10/21/14 7:10 pm
Hurry Up! Stop! Wait!
Dr. Batiste is fond of saying:
Our school system thrives on a working collaboration between students, teachers, and administrators. For this reason, the Board remains committed to a negotiation process.
Dr. Batiste’s “commitment” has been included in numerous press releases to the public, has been parroted by Board President Hanna’s email to community members and is oft repeated by Press Secretary Nick Alajakis’s nightly phone reminder that the Board of Education is failing the students and families of Waukegan.
John Dewey finds that Dr. Batiste’s claim fails the “smell test.” Events surrounding today’s negotiation session prove that you don’t need to be in the same building to smell something rotten.
To advance today’s negotiation session, the Union Negotiation team submitted their counter proposal in advance. One day in advance. By submitting the proposal yesterday, it was assumed, discussions would be expedited. Instead, Anthony “Fleetwood” Ficarelli found new ways to delay and derail talks. The Board’s Negotiation team arrived unprepared and then took over two hours to consider their response. Once delivered, the Union Negotiation team developed a response in less than 20 minutes. However, when they attempted to submit their response, the Board team had disappeared. Like Elvis, they had left the building. Unlike Elvis, however, they didn’t have the common decency to notify anyone. How awesome would it be, if “Fleetwood” Ficarelli would share Dr. Batiste’s “commitment” to collaboration.
“Fleetwood” Ficarelli’s latest disappearing act mirrors the three months of delay he performed early this summer. Ficarelli’s three months of obstruction makes Dr. Batiste’s month-long, July vacation seem minor. (John Dewey has covered the timeline of negotiations previously. You can find this below and/or at the John Dewey Is Not Dead Archives page.)
Patterns of behavior reveal much, and the early summer delays were repeated through August and September. Recall that when the strike began October 2, the Board refused to negotiate for the first several days. If these behaviors are what Dr. Batiste sees as “commitment,” we’ll take the opposite.
John Dewey has attempted to discern who benefits from this delay strategy. As far as we can tell, “Fleetwood” Ficarelli is the only person to benefit, via his $275/hour fee. “Fleetwood” Ficarelli gives new meaning to the old adage, “good things come to those who wait.” He has mastered, “big bucks come to those that delay.”
Here’s a novel idea. Why not sit in on the negotiation sessions, Dr. Batiste, and call out your side when they fail to demonstrate the “commitment” you are so fond of paying lip-service to. Or maybe, just maybe, “Fleetwood” Ficarelli is doing exactly what you pay him $275/hour to do.
*Rather than working collaboratively to find a solution to the current labor situation and reflect the values Dr. Batiste is so fond of articulating, Anthony Ficarelli spent the weekend dancing and partying at a Fleetwood Mac concert. Therefore, he has earned the nickname “Fleetwood.”
Hurry Up! Stop! Wait!
Dr. Batiste is fond of saying:
Our school system thrives on a working collaboration between students, teachers, and administrators. For this reason, the Board remains committed to a negotiation process.
Dr. Batiste’s “commitment” has been included in numerous press releases to the public, has been parroted by Board President Hanna’s email to community members and is oft repeated by Press Secretary Nick Alajakis’s nightly phone reminder that the Board of Education is failing the students and families of Waukegan.
John Dewey finds that Dr. Batiste’s claim fails the “smell test.” Events surrounding today’s negotiation session prove that you don’t need to be in the same building to smell something rotten.
To advance today’s negotiation session, the Union Negotiation team submitted their counter proposal in advance. One day in advance. By submitting the proposal yesterday, it was assumed, discussions would be expedited. Instead, Anthony “Fleetwood” Ficarelli found new ways to delay and derail talks. The Board’s Negotiation team arrived unprepared and then took over two hours to consider their response. Once delivered, the Union Negotiation team developed a response in less than 20 minutes. However, when they attempted to submit their response, the Board team had disappeared. Like Elvis, they had left the building. Unlike Elvis, however, they didn’t have the common decency to notify anyone. How awesome would it be, if “Fleetwood” Ficarelli would share Dr. Batiste’s “commitment” to collaboration.
“Fleetwood” Ficarelli’s latest disappearing act mirrors the three months of delay he performed early this summer. Ficarelli’s three months of obstruction makes Dr. Batiste’s month-long, July vacation seem minor. (John Dewey has covered the timeline of negotiations previously. You can find this below and/or at the John Dewey Is Not Dead Archives page.)
Patterns of behavior reveal much, and the early summer delays were repeated through August and September. Recall that when the strike began October 2, the Board refused to negotiate for the first several days. If these behaviors are what Dr. Batiste sees as “commitment,” we’ll take the opposite.
John Dewey has attempted to discern who benefits from this delay strategy. As far as we can tell, “Fleetwood” Ficarelli is the only person to benefit, via his $275/hour fee. “Fleetwood” Ficarelli gives new meaning to the old adage, “good things come to those who wait.” He has mastered, “big bucks come to those that delay.”
Here’s a novel idea. Why not sit in on the negotiation sessions, Dr. Batiste, and call out your side when they fail to demonstrate the “commitment” you are so fond of paying lip-service to. Or maybe, just maybe, “Fleetwood” Ficarelli is doing exactly what you pay him $275/hour to do.
