The School District and the School Board were treated to a very respectful representation by Culver City voters on Tuesday night.
This is important because only about 12 percent of our registered voters turn out for School Board elections. And most of those are over the age of 50 with no kids in our schools.
Of those who are real voting stakeholders in our District, many of them spoke out at the meeting.
The community is pretty much in agreement that we want to maintain class size and hold programs (i.e. AP, Art, Music, Sports).
Everyone agrees what we want to keep, but nobody has been able to present what else might be cut ☹
Among the suggestions that had public traction is an across-the-board income reduction [on a progressive scale, to assist those on the bottom of the income rung].
Bu this is an item that only can be addressed in negotiations with the unions.
Union Will Balk
The Teachers Union made it pretty clear they wouldn’t agree to such an option.
Their president stated that although they received a 1 percent increase in salary last year, since it was lower than the average of other districts, the difference is their reduction.
I have a disconnect with that — as I’m sure many private sector workers do as well.
The teachers get an automatic “increase” for each year they work in the District, up to a maximum. They receive another “increase” if they further their education.
It is called “step and column,” not a raise!
A raise is when the base amount for each rung on the step and column is increased.
We all agree teachers, as a profession, are under compensated.
But they knew this when they entered the field.
Of course, in classic management/union fashion, there has developed a view that our administration is “top heavy.”
Numbers Argue Different Story
Yet we have merely 39 or so folks in the administration managing more than 300 teachers plus classified plus more than 6000 students.
When union members get laid off, the most experienced senior members are retained and the most junior are released.
Same is true in business.
The most skilled positions are retained as they have the training, experience and skills to handle the increased workload caused by eliminating the mid-level positions.
I expect our top District personnel to be retained and those below them to be released. Then the top dogs will pick up the slack.
As the saying goes, “That is why they make the big bucks.”
And the School District only pays administrators in the mid-range of average.
Peace Not Likely to Break Out
I don’t expect the two unions and unrepresented District employees to have a Kumbaya moment.
I don’t expect them to agree to a pay-cut that would save all other cuts and maintain class sizes and programs the community desires.
Yet, hope springs eternal.
Another disturbing concept was raised by School Board member Scott Zeidman. He said that since it is unlikely anyone, including teachers, will get a raise this year or next, should the class sizes have to increase, when money becomes available the Teachers Union will opt for a raise before the community-desired smaller class size.
The Union president sat there nodding in agreement.
Come on.
The unions can’t even agree on a calendar for next year. Yet we parents can’t even weigh in. It’s a negotiated item.
Scary stuff.
It is fitting that the Board continues to delay action until the last possible moment.
Not that any believe a panacea will emerge, but as I’ve discovered after 7 years on the Community Budget Advisory Committee, the budget is a moving target.
As of Tuesday night, the cuts were back up to a $3.3 to $4 million range.
Of the $56 million budget, Tuesday night it was revealed 93 percent (not the 90 percent I’ve been stating) pays for people.
That leaves under $4 million to pay for everything that is not people. Obviously, there is no way to avoid cutting positions.
Let’s make it clear to all parties within the District, the Board, administrators and both unions, that what we really want is for them all to take a voluntary pay reduction that is reasonable — let them work out the amount — instead of ordering cuts to people or programs.
Let’s make it clear that should class sizes have to be increased, as soon as funds are available the class sizes will be reduced before anyone gets a dime more money.
Let’s take up School Board member Steve Gourley’s mantra, “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
Collectively, let’s force change in Sacramento. Coincidental with that, let’s figure our own solution to providing an independent, sustainable revenue stream for our District that will allow us to fund the schools we love and wish to maintain.
Next Tuesday’s 7 o’clock School Board meeting might be the last stand before the Board must cut.
Can’t anyone reading this write a check for the $3 million to 4 million and bail out the School District.
Thanks for reading this far and sharing in my rant.
Alan Elmont, a Culver City parent and member of the Community Budget Advisory Committee, may be contact at AElmont@ca.rr.com
