ESTA UPDATE

RETIREMENT NOTIFICATION

ESTA members have no doubt seen the announcement from the District Office regarding the $2,000 available to those certificated employees who submit a written “Intention to Retire” letter. A recent clarification sets the deadline for receipt of such letters at January 1, 2005. In some cases, the superintendent and others at the DO have come under fire for making such an offer at this time. I’d like to wade into this a little bit.

We’ve done this before. Four years ago, and five years ago. As I recall, there was no noticeable outcry from our members at the time.

‚ “Two thousand dollars is certainly not enough to provide an incentive for someone to retire who was otherwise not going to retire”. Correct. But no one should suggest that this $2,000 was ever intended to act as retirement incentive. I believe that teacher layoffs are being considered as one possibility for dealing with the current budget shortfalls. Further, I think knowing the number of retirees with certainty will allow the District to make more informed decisions about how many layoffs may need to be made, and may actually reduce the number of layoff notices that may be sent out in March.

ƒ “An irrevocable decision is too absolute.” Correct. And ESTA has assurances from the District that any person who submits a letter of Intent to Retire may be permitted to rescind that letter if there are significant and life-altering changes in an individual’s circumstances between now and the end of the school year. These circumstances would include such things as the death or serious illness of a spouse, or the discovery that a very ill parent will be moving in to one’s house, or other unforeseeable major events that would cause rethinking of retirement plans.

„ “The District should offer a lot more in terms of a true retirement incentive.” Perhaps. But for at least last year and the current year, District planning has not and likely will not include such an offer. A full discussion of the economics of this issue could fill this entire Update, and any decision to provide incentives to retire must of necessity be loaded with assumptions, including guesses pertaining to how many of the employees who end up retiring in the aftermath of a retirement incentive were going to retire anyway. It is worth noting here that the District is still paying a significant annual amount for the retirement incentives offered to some former employees who left the District two or more years ago. Given the present financial situation, one could argue that the recipients of those funds are contributing to the current budget shortfall. Regardless, the recent $2,000 offer differs considerably and purposely from a “retirement incentive”, and so whether the District offers such an incentive or not is irrelevant to the merits of this notification proposal.

… Persons retiring under our present contract meeting specified criteria will receive retiree medical benefits until age 65.

ELECTIONS RESULTS

ESTA held elections at all comprehensive schools and Foothill on Wednesday, November 17, to select Site Officers for 2005, and Representatives through 2006.

Meanwhile, here is a recap of all current office-holders. Assembly Rep names given in bold type are those newly elected. All other offices have one-year terms. (P = President; VP = Vice Pres, AR = Assembly Rep, GR = Grievance Rep).

AHHS: P-Wendy Stegeman; VP-Dave Johnson; AR-Keegan McLoskey, Julie Hoving, Bill Mustanich; GR-Bill Mustanich.

DO: P-Carla Holtzclaw; VP-Penny Kelley; AR-*.

EVHS: P-Marisa Vera; VP-Sally Lussier; AR-Irene Teninty, John Gould; GR-**

FHHS: P-Janice Mallard; VP-Deborah Raymond; AR-Noemi Covarrubias.

IHS: P-Dee Medberry; VP-Allan Roberts; AR‑ Peggy Jabri, John deLange, Jamin Lynch, Victor Bagno, Mike Hagen; GR-**.

JLHS: P-Mike Gatenby; VP-David Porter; AR-Deb Emerson, *

MPHS: P-Bob Rumph; VP-Bob Ashley; AR-Rick Torres, Liz Chaboya.

OGHS: P-Kim Schaupp; VP-Elaine Ceballos; AR-Jolie Swann, Pat Accorinti, Rick Caton; GR-David Hezzlewood

PHHS: P-Paul Landshof; VP-Shelly Moneymaker; AR-Michelle Wheldon, *; GR-Mitch Method.

SCHS: P-Larry Johnson; VP-Jerry Dyer; AR-Thomas Halonen, Matt Hall, Cheryl Khan; GR-Ralph Giannini

STHS: P-Theresa Flores; VP-Margie Kelley; AR- Chris Tsuji, Neil Wilson, Julie Bounds; GR‑Rosalind Taylor.

WOHS: P-Eleanor Aguirre; VP-Carol Fischer; AR-Sandy Swirsky, **

YBHS: P-Blanca Espinosa; VP-Nancy Galindo; AR-Bruce Selzler, *; GR-Blanca Espinosa.

SpecUnits: AR-Robert Suhr

* = vacant position

** = write-in candidates contacted to determine willingness to accept position

FEDERAL TEACHER TAX BREAK

Thanks to efforts by both CTA and NEA, Congress has extended the $250 tax deduction for out-of-pocket expenses incurred for instructional supplies by teachers and paraprofessionals for the 2004 and 2005 tax years.

We continue to push for raising the deduction to $400 and making it permanent, as well as extensions to cover expenses of professional development. Tell your U.S. Senators and Representatives to pass the permanent tax relief for educators.

Alas, it appears as if the California Teacher Tax Credit is yet another casualty to our state’s continuing funding woes. It is not included in the current state budget.