*Rather than working collaboratively to find a solution to the current labor situation and reflect the values Dr. Batiste is so fond of articulating, Anthony Ficarelli spent the weekend dancing and partying at a Fleetwood Mac concert. Therefore, he has earned the nickname “Fleetwood.”
October 19, 2014 7:08 pm
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli’s Billing Records (Part 4)
In this blog post, John Dewey concludes examination of the timeline of negotiation related events as depicted in Anthony Ficarelli’s billing records. The timeline of events can reveal much concerning the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. If you have not already done so, you should read Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli’s Billing Records (Part 3) below.
Analysis of the billing records indicates that the topic of “Ground Rules” appears to have been used as a ruse by Mr. Ficarelli to delay the negotiation process or at least to expense additional charges to the district. John Dewey recognizes the importance of dialogue to resolving conflict and achieving compromise. To that end, having discussion ground rules to foster the dialogue is an important consideration. With that in mind, the topic of “Ground Rules” first appears in the billing record on June 13, 2014:
REVIEW CORRESPONDENCES FROM IFT REPRESENTATIVE; DRAFT RESPONSES; PREPARATION OF DRAFT GROUND RULES WITH CORRESPONDENCE TO IFT….
However, on July 22, July 23, July 24 and July 28, Mr. Ficarelli is still billing the district for work involving the “Ground Rules” of negotiations. In other words, after five weeks time, this seemingly straight forward task was still unresolved. This is not the first negotiation known to mankind. Basic ground rules for labor negotiations have existed for decades, especially under the auspicious of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Clearly, the actions of the Mr. Ficarelli served to erect obstacles to an unfettered dialogue and to delay substantive conversations within the negotiations process. It is difficult to determine from the billing records if this was done at the direction of the Board of Education or done without their knowledge. John Dewey is uncertain as to which is worse. There are no other options.
Both parties to negotiations met with the Federal Mediator on July 15 and July 17, 2014, yet the first proposals were not exchanged until July 28, 2014. As best as can be determined, the first two sessions were focused on issues related to process and not substance. Regardless, proposals were exchanged at the end of July for the first time. Keep this date in mind.
August 26, 2014 is the next critical date in the timeline of negotiation activities as depicted by Mr. Ficarelli’s billing statements. On that date, Mr. Ficarelli bills the District for a number of tasks, including “INITIAL REVIEW OF UNION PROPOSALS.” (emphasis added) In other words, Mr. Ficarelli did not review the union proposals exchanged during the federally mediated negotiation session of July 28, 2014 for an entire month, minus two days. What was he doing? Does this fact point to incompetence or intransigence?
John Dewey sees this as the final piece of evidence that Mr. Ficarelli’s role has been to derail collective bargaining with the union. During the time that he wasn't reviewing the Union's proposals, Mr. Ficarelli submitted 18 billable events related to collective bargaining. Mr. Ficarelli’s billing statements prove that his and the district’s time from July 28 through August 26, 2014 was spent developing the District’s proposals, devising an alternative salary schedule and adding and revising negotiation protocols. All tasks that served to stall negotiations. If this is the substance of the District’s attorney’s work in August, then what, in heaven’s name, was he working on in May, June and July?
More importantly, August 26, 2014, the day Mr. Ficarelli conducts his “INITIAL REVIEW OF UNION PROPOSALS,” is when Mr. Ficarelli also informs the Board of Education (in closed session) of the posting requirements of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. This is the process by which both sides to a collective bargaining impasse must post their latest, best offer, before the process of authorizing and conducting a strike can occur. Mr. Ficarelli begins to prepare the Board on the same day he first takes a look at the Union’s proposals? This suggests no desire to negotiate, no desire to seek compromise and no desire to move off of a strategy to force a labor action. Beyond testing the resolve of the teacher’s union, Mr. Ficarelli’s billing records suggest this was the plan, all along.
In the spirit of fostering a fully informed public, John Dewey encourages all interested parties to review the documents for themselves.
View the April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli.
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli’s Billing Records (Part 4)
In this blog post, John Dewey concludes examination of the timeline of negotiation related events as depicted in Anthony Ficarelli’s billing records. The timeline of events can reveal much concerning the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. If you have not already done so, you should read Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli’s Billing Records (Part 3) below.
Analysis of the billing records indicates that the topic of “Ground Rules” appears to have been used as a ruse by Mr. Ficarelli to delay the negotiation process or at least to expense additional charges to the district. John Dewey recognizes the importance of dialogue to resolving conflict and achieving compromise. To that end, having discussion ground rules to foster the dialogue is an important consideration. With that in mind, the topic of “Ground Rules” first appears in the billing record on June 13, 2014:
REVIEW CORRESPONDENCES FROM IFT REPRESENTATIVE; DRAFT RESPONSES; PREPARATION OF DRAFT GROUND RULES WITH CORRESPONDENCE TO IFT….
However, on July 22, July 23, July 24 and July 28, Mr. Ficarelli is still billing the district for work involving the “Ground Rules” of negotiations. In other words, after five weeks time, this seemingly straight forward task was still unresolved. This is not the first negotiation known to mankind. Basic ground rules for labor negotiations have existed for decades, especially under the auspicious of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Clearly, the actions of the Mr. Ficarelli served to erect obstacles to an unfettered dialogue and to delay substantive conversations within the negotiations process. It is difficult to determine from the billing records if this was done at the direction of the Board of Education or done without their knowledge. John Dewey is uncertain as to which is worse. There are no other options.
