Dear Members:

This is a follow-up to last weeks meeting.

Last week, teachers faced an unprecedented attack on our employment rights when State Senator Alex Padilla’s bill to gut due process rights in teacher dismissals came before the State Assembly for a committee vote.  We’re happy to report that we were successful in fighting it off thanks to the efforts of local teachers who showed up to speak against the bill. The following report is from Ken Poppers of Elk Grove Education Association:

First, I would like to thank the EGEA and SCTA members that attended the CTA training and then went on to the capitol building to participate in the hearing.

The hearing was scheduled for 1:30, but because of delays due to floor sessions in both the state senate and assembly, some folks had to leave because of other commitments, myself among them.
Secondly, the professionalism, skills and knowledge of the CTA legislative team were very impressive.  These folks, many of whom are classroom teachers, are true advocates for those of us in the trenches.

Senate bill 1530, proposed by Senator Alex Padilla, was a bad idea, which only got as far as it did because of legislative courtesy in the state senate.  Majority party members will generally back the efforts of their fellow party colleagues because they know that many bad ideas will be killed in the other house of the legislature.  

SB 1530 would’ve changed the dismissal process in ways that possibly could’ve created a system where site and district office administrators would have a way to dismiss teachers that are considered troublesome for reasons other than that of true misconduct.  
The decision of the administrative law judge would only be advisory to a school board, rather than the current system of a 3-person panel, which is binding.  To put that in perspective in the recent Sacramento City Unified layoff hearings the ALJ found the “Priority Schools” skipping was not legal.  SCUSD’s district administration and board chose to reject the ALJ’s finding and went ahead and skipped more junior teachers.  This resulted in many experienced teachers, including the SCUSD Teacher of the Year to be laid off.  That story, which conveniently leaves out the district’s layoff skips, went viral, as misreported by Channel 10.

The best example for misuse of the changes proposed in SB 1530 I heard was that in a case of a messy divorce/custody battle an estranged spouse could accuse his/her former partner of child neglect.  The district could then move to dismiss the teacher based on this charge.  

I am including a couple of links to news stories regarding the defeat of this bill.  Pay attention to how the news media continues to blame CTA for the failings of individuals and administration. The teacher that started all this could’ve been dismissed under current law, but LAUSD did not follow through.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/29/4598503/california-assembly-bill-to-alter.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20965275/defeat-calif-teacher-bill-shows-union-powe

It is imperative that you engage in this process, none of us are immune and what happens in the capitol affects you.

Thank you,

SCTA

• The last agreement allowed the district to make two “openers” or to open our contract on two issues.
• The district has closed its $28M shortfall and submitted a balanced budget, but could still be at risk for negative certification from SCOE.
• The current state budget is dependent on a state tax measure passing in November. If it does not pass, there could be a $15M cut that would be triggered after the election and hitting around mid-way through the school year.
• If we had not come to an agreement, the district could “impose” a “solution” and then take us to “fact-finding” with an arbitrator, which would have left us with no other option than to strike. In the current fiscal climate, the arbitration process has not been favorable to teacher unions, and has been finding for districts more and more often.

What does this deal do?

• It closes the contract with very limited openers for two years.
• It has two sets of cuts for teacher salary and benefits, the larger of which would only take effect in the event the tax measure in November does not pass.

What are some of the main points?

• There will be two furlough days (that will be taken on Monday and Tuesday of Thanksgiving week) within a new calendar that was tentatively agreed to contingent on ratification of this agreement. Our pay will be adjusted to reflect fewer working days without affecting service credit for STRS retirement.
• The $95 monthly contribution being made for CSR will end.  Step and column increases will occur.  Most salary cells will not see a reduction in their paychecks in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years.
• Co-pays for Kaiser will go to $10 per visit, $10 for prescription medications, and $75 for emergency care; HealthNet will go to $15 for office visits, $75 for emergency room, and the prescription tiers will go to $10, $20, and $35 respectively.
• No evaluation in the 2012-13 School year for teachers who will be teaching split grade elementary classes.
• Married couples or domestic partners that are both employed by the District and will have one health plan that covers both employees.
• The rebate received by members with only single insurance will be eliminated.
• A salary increase originating from the June 14, 2010 agreement that was due to be applied to the salary schedule next year will be deferred until July 1, 2014.
• If the initiative fails, there could be up to an additional 10 (ten) furlough days with salary reductions to reflect the loss of those work days.
• If the initiative fails the district will not be able to pull teachers from classrooms for “trainings” by having a substitute cover the class, but will instead need to schedule it during furlough days.
• We anticipate the District will use the savings from this agreement to being back as many of our laid off members as possible.

• A silver-lining is that we can stop the additional furlough days from happening by ensuring the tax measure passes. It is going to be in our interest to work as hard as possible to pass this initiative. If we don’t, and it doesn’t pass, we will feel it in our pocketbooks to the tune of around $3,000 per member.