The Davis Joint Unified School District and the California School Employees Association have reached a tentative agreement, pending ratification by both parties, on a contingency that could mean the reduction by as much as six days in the 2012-13 school year.
“The District and the California School Employees Association, recognizing the potential impact of the failure of Prop. 30, have ratified” an MOU. “The MOU contains contingency language which would be triggered by Prop. 30’s failure, a graduated scale of concessions based on the scale of lost state revenue, language to restore concessions if money returns to the district, and a plan to implement the concessions.”
“If the DJUSD 2012-2013 total funded Revenue Limit per unit of ADA is reduced by $385.01-$440.00 from the 2012-2013 adopted state budget total funded revenue limit per unit of ADA, the work year shall be reduced by six (6) days,” the agreement reads moving up from zero furlough days at a reduction of less than $110 incrementally to the six furlough days.
CSEA had previously agreed to four furlough days, so the six additional furlough days brings them up to the ten the district is asking for from the teachers.
The language of the agreement adds, “The number of furlough days based on a reduction in total funded revenue limit may be decreased in the event additional revenue, whether ongoing or one time, received by the DJUSD such as, but not limited to: federal funds, state and/or local revenues which can be used without restriction for general fund purposes.”
Moreover, “In the event that additional unrestricted/unencumbered revenue sources are received after furlough days have been taken, employees will be compensated by adding a corresponding number of workdays and/or compensating bargaining unit members at their daily rate by a onetime lump sum payment prior to June 30, 2013.”
On Thursday, the district will examine “fiscal planning options that would protect District solvency in the event Proposition 30 and Measure E do not pass in November.”
“If Proposition 30 fails, DJUSD will need to immediately cut $3.7 million from its 2012-13 budget,” the agenda item reads. “If Measure E does not pass then DJUSD will need to cut $3.2 million from its 2013-14 budget. Given the severity of these potential cuts, early fiscal planning is crucial.”
While CSEA is on the verge of ratifying their concession agreement, the larger Davis Teachers Association, representing the teachers, is holding out.
Last week, in an op-ed from DTA President Frank Thomsen, they offered, in the event that Proposition 30 fails, “five furlough days that will save the district more than $900,000.”
Mr. Thomsen writes, “While it is difficult to give up five instructional days with our students, we believe that ending the school year a week early – together with concessions from other employee groups and a freeze on discretionary spending at the district level – will provide the bridge money needed to make it through June, even if the election results don’t go our way.”
The district, which faces the loss of $3.7 million in January if Proposition 30 fails, is asking for twice that.
“We oppose the district’s proposal because we know that our teachers and students just cannot afford it,” he argues.
He adds: “As teachers, we are already struggling to cover curriculum with larger class sizes and increased student needs. Ending school two weeks early would put our children two weeks behind.
“Teachers would have to consider what to leave out of the curriculum, to decide what the children would not learn during that time – what math facts would not be practiced, what science concept would not be introduced, what spelling lesson would fall by the wayside.”
“We are concerned about our students – and we’re also concerned about our own families,” he argues. “Ten furlough days means a 10 percent pay cut for Davis teachers during the January through June period. Very few of us can absorb that without taking on an extra job (and jobs are now scarce), dipping into our own children’s college savings or going into debt.”
Frank Thomsen writes: “This pay cut would hurt Davis teachers who have already seen their paychecks diminished through inflation, health insurance increases and past furlough days. We have had no cost-of-living adjustment since 2006 (and only 1 percent then), even though between 2006 and 2011, cumulative inflation in California has eroded our earnings by more than 14 percent.”
However, while the two sides dispute the amount needed in order to keep the district solvent, the teachers have yet to suggest an alternative that could allow the district to realize the needed savings come January.
If the two sides cannot agree – the district will eventually declare impasse which would result in a third-party coming in to mediate the negotiations.
As an alternative, the district could close one or more schools – though doing so midyear seems problematic at best and would not realize the full annual savings.
Closing an elementary school would only produce $300,000 to $400,000 in saving per year, while closing a Junior High would save a larger chunk of $500,000 to $600,000. But a January cut would produce half the savings and trigger pandemonium in the district.
The Davis Chamber of Commerce wrote an op-ed seeming to suggest that we forgo the furloughs altogether and move toward straight salary reductions – something that seems more unlikely at this point in time.