Both parties to negotiations met with the Federal Mediator on July 15 and July 17, 2014, yet the first proposals were not exchanged until July 28, 2014. As best as can be determined, the first two sessions were focused on issues related to process and not substance. Regardless, proposals were exchanged at the end of July for the first time. Keep this date in mind.
August 26, 2014 is the next critical date in the timeline of negotiation activities as depicted by Mr. Ficarelli’s billing statements. On that date, Mr. Ficarelli bills the District for a number of tasks, including “INITIAL REVIEW OF UNION PROPOSALS.” (emphasis added) In other words, Mr. Ficarelli did not review the union proposals exchanged during the federally mediated negotiation session of July 28, 2014 for an entire month, minus two days. What was he doing? Does this fact point to incompetence or intransigence?
John Dewey sees this as the final piece of evidence that Mr. Ficarelli’s role has been to derail collective bargaining with the union. During the time that he wasn't reviewing the Union's proposals, Mr. Ficarelli submitted 18 billable events related to collective bargaining. Mr. Ficarelli’s billing statements prove that his and the district’s time from July 28 through August 26, 2014 was spent developing the District’s proposals, devising an alternative salary schedule and adding and revising negotiation protocols. All tasks that served to stall negotiations. If this is the substance of the District’s attorney’s work in August, then what, in heaven’s name, was he working on in May, June and July?
More importantly, August 26, 2014, the day Mr. Ficarelli conducts his “INITIAL REVIEW OF UNION PROPOSALS,” is when Mr. Ficarelli also informs the Board of Education (in closed session) of the posting requirements of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. This is the process by which both sides to a collective bargaining impasse must post their latest, best offer, before the process of authorizing and conducting a strike can occur. Mr. Ficarelli begins to prepare the Board on the same day he first takes a look at the Union’s proposals? This suggests no desire to negotiate, no desire to seek compromise and no desire to move off of a strategy to force a labor action. Beyond testing the resolve of the teacher’s union, Mr. Ficarelli’s billing records suggest this was the plan, all along.
In the spirit of fostering a fully informed public, John Dewey encourages all interested parties to review the documents for themselves.
View the April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli.
10/19/14 4:45 pm
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli’s Billing Records (Part 3)
The April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli provides tremendous insight into the negotiation process currently underway between the Waukegan School District and the Waukegan Federation of Teachers.
As part of this segment, John Dewey will examine the timeline of negotiation related events as depicted in the billing records. The timeline of events can reveal much concerning the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. While much of the detail appears to be general descriptions of legal work (i.e. “review correspondence” or "discuss further disposition of negotiations”), at times there is enough specificity to draw conclusions about negotiation related events.
According to billing records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, district attorney Anthony Ficarelli first discussed the current round of collective bargaining with Superintendent Batiste on April 11, 2014. This conversation came immediately after reaching a tentative agreement with the Teacher’s Union for the 2013-2014 school year. Teachers had been working without a contract for nearly nine months, when an agreement was finally reached in April 2014. Following a brief conference call on April 24, 2014, there is no collective bargaining work involving the lead counsel completed until late May, when planning and strategy sessions pick up pace.
What is curious about the billing records timeline is that while nearly two months transpire since April 11, 2014, including 12 billable events that were examined, Mr. Ficarelli does not review the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) until June 12, 2014. John Dewey thinks this is one of the first things legal counsel would want to accomplish. Doesn’t it make sense for an attorney to get a feel for and knowledge of what you’re going to be talking about? Unless, of course, that feel and that knowledge are not needed to implement your actual plan. If Mr. Ficarelli had not reviewed the current CBA, what work was he providing during these billable events? If the focus of his work was not on substantive issues, might he have been focusing on matters unrelated to fostering an open and honest negotiation process? As additional frame of reference, the first meeting between the Board Negotiation team and the Union Negotiation team takes place on July 15, 2014.
The first mention of Federal Mediation is June 9, 2014 when the billing statement indicates “REVIEW UNION RESPONSE TO MEDIATION.” It is clear from the record that collective bargaining was not making progress, so mediation was requested. Even with Federal Mediation in place, the first mediation session does not take place until July 15, 2014. Of course, during the current climate, each side blames the other for delays in the process. John Dewey calls for release of all the correspondence mentioned in Mr. Ficarelli’s billing statements from District and Union sides, so the public can make up its own mind as to which side deserves responsibility for failure to make progress during the summer. Specifically, the public would benefit from reviewing correspondences mentioned in the billing events of June 5, June 6, June 9, June 10, and June 11, 2014. These would shed light on the questions and foster accountability.
Mr. Ficarelli met with the Board of Education numerous times between May and June. According to billing records, Mr. Ficarelli prepared for and attended meetings with the Board on May 27, June 4, and June 18, 2014. Interestingly, Mr. Ficarelli also held a phone conference with an individual Board member on June 2, 2014: “06/02/14 CONFERENCE CALL WITH BOARD MEMBER (D)(E) ON ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CBA FOR UPCOMING NEGOTIATIONS ON TEACHERS CONTRACT.” Conferring with individual members of a governmental body is extremely rare.
