|
|
 |
| Q: |
Is it true that the District spent over $1M in legal fees? |
| A: |
Over
the course of 3.5 years (March 31, 2006 through October 13, 2009) the
District spent $1,062,948 to a legal firm as a result of several issues
including but not limited to numerous Public Record Act requests, Unfair
Labor Practice Charges from both CUTA and CSEA, grievances, employee
termination (both CSEA and CUTA), Special Education issues, and
bargaining issues. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Is it true the District sent the CUTA PRA request to lawyers for review? |
| A: |
No. The CUTA Public Records Act request was processed in house. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Is
it true that the district caused delays in implementing the change of
benefits for CUTA members from the Silver Plan to the Red Plan, and
therefore lost a significant amount of the savings for this year? |
| A: |
The
delay in implementing the change was caused by CUTA's insistence on
language unrelated to health benefits that would have been detrimental
to the instructional program/students. |
| |
|
| Q: |
I
heard that the work done by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance
Team (FCMAT) was based on the District's budget assumptions, and
therefore was not an independent analysis. Is that true? |
| A: |
No. FCMAT's
report fully explains the source of their analysis and that the purpose
of their work is to "create an independent multiyear financial
projection" (page 1). Pages 1, 4, 5, and 9 of the report discuss in
more detail how FCMAT prepared its independent analysis and projections
of CUSD's budget and cash. |
| |
Click here to view FCMAT's Report |
| |
|
| Q: |
What is your response to the allegation that CUSD has a history of underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures? |
| A: |
Our response is threefold: |
| |
(1)
Revenues from the state of California have been extremely volatile,
especially in recent years, so conventional wisdom is that revenue
budgets for school agencies should be conservative (see page 8 of the
FCMAT report). When the state is having a fiscal crisis all school
districts must brace for -- and have seen in the last couple of years --
a reduction in revenues. The only exception was the influx of federal
stimulus funds, which came in at the end of 2008-09 and caused an
unexpected increase in the reserves of all school agencies in
California that received those funds. |
| |
(2)
Experience has shown that school districts that are optimistic on
revenue or expenditure estimates get into financial trouble -- in fact,
that is one of the main causes of CUSD's current fiscal crisis. When
the 2006-07 CUSD budget was adopted in June of 2006, the assumption was
that student attendance would increase, which would cause an increase in
revenues -- but that did not happen. |
| |
(3)
Expenditures in CUSD decline from the original estimate to the final
actuals at the end of the year because CUSD is being as proactive as
possible in mitigating the fiscal crisis -- by freezing expenditures and
vacancies and by making expenditure cuts. These actions cause
expenditures to decrease from the beginning to the end of the
year. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Is the amount needed to solve the fiscal crisis $2.5 million or $9.5 million? |
| A: |
Both
figures are valid. CUSD's structural budget deficit is estimated to be
$9.5 million per year. This is how much more is being spent than what
the district brings in each year. Therefore, annual spending must be
reduced by this amount on an ongoing basis in order to reach fiscal
solvency and eliminate the oversight of the Fiscal Advisor. |
| |
Because
cash comes in from revenues and cash goes out for expenses at varying
degrees during a given year, in some months there is not enough cash on
hand to pay CUSD's bills that are due at that time. This is a cash flow
issue. |
| |
CUSD
can borrow from its other funds or it can issue short-term debt (known
as Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, or TRANs) in order to meet its
short-term cash flow needs. But now, with CUSD's structural budget
deficit, its cash balances overall are declining and unless action is
taken now to reduce expenses the district will not only run out of cash
but will be unable to borrow because it cannot show that the funds can
be paid back. It is at that point when the state would be required to
step in and take over. |
| |
The
FCMAT report estimates that CUSD needs to cut at least $2.5 million in
expenditures in order to be able to survive on its own cash and local
borrowing for one more year. In fact, the report goes on to emphasize
that $2.5 million is the bare minimum since the State Budget will likely
worsen. Even if CUSD does make $2.5 million in cuts right away, the
cash problem will surface again the next year unless CUSD solves its
$9.5 million structural deficit problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Q: |
Has the attendance rate been going up or down across the district? How does this impact the Chico USD budget? |
| A: |
In
order to answer that, the district takes a look at the average
month-end enrollment as compared to the average daily attendance (ADA). |
| |
|
| |
Here is the data for the last five years and the current year. |
| |
2004-05 enrollment averaged 13,193 students and ADA was 12,546 for a 95.09% rate of attendance |
| |
2005-06 enrollment averaged 13,130 students and ADA was 12,472 for a 94.98% rate of attendance (down) |
| |
2006-07 enrollment averaged 12,999 students and ADA was 12,376 for a 95.19% rate of attendance (up) |
| |
2007-08 enrollment averaged 12,890 students and ADA was 12,252 for a 95.05% rate of attendance (down) |
| |
2008-09 enrollment averaged 12,720 students and ADA was 12,143 for a 95.46% rate of attendance (up) |
| |
(These statistics are not complete yet for the current year, but as of February 19th): |
| |
2009-10 enrollment averaged 12,192 students and ADA was 11,688 for a 95.86% rate of attendance (up for 2nd year in a row) |
| |
|
| |
So the rate of attendance is actually excellent these last two years. |
| |
An attendance incentive program was put in place beginning in 2008-09. |
| |
|
| |
Here are some interesting bits about attendance: |
| |
A 95.86% rate of attendance means the average student is absent 7 or less days all year |
| |
For every day a student misses school, either for excused or unexcused reasons, state funding goes down $37 |
| |
An improvement of half a percent in the rate of attendance means a student misses 1 less day of school |
| |
