The Office of the Commissioner of Education recently claimed that the Public School System “strictly adheres” to the Board of Education Personnel Regulations. Unfortunately, this statement does not align with the actual requirements of those regulations or with the documented actions taken by PSS leadership. When the regulations are applied to the facts, it becomes clear that PSS’s handling of classification and grievance matters significantly departs from the standards the Board has established.
The Board’s regulations on classification are explicit. Under § 60-30.1-402(a), position classification must be based on the actual duties and responsibilities performed, grouping similar positions together and maintaining accuracy and consistency in the classification system. Under § 60-30.1-402(f), a position must be placed into the correct class solely based on an analysis of its duties—not on organizational convenience, internal politics, or existing charts.
Yet the legal counsel’s (because there is no way the hearing panel would come up with this argument not supported by BOE regs) decision in my first grievance demonstrates that these standards were not followed. Rather than evaluating my duties, classification was determined by the current organizational structure:
“Mr. Smith’s role is managerial, not directorial… If Mr. Smith were to be reclassified to Pay Level 26… it would necessitate the creation of a new department and directorship… The Committee determined that within the current organizational structure of PSS, Mr. Smith’s classification as a manager is fitting. This classification is a result of PSS’s organizational structure.”
This conclusion violates the regulations in several significant ways.
Organizational inconvenience is not a legal basis for classification.
Nothing in Title 60 permits PSS to deny reclassification because adjusting the organizational structure would be inconvenient. The Board requires accuracy—not administrative preference.
Classification must be based on duties—not hierarchy.
§ 60-30.1-402(c) defines a position by the work a person is assigned.
§ 60-30.1-402(h) requires reclassification when duties have changed or there is an error.
The ruling ignores both requirements.
Similar duties must be classified consistently.
Under § 60-30.1-402(b), positions with similar duties must share the same title and pay level. Yet within PSS, multiple director-level employees supervise no staff, while I directly supervise internal staff as well as contractors. This inconsistency directly contradicts the regulation.
Equal Pay for Equal Work
The Commissioner’s statement also overlooks one of the most fundamental requirements of the Board of Education Personnel Regulations: equal pay for equal work. § 60-30.1-404 Principles and Policies (a) (1) (2) The basic principles underlying the position classification system are: Equal pay for equal work; and Variations in pay in proportion to substantial differences in difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements of the work. Yet in practice, PSS has allowed employees with fewer responsibilities to be classified and paid at director-level rates, while employees performing broader, more complex, and supervisory duties remain classified at lower levels. This inconsistency is not only unjust—it is a direct violation of the Board’s own rules. Equal pay for equal work is not optional; it is a mandated principle, and PSS’s failure to enforce it further undermines the claim of “strict adherence.”
Obstruction and withholding of critical documents.
The grievance process was further compromised by withholding and redacting key information, including the Class Specification documents and official duties and responsibilities of the relevant positions. Both I and the grievance hearing panel were denied access to complete, unredacted records necessary to make an informed, fair determination. This deliberate obstruction undermines transparency, due process, and the integrity of the classification system.
The Commissioner’s Obligations
The regulations also address the Commissioner’s responsibilities. Under § 60-30.1-401(a), the Commissioner must:
• ensure the classification plan is properly administered,
• ensure positions are accurately classified, and
• take corrective action when errors or inconsistencies are identified.
By allowing a misclassification to persist for years—despite grievances, documentation of duties, and clear evidence—the Commissioner (and his 2 predecessors) has not fulfilled these obligations. This directly contradicts any claim of “strict adherence.”
Failure to Follow Grievance Standards
The regulations also mandate timely and good-faith grievance processing. Instead, the record shows:
• years of unanswered grievances,
• withheld or heavily redacted documents,
• legal counsel relying on subjective interpretation rather than objectively applying the regulations,
• failure to follow mandatory timelines.
This pattern further undermines the Commissioner’s statement.
Conclusion
If PSS truly “strictly adhered” to the BOE Personnel Regulations:
• classification decisions would be based on duties, not organizational charts,
• similar duties would result in consistent titles and pay,
• long-standing misclassifications would have been corrected under § 60-30.1-401,
• grievances would be processed on time and in good faith, with all relevant information made available, and
• legal counsel would apply regulations objectively rather than defend predetermined outcomes.
The reality documented through official records and grievance proceedings does not reflect the Commissioner’s claim. The community deserves transparency, accountability, and adherence to the regulations that govern our public institutions.
Glenn Smith
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMI News Service or its staff. All assertions are the sole responsibility of the writer.
To submit an op-ed for consideration, email your piece to brad.ruszala@nminewsservice.com