There is nothing untoward about an attorney meeting with those who have hired him. What is interesting to note is that the negotiations phase had not yet begun. These meetings are characterized as strategy sessions. John Dewey wonders what the substance of these meetings was about. If there were no actual discussions over contractual matters, and the Board was being presented “strategy” might a consolidated plan to shut the schools and force the teachers to strike have been in the works? Further review of the billing timeline suggests this is entirely probable.
Examining the timeline of negotiations sheds some light on District leadership throughout the process. Billing records indicate that on June 25, 2014, Mr. Ficarelli attended a meeting with Superintendent Batiste to discuss negotiations. The next communication between Mr. Ficarelli and the Superintendent does not take place until July 28, 2014. John Dewey wonders what role the Superintendent played during the ongoing negotiation process during July. However, Mr. Ficarelli met with, or had phone conferences with Deputy Superintendent Lamping on at least eight occasions between those dates. How can the leader of our district claim to be actively involved in the negotiation process, when in truth, he was absent from the process for an entire month?
As this is an extensive analysis of the timeline, John Dewey is posting in two segments. Check back for the conclusion of the timeline analysis.
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli’s Billing Records (Part 3)
The April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli provides tremendous insight into the negotiation process currently underway between the Waukegan School District and the Waukegan Federation of Teachers.
As part of this segment, John Dewey will examine the timeline of negotiation related events as depicted in the billing records. The timeline of events can reveal much concerning the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. While much of the detail appears to be general descriptions of legal work (i.e. “review correspondence” or "discuss further disposition of negotiations”), at times there is enough specificity to draw conclusions about negotiation related events.
According to billing records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, district attorney Anthony Ficarelli first discussed the current round of collective bargaining with Superintendent Batiste on April 11, 2014. This conversation came immediately after reaching a tentative agreement with the Teacher’s Union for the 2013-2014 school year. Teachers had been working without a contract for nearly nine months, when an agreement was finally reached in April 2014. Following a brief conference call on April 24, 2014, there is no collective bargaining work involving the lead counsel completed until late May, when planning and strategy sessions pick up pace.
What is curious about the billing records timeline is that while nearly two months transpire since April 11, 2014, including 12 billable events that were examined, Mr. Ficarelli does not review the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) until June 12, 2014. John Dewey thinks this is one of the first things legal counsel would want to accomplish. Doesn’t it make sense for an attorney to get a feel for and knowledge of what you’re going to be talking about? Unless, of course, that feel and that knowledge are not needed to implement your actual plan. If Mr. Ficarelli had not reviewed the current CBA, what work was he providing during these billable events? If the focus of his work was not on substantive issues, might he have been focusing on matters unrelated to fostering an open and honest negotiation process? As additional frame of reference, the first meeting between the Board Negotiation team and the Union Negotiation team takes place on July 15, 2014.
The first mention of Federal Mediation is June 9, 2014 when the billing statement indicates “REVIEW UNION RESPONSE TO MEDIATION.” It is clear from the record that collective bargaining was not making progress, so mediation was requested. Even with Federal Mediation in place, the first mediation session does not take place until July 15, 2014. Of course, during the current climate, each side blames the other for delays in the process. John Dewey calls for release of all the correspondence mentioned in Mr. Ficarelli’s billing statements from District and Union sides, so the public can make up its own mind as to which side deserves responsibility for failure to make progress during the summer. Specifically, the public would benefit from reviewing correspondences mentioned in the billing events of June 5, June 6, June 9, June 10, and June 11, 2014. These would shed light on the questions and foster accountability.
Mr. Ficarelli met with the Board of Education numerous times between May and June. According to billing records, Mr. Ficarelli prepared for and attended meetings with the Board on May 27, June 4, and June 18, 2014. Interestingly, Mr. Ficarelli also held a phone conference with an individual Board member on June 2, 2014: “06/02/14 CONFERENCE CALL WITH BOARD MEMBER (D)(E) ON ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CBA FOR UPCOMING NEGOTIATIONS ON TEACHERS CONTRACT.” Conferring with individual members of a governmental body is extremely rare.
There is nothing untoward about an attorney meeting with those who have hired him. What is interesting to note is that the negotiations phase had not yet begun. These meetings are characterized as strategy sessions. John Dewey wonders what the substance of these meetings was about. If there were no actual discussions over contractual matters, and the Board was being presented “strategy” might a consolidated plan to shut the schools and force the teachers to strike have been in the works? Further review of the billing timeline suggests this is entirely probable.
Examining the timeline of negotiations sheds some light on District leadership throughout the process. Billing records indicate that on June 25, 2014, Mr. Ficarelli attended a meeting with Superintendent Batiste to discuss negotiations. The next communication between Mr. Ficarelli and the Superintendent does not take place until July 28, 2014. John Dewey wonders what role the Superintendent played during the ongoing negotiation process during July. However, Mr. Ficarelli met with, or had phone conferences with Deputy Superintendent Lamping on at least eight occasions between those dates. How can the leader of our district claim to be actively involved in the negotiation process, when in truth, he was absent from the process for an entire month?
