
defined
contribution
plan.
To
be
honest
it
doesnt
compare.
The
ASRS
pension
plan
is
the
Holy
Grail
of
retirement
plans.
Theres
less
and
less
defined
benefit
pension
plans
in
existence
today.
They
are
all
going
to
defined
contribution
401K
plans.
So
it
certainly
is
not
apples
to
apples.
Its
not
as
good,
Ill
be
the
first
to
admit
that.
But
up
until
recently
we
have
not
matched
on
our
401K.
We
determined
that
this
was
the
right
thing
to
do.
What
we
are
offering
is
the
biggest
match
that
we
can.
It
doesnt
compare
as
far
as
apples
to
apples.
It
is
what
we
can
do.
Steegman:
Right.
So
how
big
is
that
match?
What
are
you
offering?
Tavasci:
Were
looking,
were
still
penciling
it
out.
Were
looking
at
a
4
percent
match.
Stegeman:
Ok.
So
if
the
employee
contributes
4
percent,
you
would
contribute
another
4
percent.
Tavasci:
Right.
13
RETIREMENT
(continued)
June
9,
2015
Board
meeting,
3
hours,
30
minutes:
Dr.
H.T.
Sanchez:
Taking
a
look
at
what
were
proposing,
it
is
more
money
on
the
daily
rate.
And
the
opportunity
to
put
into
a
401K
with
a
match,
and
the
opportunity
for
benfor
medical
if
that
threshold
is
reached.
Commentary:
If
an
ESI
return
to
work
employee
earns
a
$40,000
salary
and
must
pay
ESI
a
2
percent
fee,
he
or
she
would
pay
ESI
about
$800
per
year.
If
a
full-time
long-term
sub
works
188
days
and
earns
$20,116,
ESI
receives
fees
from
the
school
district
on
behalf
of
said
employee
equaling
$1,504.
The
reason
fees
for
subs
were
set
so
high
compared
to
the
fees
for
retirees
is
that
subs
were
meant
to
be
able
to
get
a
portion
of
those
fees
back
in
the
matching
funds
offered
by
the
401K.
Without
the
401K
match,
the
fee
the
district
is
paying
to
ESI
on
behalf
of
subs
is
ridiculously
high.
14
HEALTH
INSURANCE
Hypothesis
1:
ESI
misled
board
members
to
believe
that
substitutes
would
qualify
for
insurance
through
ESI,
but
that
insurance
just
wasnt
as
valuable
as
the
insurance
they
would
qualify
for
if
employed
directly
by
TUSD.
In
reality
ESI
makes
a
profit
by
denying
insurance
to
subs
by
limiting
the
hours
credited
to
long-term
subs
and
requiring
subs
to
work
summer
school
or
after
school
jobs
to
qualify
for
health
insurance.
Tavasci
never
explicitly
stated
this
in
public
meetings.
Below
is
how
it
was
presented
to
the
board.
To
determine
if
the
hypothesis
is
correct
that
ESI
is
covering
few
if
any
subs
with
insurance--we
would
need
to
find
out
how
many
of
the
156
employees
who
would
have
qualified
for
insurance
if
employed
by
TUSD
actually
were
offered
it
by
ESI,
and
how
many
bought
health
insurance
from
ESI.
From
the
June
2,
2015
Board
Meeting
1
hr
31
min.,
http://www.tusd.k12.az.us/contents/govboard/gbvideo060215.html
Dr.
Stegeman:
As
I
understand
itcorrect
me
if
Im
wrong
because
this
is
all
still
pretty
new
to
meas
I
understand
it
if
we
go
forward
with
this
plan,
then
theyll
be
getting
health
insurance
on
the
exchanges,
youre
not
providing
that.
Do
I
misunderstand
that?
ESI
President
Phil
Tavasci:
We
do
provide
it.
So
Stegeman:
Oh,
ok.
Taveski:
We
will
track.
If
a
sub
qualifies
for
health
insurance
with
us
we
when
we
incorporate
Stegeman:
Oh,
if
theyre
over
the--right.
Taveski:
We
incorporate
whats
called
the
12-month
look-back
period.
If
they
work
more
than
1560
hours
in
a
given
year
we
provide
them
health
insurance.
Stegeman:
So
youll
be
providing
health
insurance
under
essentially
the
same
conditions
that
we
would
be
providing
them
health
insurance?
[Silence.
Taveskis
non-verbal
responsesuch
as
facial
expressions
or
gesturesare
unclear
from
the
video,
but
he
did
not
verbally
correct
or
clarify
Stegemans
assumption
that
ESI
would
provide
health
coverage
under
essentially
the
same
conditions
.]
Stegeman
continues:
Ok,
so
if
thats
true,
and
that
makes
sense,
wheres
the
economic---wheres
the
economic
advantage
to
having
you
do
it
instead
of
us
do
it?
Taveski:
Great
question.
So
we
dont
offer
a
plan
nearly
as
good
as
the
school
district.
So
that,
that,
that
school
districts
have
Cadillac
insurance
plans.
We
offer
a
minimum
value
plan
thats
compliant
with
the
Affordable
Care
Act.