The Vanguard would like to hear how the DTA leadership proposes we find additional savings if we only go to five furlough days.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote:
> Closing an elementary school would only produce
> $300,000 to $400,000 in saving per year.
This number sounds very low, where did it come from?
We should not close a school until we get rid of the ~450 non Davis kids in the schools (and we will save some real money when the district cuts back on the staff needed for the non-Davis kids).
Let’s not forget that the district could lease a closed school to a daycare center to get extra income.
I’m getting tired of this bigotry against interdistrict transfer students.
Interdistrict transfer students provide ADA funding that the district would be hard-pressed to do without. Multiply 450 x the current ADA state funding per student. The only thing DJUSD doesn’t get from those parents is the additional tax the voters approve. There is no legal way to get that money.
Interdistrict students are not distributed evenly enough by grade levels to close a school, should you decide to deport them. It would actually be illegal to deny interdistrict transfers to many of the existing transfer students. And your ongoing hostility to them is disturbing to me as a former interdistrict parent.
They don’t cost the district money. Every student who attends DJUSD, regardless of residence, generates ADA funds. Some of us were paying the tax anyway, one way or another. And lots of people pay the property tax who aren’t residents, who don’t have children in the schools, and who don’t benefit directly from it.
“This number sounds very low, where did it come from? “
The number is low because you’re basically repacking teachers at other sites. it comes from the districts estimates.
“We should not close a school until we get rid of the ~450 non Davis kids in the schools (and we will save some real money when the district cuts back on the staff needed for the non-Davis kids). “
We wouldn’t save as much as you think. We would lose 450 * ~$8000 in ADA money that would be offset by whatever we save with fewer teachers, facility costs.
SoD: [i]…get rid of the ~450 non Davis kids in the schools…[/i]
These are mostly students of parents who work in Davis. Their employers typically pay the parcel tax. Don Shor, for instance, owns his business in Davis and pays the school parcel tax. This comment is an unappreciated slight of those who make professional contributions to our community.
Da Vinci Charter school is also obligated to accept out of district students. Da Vinci does not receive school parcel tax money. They have access to other sources of money that are unavailable to the rest of DJUSD.
SoD: [i]This number sounds very low, where did it come from? [/i]
It is the savings produced from not having a principal, secretary & support staff for that school, and annual utilities. David is right. You repack students in other classes at other sites.
I agree w/Don Shor on this one.
Inter-district transfers are not the problem, unless a resident child is denied a spot in a special program, such as Spanish Immersion. I don’t think that is happening. They fill open spots in existing classes and provide extra funds for classes that we are paying for already. They are approved on a year to year basis. The families usually have a connection to the local community, usually employment.
“They are approved on a year to year basis.”
The decision to accept additional district transfers may be done on a year to year basis, but once accepted into the system the transfer student must be allowed to remain until graduation from high school.
“The Vanguard would like to hear how the DTA leadership proposes we find additional savings if we only go to five furlough days.”
I don’t presume to speak to for the leadership of the DTA, but I do have a suggestion of my own.
First off, The district’s budget has been positively certified by Yolo County. That means that they can pay their bills for the next 3 years. This includes the budget assumption that Prop 30, the tax measure, fails and we take a cut in student funding.
Next, the district has a huge reserve. Nealy 14% at last count. What they are short of is ready cash. They need the cash for obvious reasons, but also to ensure their ability to get TRAN loans.
So, just one idea:
The district has millions of dollars worth of property. One of them, Grande, is just an empty field. The other is used as a recreational soccer field.
The Grande property had already been sold for $5.5 million dollars before the present Board cancelled the deal. They are reluctant to sell now because, “the market isn’t good”. Well, that is true, but are we in a budget crisis or are we not? Are they truly trying to resolve this difficulty or are they just going to keep after the living, breathing human beings who provide the program so that they can protect a piece of land for…?
The state has changed the rules about the use of money from the sale of property and it can be used for general fund purposes. This might mean that the district cannot apply for emergency facilities money for up to 5 years. However, the district has never done this to my knowledge, and when the high school MPR recently became unihabitable they still did not do so. They opted instead to pay for it out of pocket. So that restriction on the use of the money doesn’t seem to have much impact on the district.