As this is an extensive analysis of the timeline, John Dewey is posting in two segments. Check back for the conclusion of the timeline analysis.
10/19/14 11:32 am
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli Billing Records (Part 2)
The April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli provides tremendous insight into the negotiation process currently underway between the Waukegan School District and the Waukegan Federation of Teachers. The documents contain a wealth of information regarding the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. As public records, they can also be used to prove and disprove much of what is being transmitted via social media, during private conversations and in public discussions. Additionally, it is possible to gain a better understanding of many of the questions the public holds regarding the current labor situation.
As part of this segment, John Dewey will provide an overview of the documents, touching on interesting facts and information contained within.
Item #1: Between the months of April and August, Mr. Ficarelli worked a total of 164.5 hous on matters related to the current labor negotiations. The monthly totals are:
April 4.5 hrs.
May 4.3 hrs.
June 54.7 hrs.
July 53.6 hrs.
August 47.4 hrs.
John Dewey finds it interesting that as we moved closer to the start of the school year, a time when one would expect urgency to resolve the contract situation, the district side would be working more, and not less. The billing records prove the opposite to be true. Why might this be?
Item #2: Mr. Ficarelli billed for a total of $46,089.63 for his legal services from April through August. Complete monthly breakdowns are:
April $1,147.50
May $1,225.50
June $15,589.50
July $15,276.00
August $12,910.50
Again, the data reflects that less was being done by the district in August to resolve the labor situation.
To provide some context for the average working person, if you look at Mr. Ficarelli’s work in total, he was charging the district what amounts to $11,207.10 for a 40 hour work week. John Dewey points out this comparison because the Waukegan School District already has permanent legal counsel on staff. Why is he not doing this legal work?
Item #3: In addition to his hourly fee of $285/hour, Mr. Ficarelli also billed the District for what are described as phone charges. Mr. Ficarelli billed the district $196.80 for use of his cell phone. The monthly totals are:
May $5.59
June $66.73
July $52.36
August $72.12
At first glance, the charges for phone service seem excessive, especially when one considers that Waukegan is most likely not the only client he charges for use of his phone. While most Waukegan residents might not be able to empathize with the billing practices of high-priced attorney’s, they can understand cell phone expenses. John Dewey would suggest Mr. Ficarelli shop around. There are many excellent unlimited data and unlimited minutes plans that can be had for less than what he is billing the district. Maybe the District can lend him one of the hundreds of district cell phones given to administrators across the district.
On a much more serious note, the data reflects an interesting change of pattern. The hours worked (Item #1) and total billing (Item #2) decrease in August. However, cell phone charges increase in August. John Dewey sees this as a curious change. Why would cell phone charges go up significantly, when the hours worked declined. John Dewey believes this suggests that important district parties to the negotiations, (i.e., Mr. Ficarelli, Dr. Batiste, Dr. Lamping), perhaps, were working remotely and/or not available for direct negotiations with the union. If people were working face-to-face, or negotiating face-to-face, the cell phone charges ought to decrease. Of course, this is only an inference drawn from the data.
Item #4: In addition to his hourly fee of $285/hour and cell phone charges of $196.80, Mr. Ficarelli billed the District $2.80 for photcopies at .10 per copy. In other words, during four months and 164.5 hours of work, Mr. Ficarelli needed to make 28 copies. He made 20 copies in June and 8 copies in July.
John Dewey applauds Mr. Ficarelli for adopting a practice known to all Waukegan teachers and building administrators. “Please refrain from making copies because we don’t have paper.” As negotiations move toward conclusion, John Dewey offers a suggestion to Mr. Ficarelli that all Waukegan teachers employ. If you need to make copies, bring a few reams of your own paper from home that you purchased with your own funds.
Item #5: Billing records indicate that on June 25, Mr. Ficarelli billed 4.5 hours for:
PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND MEETING WITH SUPERINTENDENT, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, AND IFT REPRESENTATIVE ON DISCUSSIONS OVER NEGOTIATION ISSUES.
The next communication between Mr. Ficarelli and the Superintendent takes place on July 28:
REVIEW PROPOSALS AND COUNTERPROPOSALS FROM UNION AND BOARD; CONFERENCE CALL WITH SUPERINTENDENT AND DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ON ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED GROUND RULES FOR FURTHER DISPOSITION; CONFERENCE CALL WITH…
Billing records prove there was no communication between the Superintendent, Dr. Batiste, and Mr. Ficarelli for over a month. John Dewey wonders what role the Superintendent played during the ongoing negotiation process during July. However, Mr. Ficarelli met with, or had phone conferences with Deputy Superintendent Lamping on at least 8 occasions between those dates. (Continue to check back with John Dewey Is Not Dead as we explore what was taking place during these meetings).
As you can see, the detailed billing records provide an incredible amount of information. We will continue our analysis next by taking a closer look at the timeline of events that are detailed in the billing records. The timeline will assist interested parties in forming opinions as to priorities and motivations of the District Administration, Board of Education, Mr. Ficarelli and even Union negotiators. So, be sure to check back often.
In the spirit of fostering a fully informed public, John Dewey encourages all interested parties to review the documents for themselves.
View the April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli.
