To the Editor:

The Wareham Public Schools food service department has always been self-supporting. There is no line item in the budget for food service. This means the money collected from selling school lunches to students is the sole source of income used to pay food costs, equipment maintenance and replacement, workers’ salaries, and (this is the biggie), the “town’s” portion of employee health insurance – currently 70% of the total premium per insured employee. As a participant in the National School Lunch Program, Wareham Food Service is strictly regulated by the Federal Government in regard to such things as the foods we may serve, portion sizes, fat and sodium content, just to name a few. In return, for each meal we serve, we receive reimbursement in the form of commodity food and federal and state dollars which subsidize the free and reduced meals that over 50% of Wareham students rely on. Not only are we regulated as to what we may serve, we are also regulated as to what we charge for the meals we serve. We are NOT a “for profit” agency.

It is true that the food service department is forecasted to finish this fiscal year “in the red.” It is also true that the shortfall will have to come out of the school department budget. Although the perfect storm of events that have led to this serious situation have been brewing for several years, it was my understanding until the last school committee meeting that the food service department has not finished the fiscal year in the negative for almost 20 years. Come to find out, last year there was a deficit of $20,000, as reported by the superintendent, due to an accounting error which was discovered after the former school department administration left the district. In my opinion, this amounts to nothing more than the lunch program subsidizing that accounting error. Why would it be so out of the question to for the food service department to be subsidized this fiscal year?

The current School Department Administration inherited a mess of a financial situation to say the least, of which the food service department is only one of many. However, in December the managers were told that the projected shortfall for the end of FY2014 was $300,000.00 (The superintendent made reference to a substantially lower figure at the May 21 school committee meeting) and that the situation needed to be turned around by June 30th or else. Or else what? Or else the department would be out-sourced. At that time a plan was put in place and the managers along with their dedicated staff set about changing menus, changing serving line configurations, and dealing with an immediate reduction in staffing. The result is that the projected shortfall was substantially reduced. The actual dollar amount is anyone’s guess.

In April, the school department offered an early retirement incentive. It can only be assumed that the administration’s intention was to reduce the number of senior employees. The incentive comes with what I can only imagine is a costly price tag….with the number of food service workers taking the incentive the figure has to be in excess of the amount of the food service department shortfall reported by the superintendent. I find it interesting that while the resources were available to fund the incentive, those same funds were not considered to fund the FY2014 projected deficit. Instead, the week before the deadline for submitting retirement papers to qualify for the incentive, administration sent a message to the food service workers via their union president: “If you are on the fence about whether or not to take advantage of the incentive, you should know that the department will be out-sourced next year and you may not have a job in September, so you should take advantage of the incentive while you have the chance.” The result of the incentive? Half the food service staff will not be returning in September. Additionally, a few who did not qualify for the incentive have chosen to leave as well. Why is this a surprise? It was intentional. And why is the mass exodus of workers being used as an excuse to look for a company to come in to run the kitchens? And what about the other half of the food service staff that are not retiring or leaving? They have been told that their contract is with the town and if a private company comes in, their contract is null and void. Sure, the company could offer them employment – part time at minimum wage with no benefits. It now seems that the timeline to issue RFPs (Requests for Proposals, or “bids” from private companies who want the contract) is on the fast track. The superintendent announced that she expects the subcommittee to be formed and have the RFPs prepared by May 26, a walk through for bidders is scheduled for June 10, and all proposals are to be submitted by June 20.

I don’t think it’s right to penalize the honest hard-working citizens who have made it their life’s work to be employed by this town. You can cut out all the part-time and senior employees that work for the food service department, but the savings you will realize will sadly be minimal. However, the impact on the countless lives that are affected will be huge. Recently, I had a conversation with a food service worker with 24 years of service. She was brought to tears as we discussed her feelings about being forced to retire. She told me that she “loved her job” and she “loves her kids” (students) and she really didn’t want to retire, but feels she has no choice. I truly believe that you get what you pay for. If the town chooses to out-source to avoid subsidizing the food service program, your guess is as good as mine as to who will be cooking for and serving breakfast and lunch to our children every day. In my opinion, it is pretty clear that it will not be someone who loves their job and the kids they are serving. Countless towns in our area have opted to out-source their food service programs in the last several years. The concept is not new. I would encourage anyone who has friends or relatives who live in a town whose food service program has gone private to ask them what they think about the change from town run to privately run. I can say that without exception, I have heard only negative comments about the change. My suggestion is to reconsider where to make the cuts that are necessary. Perhaps they should start from the top down. Then, maybe, the substantial financial savings that would be realized will somehow justify the hardship caused to the few employees who are affected.

Jean Smith, SNS

Manager, Wareham High School Cafeteria