It is also possible that if all they need is cash to assure them of a TRAN loan they wouldn’t even have to spend the money, just keep it in the bank for use as collateral.
The total amount available to the district from the sale of both properties is far more than their cash shortfall even in these hard times (although the market continues to improve). And yet the Board strips funds from classrooms and looks under rocks and in the pockets of district employees for money.
So how serious can this problem be if they won’t sell a little bit of land to resolve it?
Kelleher: [i]Next, the district has a huge reserve. Nealy 14% at last count.[/i]
Where do you get this number? Most of that is not reserve. It is money that is already committed to the current school year, but is still owed the district from the state.
Don wrote:
> I’m getting tired of this bigotry against
> interdistrict transfer students.
I don’t have any “bigotry” to interdistrict transfer students, I’m just looking for ways for Davis kids (whose parents pay the parcel taxes) to avoid having less school days next year.
When I was single I helped raise a lot of money to get poor kids out of underperforming San Francisco public schools and in to private schools and I also tutored many kids.
I don’t have as much free time now, but if I was still tutoring and my own kids needed extra help in school I would stop tutoring the other kids to focus on my own family.
Taking the teachers union at their word that the current ADA funding does not give them enough to make it another year without cuts to the school year is why I’m bringing up reducing the transfer students.
If we were making a profit on transfer students I would be suggesting that Davis buy some buses to get even more transfer students so the schools had more money.
Kelleher: [i]First off, The district’s budget has been positively certified by Yolo County. That means that they can pay their bills for the next 3 years. [/i]
The assumption of the budget, from direction of the state, is to assume that Prop. 30 passes but declare mid-year cuts if it fails. For many school districts, this means, in part, a shortened school year. Under the assumption that Prop. 30 & Measure E both pass, then the DJUSD budget is positively certified. If Prop. 30 were to fail (as well as Measure E, locally), then all bets are off. The budget would no longer be positively certified until more cuts were declared and approved.
wdf1:
That was the direction from the state, however Mr Colby said that he budgeted in the cuts despite the state’s recommendation.
The district still has a healthy budget surplus. The cash poor aspect is what needs addressing.
Kelleher: [i]The state has changed the rules about the use of money from the sale of property and it can be used for general fund purposes.[/i]
But not necessarily the way you propose. Note this link to California Ed Code, 17463.7 ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=17001-18000&file=17455-17484[/url]), where it says that proceeds from sale of surplus property can be used for general fund only if
“The school district has no major deferred maintenance
requirements not covered by existing capital outlay resources.”
Your own association members have repeatedly pointed out needed maintenance upgrades, including Emerson, and MPR’s at several elementary schools. The district is on record with a list of deferred maintenance requirements, so such money isn’t available for other purposes.
I agree with sjkelleher. The district needs to sell off the Grande property and the soccer field to raise funds.
The mentality of the school board has always been to stick to their one and only solution to any and all fiscal problems and that is to ask the citizens to bend over one more time.
wesley: [i]The mentality of the school board has always been to stick to their one and only solution to any and all fiscal problems and that is to ask the citizens to bend over one more time.[/i]
It is an imaginative idea, but it is illegal, and brings about consequences worse than what we’re already trying to solve. Refer to the Ed code info I linked to above.
Selling the Grande property might be a worthwhile solution to fund a facilities project or two.
So, let me get this straight. Our community values an excellent K-12 school system, which is why we CHOOSE to work less in a time of crisis. When the going gets tough, take a few days off.
-Michael Bisch
wesley: [i]The mentality of the school board has always been to stick to their one and only solution to any and all fiscal problems and that is to ask the citizens to bend over one more time.[/i]
You will have to document what you mean, because in all respects I can see, this is false. The school board has also laid off staff at all levels in the district, had employees take salary cuts and concessions, accepted community donations (DSF fundraising), closed a school, increased class sizes, reduced course offerings, used one time reserve funds, offered retirement incentives, used federal emergency money, and taken furloughs.