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli Billing Records (Part 2)
The April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli provides tremendous insight into the negotiation process currently underway between the Waukegan School District and the Waukegan Federation of Teachers. The documents contain a wealth of information regarding the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. As public records, they can also be used to prove and disprove much of what is being transmitted via social media, during private conversations and in public discussions. Additionally, it is possible to gain a better understanding of many of the questions the public holds regarding the current labor situation.
As part of this segment, John Dewey will provide an overview of the documents, touching on interesting facts and information contained within.
Item #1: Between the months of April and August, Mr. Ficarelli worked a total of 164.5 hous on matters related to the current labor negotiations. The monthly totals are:
April 4.5 hrs.
May 4.3 hrs.
June 54.7 hrs.
July 53.6 hrs.
August 47.4 hrs.
John Dewey finds it interesting that as we moved closer to the start of the school year, a time when one would expect urgency to resolve the contract situation, the district side would be working more, and not less. The billing records prove the opposite to be true. Why might this be?
Item #2: Mr. Ficarelli billed for a total of $46,089.63 for his legal services from April through August. Complete monthly breakdowns are:
April $1,147.50
May $1,225.50
June $15,589.50
July $15,276.00
August $12,910.50
Again, the data reflects that less was being done by the district in August to resolve the labor situation.
To provide some context for the average working person, if you look at Mr. Ficarelli’s work in total, he was charging the district what amounts to $11,207.10 for a 40 hour work week. John Dewey points out this comparison because the Waukegan School District already has permanent legal counsel on staff. Why is he not doing this legal work?
Item #3: In addition to his hourly fee of $285/hour, Mr. Ficarelli also billed the District for what are described as phone charges. Mr. Ficarelli billed the district $196.80 for use of his cell phone. The monthly totals are:
May $5.59
June $66.73
July $52.36
August $72.12
At first glance, the charges for phone service seem excessive, especially when one considers that Waukegan is most likely not the only client he charges for use of his phone. While most Waukegan residents might not be able to empathize with the billing practices of high-priced attorney’s, they can understand cell phone expenses. John Dewey would suggest Mr. Ficarelli shop around. There are many excellent unlimited data and unlimited minutes plans that can be had for less than what he is billing the district. Maybe the District can lend him one of the hundreds of district cell phones given to administrators across the district.
On a much more serious note, the data reflects an interesting change of pattern. The hours worked (Item #1) and total billing (Item #2) decrease in August. However, cell phone charges increase in August. John Dewey sees this as a curious change. Why would cell phone charges go up significantly, when the hours worked declined. John Dewey believes this suggests that important district parties to the negotiations, (i.e., Mr. Ficarelli, Dr. Batiste, Dr. Lamping), perhaps, were working remotely and/or not available for direct negotiations with the union. If people were working face-to-face, or negotiating face-to-face, the cell phone charges ought to decrease. Of course, this is only an inference drawn from the data.
Item #4: In addition to his hourly fee of $285/hour and cell phone charges of $196.80, Mr. Ficarelli billed the District $2.80 for photcopies at .10 per copy. In other words, during four months and 164.5 hours of work, Mr. Ficarelli needed to make 28 copies. He made 20 copies in June and 8 copies in July.
John Dewey applauds Mr. Ficarelli for adopting a practice known to all Waukegan teachers and building administrators. “Please refrain from making copies because we don’t have paper.” As negotiations move toward conclusion, John Dewey offers a suggestion to Mr. Ficarelli that all Waukegan teachers employ. If you need to make copies, bring a few reams of your own paper from home that you purchased with your own funds.
Item #5: Billing records indicate that on June 25, Mr. Ficarelli billed 4.5 hours for:
PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND MEETING WITH SUPERINTENDENT, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, AND IFT REPRESENTATIVE ON DISCUSSIONS OVER NEGOTIATION ISSUES.
The next communication between Mr. Ficarelli and the Superintendent takes place on July 28:
REVIEW PROPOSALS AND COUNTERPROPOSALS FROM UNION AND BOARD; CONFERENCE CALL WITH SUPERINTENDENT AND DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ON ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED GROUND RULES FOR FURTHER DISPOSITION; CONFERENCE CALL WITH…
Billing records prove there was no communication between the Superintendent, Dr. Batiste, and Mr. Ficarelli for over a month. John Dewey wonders what role the Superintendent played during the ongoing negotiation process during July. However, Mr. Ficarelli met with, or had phone conferences with Deputy Superintendent Lamping on at least 8 occasions between those dates. (Continue to check back with John Dewey Is Not Dead as we explore what was taking place during these meetings).
As you can see, the detailed billing records provide an incredible amount of information. We will continue our analysis next by taking a closer look at the timeline of events that are detailed in the billing records. The timeline will assist interested parties in forming opinions as to priorities and motivations of the District Administration, Board of Education, Mr. Ficarelli and even Union negotiators. So, be sure to check back often.
In the spirit of fostering a fully informed public, John Dewey encourages all interested parties to review the documents for themselves.
View the April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli.
10/18/14 3:02
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli Billing Records (Part 1)
John Dewey has spent the last several hours analyzing the information contained in the April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli. As an outsider, Mr. Ficarelli bills for his services as lead negotiator, outside legal counsel, District spokesperson, and communication/PR strategist. As such, Mr. Ficarelli must legally provide a detailed billing record of his activity to the school district. These records were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request served on Waukegan Public Schools.
