[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 59°F  
High: 74°F ~ Low: 49°F
Friday, May 6, 2016

Two positions to use vehicles owned by CCSC

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Amy Adams
After months of discussion the Clay Community School Board of Trustees is coming one step closer to a decision.

What began as a discussion on cost savings has evolved into a possible change in policy. Beginning Jan. 1, the Building and Grounds Director and Transportation Director are to use corporation-owned vehicles instead of receiving mileage reimbursement. Both are to take notes for three months and report back to the board during the regular April meeting.

"The concern that generated this topic was because some of the reimbursements given out were enough to purchase a new vehicle," board member Amy Adams said. "The reimbursements were running from $300-$500 a month. So when this was first suggested, it was because of that. Through the conversation we asked is it possible for the two administrators who do the most running for their job to use corporation-owned vehicles."

Adams explained how both individuals are in charge of their own departments and how if they worked the scheduling and their staffing correctly then there should always be a vehicle available to them, therefore, eliminating their need to receive a mileage reimbursement check.

"The gentlemen who work at the bus center are tied to the bus center all day with the exception of when they are running to fix a bus, bring one back or buy parts," she said. "For grounds and maintenance, I know we have a few more of them then transportation, but I don't know if they are running in all directions at different times. So I'm thinking there should be two unattended corporation-owned vehicles to be used."

Though Transportation Director Tom Reberger told the board that if that policy had been in place earlier that day then he would've driven a 4-wheel drive dump truck that has a sand spreader and a snow plow blade mounted on it.

"All the other vehicles were out," he said.

Instead of creating the a new policy and putting it into place, the board voted to give both Reberger and Transportation Director Frank Misner three months to take notes and do a practice run. Concerns were raised by Reberger about having to drive into Brazil to pick up a vehicle when there could be a situation taking place at a building that needs his urgent attention.

"I get alarms and I respond," Reberger said. "As I was getting ready to leave to come out here I got a call about Van Buren. Granted, it was two miles away, but I went to Van Buren and I have three maintenance men working now on a busted pipe."

Reberger explained how the ten minutes he would spend driving to Brazil to get a vehicle could easily be avoided because he could be at the building taking care of the problem. Though discussion continued, the ultimate decision was up to the board.

"I am going to do whatever you direct me to do," Reberger said. "Whatever you direct me to do, that is what I will do. But there will be complications."

The next meeting of the Clay Community School Board of Trustees will be Thursday Jan. 13, at 7:30 p.m., in the media center at North Clay Middle School.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I think that the idea of providing these men vehicles is a good idea. However, in cases of emergency, wouldn't we want them to respond immediately. Let's think about the time wasted on them driving to town to pick up their vehicle. Would it be possible for them to take the vehicles home? My company provides certain positions vehicles that the people just take home.

-- Posted by Ron Archer on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 8:17 AM

While the corporation may be paying out as reimbursement enough to purchase a vehicle, that still leaves insurance, fuel and maintenance costs. When you pay a reimbursement it is the car owner's responsibility to cover that cost.

Does the reimbursement cover those costs as well?

THAT is the question that should be addressed.

If a person is truly on 24 hour call for emergencies, they do not need to be traveling to another location first to pick up company car. The option still needs to be there for that person to be reimbursed for mileage if emergency personnel decides it's better to go directly to the site of the emergency. If administration does not feel that Mr Reberger cannot make this judgment, why has he been put in this position? This question is not to place doubt on Mr Reberger but on the board's decision to have him go pick up vehicle before going to emergency. Sure use a school owned car for regular work day but middle of the night calls?? That should be at the discretion of the emergency person on call and he should have the option of reimbursement in that situation. Just opinion from one voter who thinks that water damage from a broken pipe can multiply quickly each minute it is allowed to gush water into a building. A whole lot more loss than reimbursing someone 25-30 miles a few times a year.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 8:39 AM

Life hours and efficiency have to be weighed against simple dollars. Unless there is a significant savings, there is no reason to add complications to the staff's work.

-- Posted by brazilian on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 10:12 AM

Recommendation for school board for cost savings and more and better transportation for the children of clay county. Give misner a spare bus take home will cut 1 vehicle cost since bus already insured. That way a bus will be available in case there is a problem with a bus he would be there with bus. Save time in this cold weather whereas mechanics would not have get out with spare bus. Save lots time plus lots money.