This school board has favored short-term solutions to deal with our long-term problems. Furloughs are just the latest example. Time to accept that our budget problems are long-term and cannot be properly addressed with ’emergency measures.’ We should be looking to extend the school year, not cut it short in order to cover the latest shortfall in revenues. The ‘tax-me-again’ gravy train will come to an end, sooner than some expect, and it will take new thinking to find the right path forward. I have decided to vote against all incumbents until the Board shows that they are willing to really address the structural problems that we face. We cannot afford the [i]Status Quo[/i].
wdf 1:”It is an imaginative idea, but it is illegal,…”
The Board has no defered maintenance plans that they have put forward despite what teachers have asked for. As an example I might point out the multi million dollar stadium that was built with a loan, which had its own impact on the general fund. I would assume that if there were any pressing maintenance needs for our academic sites identified by the board that they would take precedence over a sports facility. (Although that could be just another example of poor fiscal planning on their part.)
Absent any identified defered maintance needs the money is legally available for the general fund.
From viewing the posts on here I’m starting to feel that there’s hope that our community has finally had enough of the school board acting as if the only solution is to keep coming back to the homeowners for more and more money. And yes I say homeowners, because we are the ones who are bearing the biggest burden of these parcel taxes.
Kelleher: [quote]School board prioritizes facilities projects
Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – Sunday, February 21, 2010
Author: Jeff Hudson ; Enterprise staff writer
In action taken late Thursday evening, the Davis school board adopted a staff recommendation to establish the modernization of Emerson Junior High as the school district’s highest facilities priority . The second-highest priority is replacement of the multipurpose room at Davis High School with a new Student Commons building.[/quote]
There’s where the Granda property money would be encumbered.
Mark West: [i]I have decided to vote against all incumbents until the Board shows that they are willing to really address the structural problems that we face.[/i]
I find pickings to be very slim among challengers. Fernandes seems very capable of running a strong political campaign, but neither he nor Claire Sherman have demonstrated very well the ability to address districtwide issues in a bigger context — how we got here, what we’ve tried, what worked, what didn’t, what are some reasonable alternatives and possibilities. Fernandes’ relationship w/ DTA is interesting, given their endorsement of him. I’d be curious to know what conversations went into that endorsement vs. the other candidates.
Granda is a mess. He says, “I say what I think, whether it is politically correct or not”. Which seems to mean, “I have no filter and I don’t engage with others to share or develop ideas.” His seems to think that what works in higher education should work in K-12 education. His solution to district budget issues is non-profit fundraising. He presents an idea of creating a districtwide non-profit and school site-based non-profits. That is no different from what we already have with DSF, DSAF, Blue & White, Davis Bridge, Farm to School, and all the PTA’s/PTO’s in the district. All are 501c3’s that allow for tax deductable donations. He doesn’t acknowledge what has been done in this area, he doesn’t seem to realize where these non-profits have worked or where they have come up short, or how his “big idea” is different. That’s for starters. I could go on…
With any of these three, I have concerns whether they have the knowledge, experience, and interpersonal skills to work with colleagues to make a difference. Fernandes actually seems to demonstrate interpersonal skills in spades, but I’m afraid he will be led by others for a while until he finds firmer grounding in the issues.
Nancy Peterson has experience working with several non-profit entities — Blue & White, Davis Bridge, and Montgomery PTA — and has a decent grasp of districtwide issues in her forum answers. She can take positions that are reasonable but difficult — she has been open about the possibility of closing a school if things got bad enough, and she doesn’t mind being publicly insistent about salary concession issues. That probably kept her out of consideration for DTA endorsement.
All that said, I don’t know how well any of the above challengers would do in interacting with constituents. Of the current school board, some trustees are better than others in following up with communications and offering to meet or talk further, and possibly to reflect constituent concerns in meeting discussions and decisions.
I have watched Lovenburg work on the school board, and find her to be one of the best. In board meeting discussions, she often leads questioning with the purpose of eliciting clarity and context from administrative staff for the benefit of the audience. It’s clear that she does a good amount of preparation for meetings. She’s also reliable in responding if I have questions or concerns, and I am aware that she treats others equally. In this case I think you’re making a mistake to take a blanket position of voting against incumbents without evaluating the whole package. That’s giving up on doing homework as a voter.
wdf1: There’s where the [s]Granda[/s] Grande property money would be encumbered.
Kelleher: [i]As an example I might point out the multi million dollar stadium that was built with a loan, which had its own impact on the general fund.[/i]
The loan is paid back through CFD funds, which aren’t part of the general fund. It also saved money because it doesn’t have to be mowed or watered. So it has a positive impact on the general fund.
You don’t watch school board meetings, do you?