Some Wake County school employees are expected to lose their cell phones as part of a cost-cutting measure.
During last week's school board work session, Chief Business Officer David Neter said staff is reviewing which employees need to keep their district-issued devices and which ones will be switched to cheaper ones. Currently, some get a traditional cell phone while others might get a Blackberry or a Direct Connect device.
Handouts presented last week show that Wake is paying for nearly 2,500 cell devices. (As was explained last week, don't interpret the Blackberry page to mean those people are getting both a Blackberry and a cell.)
"We have begun conversation on the potential and the likelihood of eliminating cell phones for certain positions," Neter said. "Whether it's a secretary or clerical assistant, where it's not considered a mission-critical productivity tool, we will consider eliminating them...Every dollar counts."
The discussion came as the school board will be asked to approve a new cell plan on Tuesday that could save Wake $434,318 a year.
Neter said that previously cell devices were handled in a decentralized manner. He said schools will still continue to have discretion over who to give phones to but they'll have more central control over ordering and billing now.
Neter said they expect to move many of the people who now have devices, such as bus drivers, to an option on the new plan in which they'll only be charged 87 cents a month. People will be able to make unlimited in-network calls. They can also make calls out of network for 16 cents per minute.
Neter said that the bus drivers would be only allowed to call numbers on the phone's pre-loaded phonebook or 911. He said that, just like now, they'd still be barred from texting.
Bob Snidemiller, senior director for transportation, said drivers need the devices for emergencies.
A lot of last week's discussion was on the use of cell phones and Blackberries by principals and assistant principals.
School board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman, who has been pushing hard for details on the district's cell phone plan, questioned whether principals and assistant principals need to have both e-mail and text capability on their devices. She said she could understand having texting in case someone needed to reach them immediately.
Goldman also questioned whether assistant principals need Blackberries. Currently, 213 cell phones are given to assistant principals, of which 88 are Blackberries.
Goldman noted how much cheaper it would be to only have a cell phone with texting capability. She said the administrators could check their e-mails at their desks.
Chief Area Superintendent Danny Barnes said principals and assistant principals spend very little of the day in their offices as they're constantly walking around the school and doing things such as cafeteria duty. Barnes said it was easier on them to check the e-mails that come in all day by quickly scrolling through them on their phones.
Barnes said e-mail has become the primary source of communication with staff in the building during the day. He also said that email has become the preferred method of communication for some parents.
But Goldman said that, as a parent, she'd hope that administrators would be focused on the students while on cafeteria duty as opposed to their e-mail messages. She also said she would hope that administrators who are reading a parent's e-mail would be focusing on it and not the whirlwind going on in the cafeteria.
Barnes said he'd envision that if an administrator was expecting a message he'd want to quickly scroll for it and take that as a cue to go back to his office to respond.
Goldman then brought up the example of a meeting she had last year, before she was elected, with the principal of one of her children. During the meeting, another person sat in and was constantly looking down at his phone.
After the meeting ended, Goldman said he asked the principal who that other person was. She said the principal told her that the guy was an assistant principal. He wanted him there to get to know Goldman and her husband.
"You can't be doing this," said Goldman, who mimicked looking down at her phone, "and be focused on what's going on with the parents that are sitting in front of you."
Barnes said that he agreed that administrators should be focused on the parents who're they are meeting with. He also said that administrators on cafeteria duty should be focused on the students with the option of quickly checking their messages.

Comments
Goldman
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 13:57 — HereWeGoHmm...
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 14:42 — Bob_SconceI think the public comment period is really broken. If there were a half-dozen speakers and the school board could interact with them, that would be one thing. But, from what I've seen, a good portion of the speakers are either so nervous, ill-prepared or just generally unable to make a cogent argument that listening to them has to be the epitome of tedium -- being required just to listen to whatever somebody has to say, without interacting, is not conducive to paying attention. And, when there are dozens of speakers, OF COURSE the members' minds wander.
I haven't seen the note-passing that you're referring to, but I note that there are several good reasons for this: (Ex: "Can we take a break after this next guy?").
Personally, I'd love to see something a little closer to what the US Supreme Court does for oral arguments -- somebody starts making a presentation, they get interrupted by the court asking a question, then they continue, then there's another interruption, etc.... That would require people to be informed and prepared when they show up and actually turn that time into something useful.
epitome of tedium
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 21:35 — HereWeGoI guess the vice-principle must have thought that listening to Mrs. Goldman's was the epitone of tedium as well.
Why separate cell phones?
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 12:51 — Bob_SconceIt seems to me that the district could just give administrators a supplement and have them use their own cell phones. Who wants to carry multiple phones, especially if you don't have much say in what it is. (Blackberry? Oy. That's so 2006.) Should save money and make everybody better off.
One of the questions brought
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 14:58 — KeungHui (author)One of the questions brought up last week is why not all the principals had district-issued Blackberries. It was explained that some principals decided to keep their own rather than get a second device.
Sounds like a good idea
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 14:29 — user12345Sounds like a good idea
Good idea ?
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 21:45 — Solon77If the district is providing a supplemental then does this mean the district has access to all of the records, even personal ? In the business world the legal advice is - business phone for business and personal phone for personal - keep it separate.
?
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 11:51 — Bob_SconceThat's not universally followed advice. In general, as long as the emails are stored on the business' server, the phone shouldn't be an issue. I can access my work emails on my personal (i.e. home) computer -- I don't see why accessing them on my personal phone is any different.
I think that it's a little
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:32 — danofncI think that it's a little difficult to sync a phone to two different email accounts. Most likely, someone would want their emails sent to the synced account, which could then lead to personal emails being sent to a district email address.
Those personal emails would seem to be subject to FOI requests.
Unless you work for the state, your business emails would always be private, right?
WEll...
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:50 — Bob_SconceThis is getting way off-topic....
If you have one of them blackberry thing-a-ma-jigs, you may be right. But, I'm on my second phone that handles multiple email accounts quite nicely (the first was a Windows Mobile device, the second runs Android). Public Records requests should not be able to reach a person's private email account even if they happened to own a phone that accessed both their personal and gov't email accounts.
There may be techincal or administrative reasons for wanting to have separate phones, but I don't think there's any legal reason.