The documents contain a wealth of information regarding the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. As public records, they can also be used to prove and disprove much of what is being transmitted via social media, during private conversations and in public discussions. Additionally, it is possible to gain a better understanding of many of the questions the public holds regarding the current labor situation. In the spirit of fostering a fully informed public, John Dewey encourages all interested parties to review the documents for themselves.
View the April through May Billing records of Anthony Ficarelli.
View the billing agreement Between Dr. Batiste and Mr. Ficarelli and Board of Education documents approving the hiring of Mr. Ficarelli as lead negotiator.
Over the next day or two, John Dewey will provide analysis of the billing records from several distinct perspectives. There is a great deal of information to digest and a great deal to ponder, so we’re not dumping it out all at once. Initially, John Dewey will provide an overview of the documents, touching on interesting facts and information contained within. Next, John Dewey will take a close look at the timeline of events that are detailed in the billing records. The timeline can assist interested parties in forming opinions as to priorities and motivations of the District Administration, Board of Education, Mr. Ficarelli and even Union negotiators. Finally, John Dewey will examine the documents as a means of answering many unanswered questions the public has about the ongoing negotiation process.
Be sure to bookmark John Dewey is Not Dead, so you can return often.
Analysis of Anthony Ficarelli Billing Records (Part 1)
John Dewey has spent the last several hours analyzing the information contained in the April through August billing records of Anthony Ficarelli. As an outsider, Mr. Ficarelli bills for his services as lead negotiator, outside legal counsel, District spokesperson, and communication/PR strategist. As such, Mr. Ficarelli must legally provide a detailed billing record of his activity to the school district. These records were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request served on Waukegan Public Schools.
The documents contain a wealth of information regarding the actions, priorities and motivations of all the key District parties to the current negotiation process. As public records, they can also be used to prove and disprove much of what is being transmitted via social media, during private conversations and in public discussions. Additionally, it is possible to gain a better understanding of many of the questions the public holds regarding the current labor situation. In the spirit of fostering a fully informed public, John Dewey encourages all interested parties to review the documents for themselves.
View the April through May Billing records of Anthony Ficarelli.
View the billing agreement Between Dr. Batiste and Mr. Ficarelli and Board of Education documents approving the hiring of Mr. Ficarelli as lead negotiator.
Over the next day or two, John Dewey will provide analysis of the billing records from several distinct perspectives. There is a great deal of information to digest and a great deal to ponder, so we’re not dumping it out all at once. Initially, John Dewey will provide an overview of the documents, touching on interesting facts and information contained within. Next, John Dewey will take a close look at the timeline of events that are detailed in the billing records. The timeline can assist interested parties in forming opinions as to priorities and motivations of the District Administration, Board of Education, Mr. Ficarelli and even Union negotiators. Finally, John Dewey will examine the documents as a means of answering many unanswered questions the public has about the ongoing negotiation process.
Be sure to bookmark John Dewey is Not Dead, so you can return often.
October 20, 2014 6:00 am
Happy Birthday to John Dewey! What a wonderful day to hold a Unity March. John Dewey will be there, standing beside the good people of Waukegan as they support Waukegan Teachers and continue to demand change at Lincoln Center. March begins at 1:00 pm at the corner of Washington Ave. and Sheridan Road in downtown Waukegan.
See the Waukegan Teachers-Parents United Facebook page for more information.
Happy Birthday to John Dewey! What a wonderful day to hold a Unity March. John Dewey will be there, standing beside the good people of Waukegan as they support Waukegan Teachers and continue to demand change at Lincoln Center. March begins at 1:00 pm at the corner of Washington Ave. and Sheridan Road in downtown Waukegan.
See the Waukegan Teachers-Parents United Facebook page for more information.
10/17/14 8:37 pm
Comments Regarding the Superintendent's Letter to the Community
Late this afternoon, the Waukegan Administrative offices issued a letter to the community from Dr. Batiste. We applaud Dr. Batiste on his recognition of the importance of communication with all stakeholders, but wish to point out that communication does require a two-way process. Certainly the behavior of those on the dais Tuesday evening displayed anything but a willingness to listen to messages from the community. John Dewey hopes Dr. Batiste’s new found recognition in the importance of listening as part of communication will be shared with Board members and district leadership as well.
While there is much within the Superintendent’s message that could be examined from a factual accuracy standpoint, John Dewey takes issue with one statement in particular.
“Where do we disagree? Not over our commitment to providing students with a quality education, and not over the value of our teachers and the exemplary work that they do.”
As we were all taught by our parents at an early age: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!
It is absolutely true that our teachers are committed to providing our students a quality education. However, why would Dr. Batiste recommend to the board that they hire notorious educational hatchet man, Anthony Ficarelli, as their lead negotiator? Mr. Ficarelli came to the district with a proven track record of fostering labor discord and promoting and then extending work stoppages. Is this something someone committed to providing a quality education would do? Hardly.
If Dr. Batiste values teachers as he professes, then why delay negotiations for nearly three months? The inexcusable delays reflect a lack of urgency at it best and a complete disdain for process and people at its worst. If the Board values teachers, then why not sit in on the negotiation sessions as has been requested by the teachers numerous times. John Dewey believes that honoring simple requests is a powerful way to display respect and value. If you value the community, why build “Fortress Lincoln Center”? The real fences and barricades you construct there (and again at Brookside Campus during the Board meeting) reveal symbolically what your true values are.
