It now appears that the suit against Patricia Chamberlain has been transferred to FEDERAL COURT, and is now on the docket for NEXT JUNE. The case was transferred because of the freedom of speech and whistle-blower status. We are awaiting conformation on the trial date and other particulars on this case, and hope to have them by Monday so we can post latest information. If true, this will cost the Region plenty of overtime. In the past two of months, overtime paid to fill in for Paige was over $700.00 dollars.
Told you before, this was going to cost plenty of money to replace Lucille.
I think there may be other problems as well. The remaining employees in the Regional Schools Services Center belong to a union, which I’ll bet does not provide for its members to do tasks other than what the union language provides. My guess is that right now those union members are doing bits and pieces of Ms Paige’s job in addition to their own. The obviousness of this being inefficient isn’t lost on those who give it a minute’s thought. I assume there may be a problem with this arrangement once their union liaison becomes aware of the situation. On top of all this it seems that this leave was given without the knowledge and/or consent of the Board, nor did the Board have a chance to determine who would go on administrative leave. If this leave continues until this time next year, the union members file what would appear to be a winnable grievance and additional personnel has to be hired to fill Ms Paige’s position the cost will be substantial.
It would be a long term sub, not a “replacement.” They can’t replace her until she resigns or is fired.
A long term is still paid by the taxpayers.
I think that the point that was trying to be made is not that Ms Paige would be replaced in terms of her no longer having her job, but that someone would have to assume her duties so long as she was on leave. As Mr. Parsons points out it will cost the taxpayers for that substitution if what the superintendent is now doing to cover Ms Paige’s tasks or a portion of them is found in violation of the non-certified contract.