Not My Problem

Here's a little tale I lived the other day.

Parent shows up at the Middle School library, wants a refund on a textbook his daughter returned. OK, let us check it out, sez the dude.

Parents do not know what book we are talking about. Ok, then. Check the Refund File. Nope. Check the Textbooks Paid file. Yep, there it is. Hmmmm....

• Textbook was due in June of 2005.
• Textbook was paid for in September, 2006.
• Textbook is turned in to High School in September, 2007, it is guessed from the cryptic notes I made, and checked in there.
• Textbook is received at Middle School in October, 2007, where it is noted (cryptically, that the textbook debt was paid a year ago.
  

So what I'm thinking is:

1. District Policy is that there are no refunds after one year.
2. Textbook is not a title being used any more, so it is of no use to the Middle School.

And it is noted on the "Charge Card" that there was no refund initiated for these two reasons.

Parent is adamant that he be paid, and that it is "not my problem, it is YOUR problem".

Parent says he got a letter "we" sent him, saying he was entitled to a refund. Nope, "we" don't send that kind of letter, "we" just send a check. Letter was probably a print-out from the Library Circulation System at the High School the student attends now. Letter was never produced.

Parent also said he received a letter in June 2007 threatening withholding of grades, promotion, etc. if debt wasn't paid. That's within the realm of possibility, as an old form may have been used by missteak. But I don't think so, as we aren't allowed to do that stuff any more. But the kicker is, this particular book was paid for ONE YEAR before, in September 2006. Since he was unable to produce THAT letter, I don't know what it actually said.

Parent goes to speak to principal. Not a problem for me, if they want to give him the money, But I'm not breaking the School District Published Procedures for a textbook that the student has had overdue for two years, and that we are not using anymore, on my own responsibility. (Feel free to correct that sentence so it makes sense!)

I was going to suggest he call the Board Of Education, since they approve the Policy and Procedures, but I didn't say anything. Probably better that way...

Anyway, Parent is getting a check, and I suppose the child learns a lesson about Personal Responsibility.

Or not.

What do YOU think?

This post is also available below in Russian:
This post is also available WAY below, translated BACK into English from Russian!
Этот столб также имеющиеся вышеуказанными на английском языке:

Здесь маленький сказ, котор я жил другой день.

Родитель показывает вверх на архиве средняи школа, хочет возврат на учебнике его, котор дочь возвратила. О'КЕЙО, препятствовало нам проверить его вне, sez dude.

Родители не знают что книге мы говорим о. О'кейо, после этого. Проверите архив возврата. Nope. Проверите учебники оплащенные архив. Yep, там он. Hmmmm....

* Учебник был должн в июне 2005.
* Учебник был paid на в 2006 -го сентябрь.
* Учебник повернут внутри к старшим клаччам средней школы в 2007 -го сентябре, угадано от криптических примечаний, котор я сделал, и проверило внутри там.
* Учебник получен на средняи школа в 2007 -го октябре, где замечено (cryptically, что оплатила задолженности учебника год тому назад.

Так я думаю является следующим:

1. Политика заречья что не будут возвратов после одного года.
2. Учебник не будет будучи использованным названием больше, поэтому он of no use к средняи школа.

И замечено на "платежной карточке" что не было возврата начатого для этих 2 причин.

Родитель несокрушим что он paid, и что будет "не моей проблемой, будет ВАШЕЙ проблемой".

Родитель говорит он получило письмо ", котор мы" послали его, говорить он был озаглавлен к возврату. Nope, "мы" не посылаем тот вид письма, "мы" как раз посылаем проверку. Письмом была вероятно распечатка от системы циркуляции архива на старших клаччах средней школы, котор студент присутствует на теперь. Письмо никогда не было произведено.

Родитель также сказал он получило письмо в 2007 -го задерживать в июне угрожая рангов, промотирования, ETC если задолженность не была paid. То находится в пределах realm возможности, по мере того как старая форма может быть использована missteak. Но я не думаю так, по мере того как мы не позволены сделать то вещество больше. Но брыкунья, эта определенная книга была paid на ОДИН ГОД перед, в 2006 -го сентябре. В виду того что он был неспособен произвести ТО письмо, я не знаю он фактическ сказал.

Родитель идет поговорить к главе. Не проблема для меня, если они хотят дать ему деньг, то только я не ломаем процедуры по школы опубликованные заречьем для учебника что студент имеет overdue на 2 лет, и что мы не используем больше, на моей собственной ответственности. (чывство свободно, котор нужно исправиться что предложение поэтому оно делают чувство!)

Я шел предложить он вызывает отдело народного образования, в виду того что они одобряет политику и процедуры, но я не сказал что-нибыдь. Вероятно улучшайте ту дорогу...

В лубом случае, родитель получает проверку, и я полагаю ребенок учит урок о личнаяа ответственность.

Или не.

ВЫ думаете?

And here it is translated BACK into English from Russian!!

This post also existing by those pointed out above in the English:

Here small tale, is which 4 it lived another day.

Parent shows upward on the archive of srednyai school, wants recovery on his textbook, it is which daughter it returned. O'KEYO, prevented us to verify it outside, sez dude.

Parents do not know that to the book we we tell In the o'keyo Is., after this. You will verify the archive of recovery. Nope. You will verify textbooks paid archive. Yep, there it Hmmmm....

• The textbook was of dolzhn during June 2005.
• Textbook was paid on into 2006 - GO September.
• Textbook is turned inside to elder klachcham of secondary school into 2007 - GO September, ugadano from the cryptic notes, I is which it made, and it verified inside there.
• Textbook was obtained on srednyai school into 2007 - GO October, where it is noted (cryptically, that it paid the debts of textbook yr ago.

So I think it is the following:

1. Policy of district that not they will be recoveries after one year.
2. Textbook not it will be being the name used more; therefore it of no use to srednyai school.

And noted on the "pay card" which not there was recovery of that begun for these 2 reasons.

Parent is indestructible that it paid, and which will be "not my problem, will be YOUR problem".

Parent speaks it obtained letter ", we was which" they sent it, to speak it was entitled to the recovery. Nope, "we" do not send that form of letter, "we" exactly send checking. By letter there was probably printout from the system of the circulation of archive on elder klachchakh of secondary school, was which student it is present on now. Letter not was never produced.

Parent also said it obtained letter into 2007 - GO to detain during June threatening ranks, promotions, ETC if debts not was paid. That is within the limits of realm of possibility, in proportion to old form can be used missteak. But 4 I do not think so, we are not permitted to make the substance more in proportion to. But the kicker, this specific book were paid for ONE YR before, into 2006 - GO September. In the form of the fact that it was incapable to produce TO letter, 4 he do not know it is actual he said.

Parent goes to have a talk to the chapter. Not problem for me, if they want to give to it den'g, then only 4 we do not break procedure on the schools those published by district for the textbook that student it has overdue to 2 years, and that we is not utilized more, on my own responsibility (chyvstvo is free, is which necessary to be corrected that proposal therefore it makes a feeling!)

I went to propose it is caused division public education, in the form of the fact that they approve policy and procedures, but 4 he did not say that -nibyd6. Probably improve that road...

In by bast the case, the parent obtains testing, and I assume child it teaches lesson against lichnayaa responsibility.

Or not.

YOU do think?

Well, THAT was weird!

Translations courtesy of AltaVista Babelfish.