If Dr. Batiste were committed to providing a quality education, why would he take a month-long vacation during the summer, when his singular focus should have been on labor negotiations? Billing records obtained through a Freedom of Information Request prove that from between June 25 and July 25, there was no communication between the Superintendent and his lead negotiator, Mr. Ficarelli. Instead, all responsibilities for planning for negotiations was left to the Deputy Superintendent and Mr. Ficarelli. The Superintendent was vacationing. As all district administrators know, when the superintendent vacations, he is not to be bothered. He’s been known to send an email with specific directives not to contact him.
Finally, if quality education is what Lincoln Center is all about, then why would hundreds of thousands of dollars be wasted on educational consultants who bring nothing of value to the district. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to the likes of Harvey Perkins and others to provide leadership support for an entire range of District Administrators. If your administrators can’t do the job, might getting rid of the incompetent administrator be preferable to hiring high-priced consultants. The Title funds you use to pay Mr. Perkins and others could better be used providing direct educational services to children and to school buildings, not Lincoln Center.
Other than what is noted above, John Dewey agrees with Dr. Batiste that the teachers have always done and will continue to do exemplary work.
Comments Regarding the Superintendent's Letter to the Community
Late this afternoon, the Waukegan Administrative offices issued a letter to the community from Dr. Batiste. We applaud Dr. Batiste on his recognition of the importance of communication with all stakeholders, but wish to point out that communication does require a two-way process. Certainly the behavior of those on the dais Tuesday evening displayed anything but a willingness to listen to messages from the community. John Dewey hopes Dr. Batiste’s new found recognition in the importance of listening as part of communication will be shared with Board members and district leadership as well.
While there is much within the Superintendent’s message that could be examined from a factual accuracy standpoint, John Dewey takes issue with one statement in particular.
“Where do we disagree? Not over our commitment to providing students with a quality education, and not over the value of our teachers and the exemplary work that they do.”
As we were all taught by our parents at an early age: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!
It is absolutely true that our teachers are committed to providing our students a quality education. However, why would Dr. Batiste recommend to the board that they hire notorious educational hatchet man, Anthony Ficarelli, as their lead negotiator? Mr. Ficarelli came to the district with a proven track record of fostering labor discord and promoting and then extending work stoppages. Is this something someone committed to providing a quality education would do? Hardly.
If Dr. Batiste values teachers as he professes, then why delay negotiations for nearly three months? The inexcusable delays reflect a lack of urgency at it best and a complete disdain for process and people at its worst. If the Board values teachers, then why not sit in on the negotiation sessions as has been requested by the teachers numerous times. John Dewey believes that honoring simple requests is a powerful way to display respect and value. If you value the community, why build “Fortress Lincoln Center”? The real fences and barricades you construct there (and again at Brookside Campus during the Board meeting) reveal symbolically what your true values are.
If Dr. Batiste were committed to providing a quality education, why would he take a month-long vacation during the summer, when his singular focus should have been on labor negotiations? Billing records obtained through a Freedom of Information Request prove that from between June 25 and July 25, there was no communication between the Superintendent and his lead negotiator, Mr. Ficarelli. Instead, all responsibilities for planning for negotiations was left to the Deputy Superintendent and Mr. Ficarelli. The Superintendent was vacationing. As all district administrators know, when the superintendent vacations, he is not to be bothered. He’s been known to send an email with specific directives not to contact him.
Finally, if quality education is what Lincoln Center is all about, then why would hundreds of thousands of dollars be wasted on educational consultants who bring nothing of value to the district. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to the likes of Harvey Perkins and others to provide leadership support for an entire range of District Administrators. If your administrators can’t do the job, might getting rid of the incompetent administrator be preferable to hiring high-priced consultants. The Title funds you use to pay Mr. Perkins and others could better be used providing direct educational services to children and to school buildings, not Lincoln Center.
Other than what is noted above, John Dewey agrees with Dr. Batiste that the teachers have always done and will continue to do exemplary work.
Friday, October 17, 2014 (5:15 pm) (
John Dewey is Not Dead--Part II
John Dewey wants to send thanks to everyone that has provided support. As we check in on the site statistcs this little web service provides, we are happy to report that John Dewey Is Not Dead received 1653 page views today from 1,612 unique visitors. Wow! We had our doubts that this response to having our Facebook feed shut down would work. Thanks to all! For now, be sure to bookmark this page so you can check back frequently. From time to time, be sure to post a link to John Dewey Is Not Dead on various Facebook pages built to provide information and insight into the Waukegan Teacher's Strike and the strong-handed tactics of the Board of Education.
Here is a sneak peak of some of what John Dewey is working on through the weekend:
--Like others in the community, John Dewey has received copies of Anthony Ficarelli's billing records for April through August. We're working on an inisder's analysis of what the billing records prove regarding negotiation tactics by the District. The amount of information in these billing records is extensive.
--John Dewey shares a conversation between a sitting Board member and someone from the community. John Dewey really is everywhere!
--More surprises!!!