If all 12,000 students come to school 1 more day a year, funding goes up by about $400,000 ! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Q. |
The
District is not coming to the Table and has not bargained since October
2009. Why is the District not bargaining in good faith? |
| A. |
The District has been engaged in good faith bargaining during the entire process. |
| |
- The district's proposal for 2009-10 was initially sunshined (shared) on June 24, 2009. |
| |
-
On October 15, 2009, the district provided a specific proposal for the
CUTA team to consider. The letter with the proposal also included twelve
(12) proposed dates for the teams to meet. |
| |
-
CUTA provided responses that they were not able to meet for various
reasons. After a two full months of hearing that CUTA could not meet and
the District making other requests to meet, the District requested the
involvement of a neutral body, Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) by
requesting a declaration of impasse on December 9, 2009. |
| |
-
On January 6, 2010, CUTA indicated that it would submit a proposal
within one week then later stated that it would try to submit its
proposal soon. |
| |
- On February 2, 2010, PERB officially declared impasse and assigned a mediator to work with both parties on a settlement. |
| |
- On February 3, 2010, CUTA stated in writing that it would not engage in mediation until May, 2010. |
| |
- Formal mediation occurred on May 20, June 23 and June 25, 2010. |
| |
- On July 28, 2010, CUTA presented ifs first and only proposal to the District. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Why is the District forcing a strike? Does the District want a strike? |
| A: |
The
District does not want a strike. Each member of CUTA must make the
individual decision as to whether or not they plan to strike. No one can
force a strike. Because we all know everyone loses in a strike, the
district is continuing to look for ways to resolve this dispute between
adults that does not put students in the middle and impact their
learning. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Did
the District lose $300,000 due to the district not accepting the CUTA
offer to move to the Red Plan when CUTA offered this concession |
| A. |
Had
it been a stand-alone offer, it would have been accepted immediately;
however, other items of importance to CUTA were tied to this issue
(i.e., academic freedom). |
| |
|
| Q. |
Why did the District make a regressive proposal during Fact Finding? |
| A. |
The district did not make a regressive proposal. In fact, the district did not have the opportunity to make a proposal at all. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Why can't the District accept a one year offer and just wait and see how things turn out in future years? |
| A. |
The district must demonstrate solvency for not just one year, but for the entire three-year period (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13). |
| |
The
district has been designated by the County Office of Education as
having a "negative" financial status, the lowest rating given. The COE
is required to evaluate the district's financial status for the current
year plus two more years in determining its financial status. Negative
certification means that the district is unable to meet its financial
obligations including the payment of its employees. |
| |
|
| Q. |
How much will the District's proposal reduce my current salary? 8.12% or 11% or 13%? I don t know what number to believe. |
| A. |
The
District's October 15, 2009, proposal has been mischaracterized. The
District's current proposal is a reduction of 5.41% from employees'
current level of pay. This 5.41% pay is a reduction that includes the
following: |
| |
* 3 Furlough days equals 1.64% |
| |
* Salary reduction equals 3.77% |
| |
* TOTAL equals 5.41% |
| |
|
| Q. |
How does the district's current offer impact my future pay? |
| A. |
The
October 15, 2009, offer proposes to eliminate step increases for two
years. An individual scheduled to receive a step increase for years of
service would be held at their current level of pay for two years and
the salary schedule would be rebenched (see detail in the district's
proposal). At the end of two years, teachers would resume progress on
the salary schedule for years of service. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Does the district's offer include a restoration plan? |
| A. |
Yes.
A restoration plan is an important part of the district's October 15,
2009, proposal to ensure employees are protected in case the district
receives more funding through the revenue limit than currently expected
(see detail in the district's proposal). |
| |
|
| Q. |
The District's multi-year projections have been characterized by CUTA as wildly inaccurate. How can we trust their numbers? |
| A. |
For
the last three years the district's projections have been accurate to
within 1% of the total budget. We do not characterize this as wildly
inaccurate. |
| |
That
said, District budget projections are complex and are based on a lot of
assumptions. We must develop budgets before the year starts and before
knowing how much in state funding will be received. Many other questions
remain unanswered at the time the budget is developed, so we develop
reasonable assumptions about several factors, such as: |
| |
* How many students will enroll and at what sites? |
| |
* How frequently will they attend? |
| |
* How many teachers will we need to serve those students? |
| |
* How many of our employees will retire? And who will be hired to replace them if the job needs to be filled? |
| |
*
How much will special education costs increase to serve the
ever-growing population of special needs children and the specialized
services they need to receive an appropriate education? |
| |
* How much will the state pay us per student? |
| |
*
What one-time monies will the district not spend from year to year as
our staff work hard to hold to a spending freeze enacted in 2007? |
| |
The
district's financial projections improved in recent years from original
projection to actual results primarily because of unexpected one-time
federal funds and because the Board has made some difficult decisions to
make cuts in expenditures -- the latter was done on purpose to improve
the projections and stave off further intervention from oversight
authorities. This is what the board is expected to do and is not
different from other school districts during this difficult economic
period. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Does the District intend to terminate/blow-up the CUTA Contract? |
| A. |
No.
