Local school district financial advisor says a raise could affect the district’s future budget. Parent criticizes board for ignoring ideas that are in opposition and says certain board members are holding secret meetings.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board members last Thursday hailed a consultant’s report that stated the school district could afford a proposed 5 percent raise for teachers, while a district financial advisor expressed concern about a raise affecting the district’s future budget. Meanwhile, one district parent said he believed the board ignores those who disagreed with its ideas.
Anthony Bridges from the firm Fiscal Crisis & Management Team gave the SMMUSD Board of Education an overview of the firm’s report during the board’s meeting last week. The document was released earlier this month, but this is the first time it was reviewed at a public meeting. It states that the district must shift around some monies among its various accounts and then it will have the ability to increase teachers’ salaries by 5 percent while being able to maintain a state-mandated 3 percent reserve fund.
“There was a lot of innuendo, a lot of allegations that were put forth,” said Board member Maria Leon Vazquez. “I hope this dispels a lot of that negativity.”
District staff and the teachers union negotiated the proposed raise last fall as part of a three-year contract that begins with this school year. But when the district sent the proposal to the Los Angeles County Office of Education for review, LACOE officials said the raise would put the district below the 3 percent reserve threshold by the third year. The SMMUSD hired Fiscal Crisis to assist the district in drafting a plan that would prevent the dip in the reserve fund, as requested by LACOE.
The district’s former chief financial officer, who later resigned, did not support a 5 percent raise for teachers, and the SMMUSD’s Financial Oversight Committee also did not endorse a raise. No current school board member has publicly opposed the proposal, with most enthusiastically supporting it. But a board vote on the contract cannot take place until the LACOE matter is satisfied.
At last week’s meeting, the head of the Financial Oversight Committee expressed caution over a document that does not take into account that the district’s contract with classified staff (employees who are not teachers or administrators) expires in June, and does not contemplate any further teacher salary increases or “anything else that might come up.”
“I hope you hear tonight how close to the edge the district will be in a couple of years out,” said Paul Silvern, noting that at the end of the third year of the contract, the district will have just less than $900,000 in undesignated money (compared to nearly $7 million at the end of this year and $4.5 million at the end of next year).
Silvern suggested that Fiscal Crisis be asked to extend its projections to see how the budget will look for the year following the contract expiration, 2009-10. The board members agreed they would like to see those numbers.
In addition to Silvern, two other education activists spoke to the board about the report and the district’s financial situation. John Petz said he believed the district had gone about the contract negotiation and public review process the wrong way. He said the district, and the Board of Education specifically, ignored any advice from those who disagreed with the proposal.
“[The board is saying] the people who bother to step forward to express concerns are somehow out of line; they’re somehow not representing the right point of view,” Petz said. “[This is] the same kind of marginalizing and whispering that has gone on historically in this district to sort of shut down and exclude those who have a different point of view.”
Petz went on to accuse certain board members, although he did not mention names, of not returning phone calls from those who disagreed with them, and alleged “secret meetings” had gone on behind closed doors.
Board President Kathy Wisnicki decried Petz’ accusations.
“From where I sit, nothing could be further from the truth… One of the reasons we were so eager to get this report and get some expert, objective, third-party advice is because of the concerns raised by our Financial Oversight Committee,” Wisnicki said.
She went on to say that the advice from Financial Crisis was a “tremendous exercise in teaching us how to look at our budget” in terms of how much money needs to be in certain accounts. Fiscal Crisis will continue to work with the district to advise it on further adjustments.
“None of us wanted the process to unfold the way it did, but I think in the end it’s a good thing, and it’s really something to celebrate,” Wisnicki said.
Teachers union President Harry Keiley said at the meeting that the district’s 800 teachers have been waiting patiently for the contract to be approved, and the Fiscal Crisis report made him excited that the finalization of the contract was on the horizon.
“We [the district] can meet the 3 percent reserve,” Keiley said. “We can fund the 5 percent raise for teachers. The time has come for that to happen. The time has come for us to turn the page. The time has come for us to talk about something other than teacher contracts, pay raises for teachers, the district’s budget. Let’s start talking about curriculum. Let’s start talking about the kids.”
One issue the district will have to deal with, which was stressed in the Fiscal Crisis report, is declining enrollment. Most district revenue comes from the state, and is based on daily attendance. Enrollment is down more than 800 students compared to the 2001-02 school year, and it is projected to dwindle by nearly 600 more in the next two years. Possibilities to compensate for that could include decreasing the number of teachers or allowing more children outside the district to attend Santa Monica and Malibu schools.
The board is expected to vote at its March 15 meeting on a new document for LACOE that details how it will pay for the teachers’ raise. A draft copy could be ready for review at the March 1 meeting. The board is also expected to vote at the March 15 meeting on the teachers’ contract and Fiscal Crisis’ budget adjustment recommendations.