[Editor’s Note: Ms. Hamme is President of the Assn. of Classified Employees —Culver City.]
Re “Looking at the Step-and-Column Giveaway”
Dear George Laase:
In reading your article last Friday, I am uncertain as to whom you hold responsible for this issue. Much had been said by both Kathy Paspalis of the School Board at a Democratic Club forum and the current Board president, Scott Zeidman, about the cost of step-and-column increases to the district. In fact, following a Board meeting at City Hall, Mr. Zeidman presented me with a copy of a powerpoint presentation he had intended to deliver to the public during the meeting, but had not had adequate time in which to do so.
The Assn. of Classified Employees —Culver City, in response to the District’s budget crisis and in consideration of the students of the Culver City Unified School District, presented a proposal to the Board in May that offered a combination of sacrifices that gave the Board the dollar amount equivalent of eight furlough days.
One of the sacrifices was a one-year freeze to step-and-column increases. The proposal called for only three furlough days, one of which would have been the semester break next Jan. 24, a Pupil-Free day. The board, while appreciating that we were thinking outside of the box, was not willing to work with us to reduce the number of furlough days for next year. They immediately rejected our proposal, insisting on a “furlough day only” proposal to conform to what the teachers had already offered.
In this case, it was the “employees” who had the best interests of the students at heart — not the majority of the School Board.
Below, you will see the update I sent out to my members with regard to the rejection of our proposal:
Assn. of Classified Employees—Culver City
Negotiations Update
May 26, 2011
The ACE negotiations team met with District’s representatives on Thursday, May 26.
We continued to discuss the following items:
• Budget update – We still have not received the detailed information we requested regarding Consultant/Legal expenses.
• Hopefully, we will receive specifics at our next meeting, which has been scheduled for June 21.
• The district reduced its proposal from 8 days to 7 days. As we reported to you previously, we had submitted a proposal to the district that gave them the exact dollar amount they would have realized from 8 furlough days. While the board appreciated our efforts “to think out of the box,” our proposal was rejected because it called for ACE members to take only 3 furlough days next year. The board felt it would be too difficult to coordinate a work schedule for classified when schools were closed. We were asked to conform to the furlough day “only” offer that was proposed by the teachers’ union.
• The board is still reluctant to guarantee the restoration of any of the jobs on the cut list. Your team restated our position that we expect the board to make good on their promise that our jobs would be restored if we made concessions. We were told that if we agreed to the original proposal of 9 furlough days, the board may be inclined to make a full restoration, but there were no guarantees. Considering the lack of guarantee, we declined to offer more than the teachers’ union. Their current offer stands at 6 days. The savings of a single furlough day to the district from our unit is $40,000, so the total savings for 6 days would be $240,000. We were put in the unenviable position of having to determine which jobs to “buy back” with only $240,000 to “spend.”
• We are hopeful that our current offer will be acceptable to the board. It had been publicly stated by more than one board member that our agreeing to the proposed number of furlough days would eliminate the need to cut a single job. However, even though the board itself has progressively reduced its offer from 9 to 8 to 7 days, the rules of the game have changed each time. We do not meet with the district again until Tuesday, June 21.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
My best to everyone.
Debbie
Your A.C.E. Negotiations team:
Debbie Hamme, Jackie Lee, Robert Gray III, Carol-Ann Goldberg and Marion Serra.
When, in your recent essay, you ask the employees to explain why they decided to penalize the students with fewer days of learning instead of actually having everyone take a cut in salary by agreeing to a freeze in his or her step-and-column increases, I think you are directing your question to the wrong group. I think this is a question best answered by the Board since, despite endlessly talking about the issue, they neither proposed a freeze to the unions nor accepted A.C.E.’s proposal of a freeze when it was offered.
The second question you raise “Now that District budget negotiations are over, this question should be put to each sitting Board member and to each candidate who is running for the Board in November: Why, especially during a severe state budget crisis, would anyone agree to pay someone more to work fewer days?” is a fair one.
But it has more far reaching implications than the step-and-column issue. The Board has made several decisions in the last few years that seem to fly in the face of the budget crisis in which we find ourselves — including, but not limited to, hiring new employees despite an existing hiring freeze, selectively increasing the salaries of administrative positions, and rejecting the input of stakeholders in finding solutions to our financial woes.
I hope that members of the community will consider more than the issue of step- and-column increases that you have raised, but all of these issues as we approach the upcoming School Board election.
Ms. Hamme may be contacted at antiquer01@aol.com