-- Posted by buddry55 on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 11:30 AM

I have the same questions that Jenny does. Is it really going to be cheaper in the long run after you add in the additional costs for fuel and insurance for CCSC vehicles? Has anybody done a cost analysis on this versus paying the mileage and the advantages to that in case of emergencies? Interesting...........me thinks this needs some additional thought put into it.

Per month:

Car payment, (unless the cars are already owned by CCSC, the article did not say one way or another) $400

Insurance (guesstimate) $100

Fuel (another guesstimate) $80

We are already up to $580 dollars and not to mention oil changes, maintenance, etc. Hum.....I guess I would need to look further into this issue before coming to any kind of conclusion that this would indeed be a cost savings measure. As of right now, I am thinking NOT! Just sayin'.......

-- Posted by appaloosa queen on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 12:12 PM

What a bunch of cry babies! Seems like an EMERGENCY would be just that, and a responder would'nt be worried about gas money, or getting paid mileage to go do their job. The point is trying to save the corp. money.

Speaking of saving money, KUDOS to the board for eliminating Stipends.

-- Posted by reddevil on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM

I'm sure the corporation is covered, but it still would seem to me like there is a huge potential for a liability issue with employees driving personal vehicles for school business.

It makes better sense to provide corporation employees with corporation vehicles to drive home to better serve emergency situations and to eliminate as many potential liability issues as possible. That cost could be astronomical for the corporation and yet, remains completely undetermined.

-- Posted by Shadrach on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 11:43 PM

so true shad

-- Posted by buddry55 on Tue, Dec 14, 2010, at 8:48 AM

Someone reported a water leak in a building? During the reporting process, I would hope that they were given instructions on how to turn the water off to prevent any more damage. Why would the Director of Buildings and Grounds even need to travel to the building in such a situation unless he was going to do the repair himself, why not just send a workman to do the plumbing?

Fleet vehicles normally cost less per mile to acquire, maintain, and insure than a privately owned vehicle, especially when maintenance is done "in house". Part of the cost-savings is the ability to buy "in bulk" such things as oils and fuel and another is the labor costs because if it were cheaper to contract out your maintenance you should already be doing it.

The corporation should already have some idea of the cost per mile for a pick-up truck as they already own at least one pickup, a service truck. The cost of acquisition, insurance, operation, and maintenance for any such vehicle should be on record within the corporation and only needs to be found and processed into cost per mile information. Of course, as the service truck has a special body that costs more than a regular pick-up and a car would have a different base price, some adjustment would be required, but the figure for the cost per mile for the service truck(s) would be a good starting point.

It is understandable that these directors do need to travel some in the performance of their duties; however, one of the banes of a managerial position is that you are supposed to run your desk more than run around. Perhaps if these positions managed more and supervised or repaired less, the corporation could operate a lot more cost-effectively.

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Tue, Dec 14, 2010, at 9:38 AM

Shadrach - How would the corporation be in any way liable if an employee's job duties requires that the employee travel to a certain location to perform them and doesn't provide a corporate-owned vehicle? That would be the same as saying that any employer is liable for any employee on the drive to the place of employment for the regular workday.

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Tue, Dec 14, 2010, at 9:49 AM


If it were solely a liability issue, the corporation would need several more vehicles as already teachers and other staff travel between various schools on a regular basis.

This is driven by finances only from what I can see.

While I believe that the corporation vehicle being driven home has the potential for at least the appearance of misuse if let's say employee stops at Kroger on way home from work to pick up groceries etc, but if that practice eliminated, the one or two emergency employees on call will have to be able to charge mileage in true emergency where they feel that time is of the essence. There are exceptions to every rule and this possibly is one of those situations. Especially since this move is not eliminating all cases of reimbursement as others in corporation will still be using their own vehicles.

When you delegate to someone a supervisory position and emergency call, you are also putting trust in that person to be able to maintain that trust. If you find that they are not able to do this, they shouldn't be in that position in the first place. I believe that both of the employees in question are long term so I don't understand the dilemma here. Let them use their own judgment, or board/superintendent take them off emergency duty and cover it themselves.

-- Posted by Jenny Moore on Tue, Dec 14, 2010, at 9:54 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: