Thanks for sharing, Mark.

On the subject of continuing turmoil in the Trustee's Office, I'm listening to the discourse with growing puzzlement.

First, a concern arose (which we all likely share) that Duncan III had awarded these bonuses to employees who hadn't completed the CTAS training program.

Next, a concern arose (which we all likely share) that someone in that office may have taken CTAS exams for his co-workers.

In the last 24 hours, though, a concern seems to have arisen (which I am NOT sure I, personally, harbor) that the course content of the CTAS training program is suspect and/or the size of the bonuses afforded program enrollees is suspect, maybe only in relation to the program's course content?

As to the CTAS program's course content, it appears to me per info at their site to contain adequate breadth and material appropriate to enrollees' job functions.

Then to, I don't particularly question the propriety of an employer--either public or private--acting to pay an employee a higher wage for having obtained job-specific training that employer values.

Is this newest concern then one of Duncan III having offered the training opp to some staffers we shouldn't expect to utilize the training given their particular job descriptions, as in lowly clerks maybe lacking any opportunity to employ on-the-job what they've learned?

I wouldn't have suspected that this happened in Duncan III's office, anyway, since media coverage has indicated that most of the bonuses he gave went to his highest-paid employees, whom I would assume are also those charged with the greatest volume of responsibility in the office...

In that video clip, I was not particularly surprised to hear Smith disparage the program and/or its bonuses, more surprised to hear Briggs do so, and especially alert to think you may also share their opinions.

Can you elaborate? Thanks.

I generally have good dealings with CTAS. It is a good place for reference, materials, and training. It produced a model ethics code adopted by many counties. I think the problem is more of poor administrative choices. Our law allows for bonuses for professional training. Of course, such training should be spelled out, completed by the person getting any bonus, the bonus amount should be relevant to the skills gained for the tasks--and clearly stated in the given organization's budget.