PERB RULING

Way back in the spring of 2002, the District received two formal Public Complaints in a short space of time from individuals asserting that two ESTA members had harassed them either sexually or racially. Both incidents arose at WCO. As is its duty, the District pursued separate investigations into the allegations contained in the Public Complaints. However, in doing so the District made critical changes in the process that is outlined in the contract. Among other irregularities, neither ESTA member was permitted to read the complaints filed against them, nor allowed to know the names of their accusers. Also, in the wake of the investigation, one ESTA member was told that he must accept a nine-day suspension without pay, and that if he chose to file a grievance against the District in the matter the District would initiate termination proceedings against him. Thus intimidated, he accepted the nine-day unpaid suspension.

ESTA filed grievances on behalf of both members, and also filed a single Unfair Labor Practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in which we alleged the District had unilaterally attempted to change the contract, had interfered with our members’ rights to seek our protection, and had interfered with ESTA’s rights to represent and protect our members.

A formal PERB hearing was held several months later, in which CTA Staff Attorney Ramon Romero argued the case on our behalf.

Both ESTA and the District presented their evidence in the matter of the change in the terms of the contract and the denial of protection to an Administrative Law Judge, who subsequently ruled in ESTA’s favor. The District appealed the ruling to the full PERB, and the matter disappeared into legal limbo until November 23, 2004. On that day, PERB upheld the original finding of the ALJ, and formally ordered the District to Cease and Desist from Unilaterally changing the negotiated process for dealing with Public Complaints, ‚ Denying ESTA our right to represent our members in disciplin-ary proceedings with the District. ƒ Interfering with ESTA members’ rights to seek the protection of the Association.

In addition, the PERB order further directs the District to „ meet and negotiate with ESTA (if we choose to do so) any changes from the agreed-upon language for processing Public Complaints, … Rescind all disciplin-ary action imposed at the time on our two members, including restoration of nine days’ pay with 7% interest, † Post prominently at all school sites the official PERB Notice, and ‡ Notify PERB in writing the actions taken by the District to carry out the PERB order.

Not all disciplinary matters involving ESTA members come to our attention. It is possible that other ESTA members have also been disciplined in the past after being the subjects of Public Complaints. As long as the District followed the strict process specified in Article 28 of the contract, ESTA is not likely to be able to reverse the outcomes of such cases. But in any case in which one of our members was disciplined following an assertion of sexual harassment or racial harassment, we may be able to make the member whole if the District deviated in any way from the negotiated process as set forth in Article 28. Contact me if you believe this applies to you.

DISTRICT BUDGET TASK FORCE

School board member Manuel Herrera is chairing a process dubbed the Budget Task Force (BTF) that seeks to gain input from all interested parties leading to the adoption of a balanced district budget for the 2005/06 school year. Of necessity, the BTF will examine the current 04/05 budget in light of recent developments which cast doubt on the fiscal health of the East Side.

At the first meeting of the BFT on Nov 29, Herrera proposed a timeline for work that called for a series of meetings (concluded by specific dates) to accomplish the mission in a four step process:

· develop confidence that the budget numbers we’re all getting are legitimate (Dec, 04)

· receive presentations by all stakeholders (Jan, 05)

· explore alternative budget-cutting scenarios (Feb)

· forward recommendations to school board (May)

At the meeting, several community members spoke to this timeline and suggested that, until possible scenarios are disclosed, the process would remain too abstract to attract large numbers of participants. (“Just what would it look like with ten million dollars out of the budget?”)

The speakers were compelling enough to effect changes in Herrera’s timeline. Superintendent Zendejas stated the she and her cabinet had already begun discussions along these lines, and agreed to bring forth “three or four” alternative scenarios much sooner than February for purposes of discussion. She also made a plea that we not kill the messenger who delivers bad news.

In my opinion, that last piece is important. A year ago, neither ESTA nor any other stakeholder group was made a party to budget discussions, and generally the first we saw of the decision process was nearly its end product. That was a departure from several years’ past practice, and was a costly mistake*. The process as outlined this year calls for frequent participation by virtually any interested party, yet still leaves the final decisions up to the elected officials on the school board. It is a much better formula.

The next step in the process is a BTF ‘work session’ on Monday, December 6, in the STHS Library from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. The stated purpose of this meeting is to examine the most recent district budget numbers and attempt to instill confidence that they are correct.

A follow-up meeting will be held on Tuesday, Dec 7, in the YBHS library from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m., for those who cannot attend on Monday afternoon.

The school board has scheduled a special meeting at the District Office on Tuesday, December 14, at 6:00 p.m. The agenda for that meeting will likely only deal with budget issues. We can expect:

· the ‘final’ version of the first interim district budget revision, due by law to the County by Dec 15;

· the superintendent’s recommended ‘adjustments’ to the current year’s budget, and

· a first glimpse at the various possibilities of ‘scenarios’ for the 2005/06 budget.

ESTA members with a stake in any district budget issues** would do well to plan to attend the Dec 14 meeting.

*Had we known with confidence last year the true condition of the District, would we have negotiated a reduction in our COLA? a relaxation in adherence to class sizes? a change in the structure of fringe benefits? Maybe. But we’ll never know.

**Just about anyone who is planning to be a certificated employee of this district in the fall of 2005.