 According to Mayor Keith Snyder, the crossing guards, who have since
this summer legally been employees of District 27, have received
letters from the district telling them they are now employees of the
city of Lincoln. However, it is a responsibility the city has not
agreed to take and will require money the city does not have in its
current budget.
This all stems from a budget consideration on the part of the
city that began last year in the fall with talks with Dr. Mary
Ahillen; District 27 superintendent. At that time, Ahillen was told
the city could not afford to foot the bill for the crossing guards,
and they would have to be turned over to the district. Ahillen was
also told that money received annually through a property tax levy
would be given to the school to assist them in paying the wages of
the guards.
According to Snyder, this all occurred when city finance chair
Melody Anderson asked each department to find ways to trim their
budget in anticipation of another very lean year for city coffers.
Police Chief Ken Greenslate came up with the idea to move the
responsibility for employing the guards to the school. Last year in
the fall, he took the idea to Ahillen and said they had a cordial
discussion of the matter.
When March came around, the city began working on their budget
for the new fiscal year. At that time, they had heard no objections
from District 27 regarding Greenslate's proposal. The council then
acted on the plan, designating approximately $15,000 to the school
district and turning the employment of the guards over to the
district.
This summer, Ahillen contacted Mike Geriets, deputy police chief,
for the names of the current guards. Later, new crossing guards were
added by the district, and since school began, all of them have been
paid by the district.
Snyder said he first heard of the problem with the crossing
guards on Oct. 13 when he received a call from Ahillen. She relayed
to him that the school board had discussed the issue and had drawn
some conclusions.
According to Ahillen, the board had agreed that because the city
levied the tax money, and because the kids were actually on city
property when they crossed the streets, the school should not be
responsible for children or the guards.
Ahillen told Snyder the school district would continue to pay the
guards through the end of November, but after that would no longer
be responsible for them.
Snyder, Anderson and Greenslate met with Ahillen and Steve Rohrer, District
27 board president, on Oct. 31. Snyder said the two representing the
school district once again went through their reasoning for not
wanting to be responsible for the crossing guards.
At that meeting, it appeared the biggest concern was not about
money, but rather about administrative responsibility. Rohrer asked
the city representatives to work with the city council to put
together a proposal for funding. Snyder said the request included
the school being partially responsible financially but in no way
responsible administratively.
Snyder said in the end, "we left the meeting thinking they would
remain with the school until things were worked out."
However, last week, the guards were notified in writing that as
of Nov. 3, they were no longer district employees. The letter
told them to contact the city for further instruction.
One thing the mayor has looked at since that meeting is whether
or not the city can levy additional funding to pay the
guards. Currently the $15,000 levied annually covers only about half
of the total wages paid out.
The answer he came up with was no. Because of the city tax cap,
levy amounts can only be raised fractions of percents annually. Last
year the levy increase the city asked for was used to assist in
funding the pension liabilities for the fire and police departments.
Because of that, the city gained no real working cash from the levy
increase.
According to Chuck Conzo, city treasurer, the levy increase for
this coming year is going to be very small, only around $25,000
total, and more than likely, that money is going to be needed in the
pension fund again this year.
During Snyder's recount of the situation, he said what it comes
down to in their minds is the district never agreed to take on the
crossing guards.
Alderman Tom O'Donohue then asked who has been signing their
paychecks. The answer was the district, to which he responded:
"They're paying them, but not employing them?"
Snyder said he thought the situation was that the district hired
them, but the school board didn't.
As he understood the situation, the hiring of the guards was
included in a consent agenda item in September, but the board
removed it for further discussion, and that is when they expressed
their desire not to be involved with the crossing guards.
Snyder told the council he had invited Ahillen and Rohrer to
attend the Monday night meeting and discuss this, but both had prior
commitments that prevented them from doing so.
[to top of second column] |
The question came up regarding who has the obligation. Children
are required to go to school. The school is obligated to educate
them, so shouldn't they also be obligated to see to their arrival at
school?
City attorney Bill Bates said he didn't know that crossing guards
were actually required by any law or rule, so he didn't know if
anyone was obligated to provide a crossing guard.
Alderman David Wilmert asked if anyone knew how this was handled
in other districts. Snyder said Greenslate had actually done
some research on that, and the mayor asked him to share what he'd
learned.
In many cases, such as in Washington, LeRoy and Sherman, the
school is fully responsible.
In Rockford, the school is the administrative entity and the city
pays 50 percent of the wages.
In Mattoon, the school pays all the wages, but the city police
department is the administrative entity.
In Clinton, the city turns their levy money over to the school;
the school pays the balance and also is the administrative entity
over the guards.
For the city, the biggest problem at the moment is the issue of
money. With no objections coming from District 27 when this idea was
originally discussed with Ahillen, the city did not budget money for
crossing guards.
Wilmert said if it was something that had to be done, "we'll find
a way, but I am not happy with District 27."
He then asked how much time the city actually has to get the
problem worked out. Greenslate then told the council that in
the Monday mail he had received a check from District 27 in the
amount of $1,129.25. This is an unused balance from a first payment
the city gave the school, amounting to approximately $9,000.
Snyder said information he had from Ahillen indicated they were
prepared to meet the payroll of Nov. 15 and 30, but it wasn't clear
how that related to the letter saying the guards were no longer
employees of the district effective Nov. 3.
Also in the chamber to hear this discussion was Michelle
Faulkner, a crossing guard. She told the council she was willing to
continue without pay until this was worked out, but she had been
told if anything happened to a child, she would be personally
liable.
She said she cared about the children she served and wanted to
continue doing so. However, she was told by Bates that at the
moment she is no one's employee; that whatever she does, she does at
her own risk. If a child gets hurt or if she gets hurt, neither the
city nor District 27 can be held responsible.
Greenslate also told her that because she is not an employee, she
is not a crossing guard and therefore has no legal right to stop
traffic.
Alderwoman Marty Neitzel asked if the school would pay half of
the wages, could the city work out the rest?
Snyder said Rohrer had made a similar proposal, offering to pay
50 percent of the amount spent that exceeded the tax levy; or about
$7,500 a year.
Snyder also noted that for the school, the real issue isn't as
much about money as it is about being responsible for the guards. He
noted the city also has some concerns there. The $29,000 paid
out annually is just for wages for the crossing guards. It doesn't
take into account the time spent by the police department personnel
in managing them.
Neitzel said she wanted to hold off any further discussions until
Ahillen and Rohrer could be brought into the meeting. She asked the
mayor to invite them to attend the next workshop meeting. He said he
would.
A motion to table the discussion was passed by unanimous vote.
After the meeting, Faulkner expressed she was glad she'd taken
the initiative to attend the council meeting. "I didn't know until I
got here tonight that we were unemployed," she said. "The letter we
got said we were now city employees."
[By NILA SMITH]
 |
