SAIPAN – Public School System employee Glenn Smith delivered the following public comment to the Board of Education on Wednesday regarding the status of his classification grievance, which he said has remained unresolved since 2018. His remarks are reproduced in full.
Good morning Chair and members of the Board.
My comments today are to address the continued inaction surrounding my classification grievance, which has now remained unresolved since 2018 despite two formal grievance proceedings, two hearing panels, and written conclusions identifying both the issue and the remedy.
This matter is no longer simply about a title or pay level. It is about due process, accountability, and whether the Board of Education intends to uphold the outcomes of its own official procedures.
The grievance regulations clearly state that grievances are to be handled promptly, fairly, and without obstruction. They also guarantee employees freedom from interference, discrimination, retaliation, and reprisal while pursuing grievances. Yet here we are, more than eight years later, with no implementation of the solution identified by the Board’s own hearing panels.
Both grievance panels, comprised of Board members years apart, did not dispute that I perform Director-level duties and responsibilities. Instead, both conclusions stated that in order to properly classify my position as a Director, the Board would need to modify the organizational chart and establish a Facilities and Maintenance directorate.
The issue, therefore, has never been my duties. The issue has been the Board’s failure to act on the remedy identified through its own process.
I also want to mention something that deeply concerned me during a recent meeting with the Board Chair. I was asked: “What if we just paid you as a Director but not the title?”
That question raises an important issue.
If compensation is not the obstacle, then what is the real obstacle?
The classification regulations are very clear. Positions are classified according to their duties and responsibilities. The organizational chart is supposed to reflect the classification, not determine it. If the Board is willing to acknowledge the compensation level associated with Director duties, then it further confirms that the actual work being performed is not in dispute.
So again, what is preventing the Board from simply following its own regulations?
At some point, continued delay becomes more than administrative inaction. It becomes a denial of due process. A grievance process only has meaning if the outcomes are respected and acted upon. Otherwise, employees are asked to participate in a system where conclusions can be acknowledged indefinitely without resolution.
I respectfully ask the Board to finally bring this matter to closure by implementing the remedy already identified through its own official grievance process and by ensuring that its regulations are applied consistently, fairly, and transparently.
Thank you.
PSS Employee Glenn Smith’s Full Public Comments to the Board of Education on Classification Grievance
SAIPAN – Public School System employee Glenn Smith delivered the following public comment to the Board of Education on Wednesday regarding the status of his classification grievance, which he said has remained unresolved since 2018. His remarks are reproduced in full.
Good morning Chair and members of the Board.
My comments today are to address the continued inaction surrounding my classification grievance, which has now remained unresolved since 2018 despite two formal grievance proceedings, two hearing panels, and written conclusions identifying both the issue and the remedy.
This matter is no longer simply about a title or pay level. It is about due process, accountability, and whether the Board of Education intends to uphold the outcomes of its own official procedures.
The grievance regulations clearly state that grievances are to be handled promptly, fairly, and without obstruction. They also guarantee employees freedom from interference, discrimination, retaliation, and reprisal while pursuing grievances. Yet here we are, more than eight years later, with no implementation of the solution identified by the Board’s own hearing panels.
Both grievance panels, comprised of Board members years apart, did not dispute that I perform Director-level duties and responsibilities. Instead, both conclusions stated that in order to properly classify my position as a Director, the Board would need to modify the organizational chart and establish a Facilities and Maintenance directorate.
The issue, therefore, has never been my duties. The issue has been the Board’s failure to act on the remedy identified through its own process.
I also want to mention something that deeply concerned me during a recent meeting with the Board Chair. I was asked: “What if we just paid you as a Director but not the title?”
That question raises an important issue.
If compensation is not the obstacle, then what is the real obstacle?
The classification regulations are very clear. Positions are classified according to their duties and responsibilities. The organizational chart is supposed to reflect the classification, not determine it. If the Board is willing to acknowledge the compensation level associated with Director duties, then it further confirms that the actual work being performed is not in dispute.
So again, what is preventing the Board from simply following its own regulations?
At some point, continued delay becomes more than administrative inaction. It becomes a denial of due process. A grievance process only has meaning if the outcomes are respected and acted upon. Otherwise, employees are asked to participate in a system where conclusions can be acknowledged indefinitely without resolution.
I respectfully ask the Board to finally bring this matter to closure by implementing the remedy already identified through its own official grievance process and by ensuring that its regulations are applied consistently, fairly, and transparently.
Thank you.