SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM: School Lunch Specialist v. Head Cook

1. SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM: School Lunch Specialist v. Head Cook

2. Department/Class School Lunch Supervisor Head Cook Sheriff, School Districts Non-Competitive Approved: 1961 1997, 2008 • Various School Districts • Competitive • Approved: 1982 • No revisions

3. DISTINGUISHED FEATURES School Lunch Specialist Head Cook Responsible for planning menus, purchasing food, preparation and service. Under general supervision with wide leeway allowed. Supervision of Cooks, Food Service Helpers, and other personnel Related work as required. • Responsible for managing program in a large or several small schools. • May work under a School lunch Director or District Administrator. • Supervision of Cooks and other program personnel. • Related work as required.

4. TYPICAL WORK School Lunch Specialist Head Cook Plans meals, maintains inventory, prepares orders. Supervises and assists cooks, aids and (residents) dishwashers Records and reports on food service production Assists in the maintenance of the kitchen budget. • Plan and supervise preparation and service of lunches • Plans or recommends changes in menus • Requisitions food, supplies, equipment • Input on maintenance of plant and equipment • Maintains inventory • Supervises collection and accounting of cash receipts

5. KNOWLEDGE, SKIILS, ABILITIES, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS School Lunch Specialist Head Cook Knowledge of institutional food service Knowledge of principals and practices of supervision Knowledge of food values, menu planning Food preparation practices, sanitation, inventory, ordering Establish and maintain good relations with others Keep and prepare reports Physical ability to handle the work. • Fundamentals of nutrition, school lunch program • Ability to supervise work of others • Knowledge of food values, preparation, menus, equip • Keep and prepare reports • Good relationship with children and adults • Physical ability to handle the work

6. OTHER SCHOOLS IN TST? School Lunch Supervisor Head Cook Trumansburg (TST share) South Seneca (TST share) Newfield • Groton (TST share) • Lansing (TST share) • Ithaca

7. WHY CHANGE OUR CONFIGURATION? • Lansing vs. TST employee • Strategic Plan • BOE committees becoming more defined, focused, active • 0.64FTE vs. 1.0FTE • See above • Hands-on management/leadership • Facilitation of critical service times • Personnel in house • Experienced employees with supervisory capabilities • Current configuration leads to perceived separation between buildings

8. COST ANALYSIS • ASSUMPTIONS: • Limit posting to current staff to prevent addition of health insurance and retirement liability • Increase hours of other current staff with no impact on above • Possible addition of one new body at fewer hours than would qualify for health insurance

9. COST ANALYSIS CURRENT CONFIGURATION 2010-2011 wages PROPOSED CONFIGURATION 2010-2011 wages

10. PROCESS • January, 2011: MJK met with current BOCES itinerant. • (The discussion and related research has been ongoing since Spring, 2009) • March 25: MJK met with staff in each café, (intended for 3/16/2011) • March 28: Head Cook position posted internally (2-week internal posting) • May 2 (or week of?): Interviews • Interview committee: • volunteers from the School Lunch program, • BOE members from Health Committee • LFA representatives • Administrative representatives • LSSA representatives • May 9: Dr. Grimm makes recommendation to BOE

11. SUMMARY • Cost analysis supports change from 0.64 FTE to full-time Supervisor at similar cost. • Increased presence in district with FT Supervisor during critical service time(s) • No title conflict, districts and BOCES use titles interchangeably • Increased presence in district for Strategic Plan/BOE committee meetings