We
make
it
affordable
for
our
employees
and
were
incompliant
[sic,
I
assume
he
means
in
compliance]
legally
that
way.
And
it
is
much
less
cost
to
us
than
the
school
districts
Cadillac
plan.
Stegeman:
Right,
ok,
thats
sort
of
what
I
thought.
So.
So
there
is
another
loss
to
the
employee
there.
I
understand
the
rationale
but
there
is
a
loss
in
coverage,
in
health
insurance
coverage,
the
reduction,
as
well
as
the
loss
in
the
tax
advantage
in
the
retirement
plan.
From
June
9,
2015
http://www.tusd.k12.az.us/contents/govboard/gbvideo060915.html
3
hours,
22
minutes:
Board
Member
Cam
Juarez:
So
in
years
past
and
conversations
past
we
talked
about
fiscal
responsibility.
In
years
past
ACA
was
not
an
issue
for
subs
and
our
part-time
employees,
and
so
now
it
is.
Now
were
not
only
doing
the
cost
avoidance
but
were
also
looking
to
insure--
to
take
care
of
these
folks--or
make
sure
ESI
is
going
to
be
taking
care
of
these
folks.
15
HEALTH
INSURANCE
(Continued)
June
9,
2015
Board
meeting,
3
hours,
30
minutes:
Dr.
H.T.
Sanchez:
Taking
a
look
at
what
were
proposing,
it
is
more
money
on
the
daily
rate.
And
the
opportunity
to
put
into
a
401K
with
a
match,
and
the
opportunity
for
benfor
medical
if
that
threshold
is
reached.
Commentary:
It
is
unclear
from
the
public
meetings
whether
Dr.
Sanchez
understood
that
the
threshold
of
hours
ESI
would
require
subs
to
work
in
order
to
qualify
for
health
insurance
would
require
subs
to
work
summer
school
or
an
extra
district
job.
He
does
seem
to
indicate
at
the
June
2,
2015
board
meeting
around
1
hour
and
33
minutes
in
that
he
understands
subs
would
likely
not
have
opportunities
to
work
during
summer
school.
16
MORE
QUESTIONS
Hypothesis:
If
current
board
members
ask
the
additional
questions,
it
may
turn
out
that
ESIs
performance
isnt
as
stellar
as
portrayed
in
a
presentation
July
12,
2016.
Commentary
and
Questions
about
the
ESI
Satisfaction
Survey::
At
the
June
9,
2015
board
meeting
at
which
board
members
voted
in
favor
of
outsourcing,
Board
Member
Cam
Juarez
asked
that
board
members
see
results
of
a
satisfaction
survey..
Results
of
four
questions
were
presented
July
12,
2016,
the
month
after
the
contract
had
been
renewed.
The
exact
questions
were
not
reported
to
the
board,
but
they
dealt
with
a
level
of
satisfaction,
timely
and
accurate
pay
rate,
payroll
questions
answered
in
a
timely
manner,
and
whether
their
perception
of
ESI
had
improved
since
hire
date.
The
report
indicated
that
on
each
question
the
company
had
96
to
99
percent
approval.
The
report
did
NOT
indicate
how
many
or
what
percent
of
employees
returned
surveys,
nor
did
it
indicate
if
those
surveys
were
sent
to
all
employees
or
to
the
substitute
teachers
only.
The
report
did
not
indicate
if
employees
were
asked
to
respond
to
other
questions,
the
results
of
which
were
not
reported.
Does
it
make
logical
sense
to
anyone
that
substitute
employees
would
give
ESI
such
high
approval
rates
in
light
of
the
fact
that
so
many
employees
received
pay
cuts?
Do
any
subs
actually
remember
receiving
this
survey?
Commentary
and
Questions
about
the
ESI
the
reported
number
of
substitutes
hired:
The
July
12,
2016
report
from
Tavasci
and
Maiden
indicated
there
were
841
current
substitutes,
310
newly-hired
through
ESI,
and
646
applicants.
Tavasci
said
of
the
new
hires
This
is
one
of
the
main
reasons
the
fill
rate
went
from
80
to
88
percent.
At
first
glance,
it
might
seem
like
ESI
did
a
remarkable
job
at
recruiting
new
people
into
substituting.
But
did
it?
Are
there
now
more
substitutes
available?
You
would
have
to
compare
the
number
at
different
years
to
really
know.
That
data
has
not
been
publicly
presented,
but
on
at
the
June
2,
2015
board
meeting,
Karla
Soto
states
at
1
hour
9
minutes
and
51
seconds
We
currently
have
over
800
subs
in
our
pool,
and
yet,
you
know
we
still
have
some
that
went
unfilled.
So
if
there
were
over
800
in
the
pool
reported
on
June
2,
2015
and
841
reported
July
12,
2016,
it
doesnt
really
sound
like
ESI
was
able
to
increase
the
pool
in
any
dramatic
fashion.
Finally,
did
the
fill
rate
really
go
up
as
much
as
was
presented?
With
all
the
mis-
representations
it
took
to
convince
board
members
outsourcing
was
great
,
is
it
possible
someone
was
playing
with
numbers
there,
too?
17