The district has no intention to terminate/blow up the contract.
Neither party can unilaterally terminate the contract. The current
contract remains in effect until a new contract is negotiated. Most
collective bargaining contracts expire on a regular basis and are
renegotiated at least every three years. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Q. |
CUTA
has stated that the district's Fact Finding presentation was based on
"inaccurate and unrealistic projections that we [CUTA] have proven to be
historically misleading and tragically inaccurate". If this has been
proven, why does CUTA anticipate that the Fact Finding report will not
be in its favor? |
| A. |
The
conclusions of the fact finding panel are not yet known. When the
report is issued, it will clearly state the panel's finding as to which
party makes the more compelling case. The district is willing to respect
the process and wait for the report. Both parties had an equal
opportunity to present evidence in support of their positions. The
district went to great lengths to make sure the information it presented
was accurate. The district's fact finding presentation is available for
review at the district office. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Why
is an outside agency like School Services involved in fact finding?
Does CUTA also have an outside agency involved in fact finding? |
| A. |
Each
party had the opportunity to select anyone they wanted as their fact
finding panel member. The district selected Ron Bennett of School
Services because of his exemplary record of reaching negotiated
settlements. School Services has been involved in more than 200 fact
findings and mediations, of which fewer than a dozen have resulted in
unilateral implementations or strikes. CUTA chose their representative,
Gerry Fong, an employee of the California Teachers' Association (CTA). |
| |
|
| Q. |
What happened to the state takeover? Why didn't FCMAT approve the takeover if this financial crisis is real? |
| A. |
The
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) is a state agency
that the Butte County Office of Education (BCOE) brought in for an
independent review of the district's finances. |
| |
FCMAT
concluded that the district could not meet its obligations without a
state loan unless the district made an additional $2.5 million in
expenditure cuts. |
| |
The
board did make further cuts, which, along with the receipt of
unexpected one-time federal funds, allowed the district to avoid a state
loan for the time being. |
| |
|
| Q. |
CUSD
was supposed to be out of money by August 2010 but instead has a $17M
ending balance. How can the district ask employees to take a pay cut
with such a large ending balance? |
| A. |
Having
lost 18% of its on-going revenues due to state budget reductions, any
reserve balance the district has will quickly be exhausted. |
| |
Even after taking action to hold onto one-time federal funds and reduce expenditures, additional reductions are necessary. |
| |
As more than 90% of the district's discretionary dollars go to personnel expenses, reducing employee compensation is necessary. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Why isn't the board involved in negotiations? |
| A. |
The
board is indeed involved in negotiations. The board sets parameters for
its bargaining team, instructs the team accordingly and approves any
final settlement. It is the job of the district negotiating team to
negotiate within the parameters provided by the board. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Is this proposed reduction a result of the Board's inability to manage the resources of the District? |
| A. |
No.
The reality is that a loss of more than 18% of district revenues has
caused nearly every district in the state to face the same situation
Chico currently faces. |
| |
The Board has already made significant reductions in programs, services, and staffing over the last six years. |
| |
Due
to state funding cuts and continuing declining student enrollment, the
district is facing an ongoing deficit spending problem that is so
significant that the Board can no longer cut its way out of the problem
without help from its employee groups. |
| |
A
significant number of employee groups in school districts throughout
California have already agreed to concessions, many of which are greater
than those proposed by CUSD. |
| |
|
| Q. |
Didn't
the District lose 122 employees over the last three years? Weren't the
layoffs done to avoid having to reduce salaries and benefits? |
| A. |
Yes. The loss of employees was a direct result of significant budget cutting by the district to maintain fiscal solvency. |
| |
There
is a limit on how many personnel can be released without putting
academic programs at risk and the district must also maintain
contractual staffing ratios. |
| |
The
layoffs reduced expenditures, but as the state's economic problems have
become deeper and lasted longer, layoffs alone are not enough. |
| |
|
| Q. |
How can you expect teachers to take an 11% pay cut? |
| A. |
The
district has not requested an 11% pay cut. The district's October 15,
2009, proposal is for a 5.41% on-going annual salary reduction from
current pay levels. The district's proposal has been mis-characterized. |
| |
|
| Q. |
What is the role of BCOE? What is the role of Sheila Vickers? |
| A. |
The
Butte County Office of Education (BCOE) is the first level of fiscal
oversight for CUSD. Because the district has been operating under a
negative budget certification, the district is required to submit a
collective bargaining settlement to BCOE for their review at least 10
days before the district's Board takes action to ratify the settlement. |
| |
BCOE,
and Ms. Vickers, as the BCOE-appointed fiscal advisor, have the
authority to stay or rescind any action of the district's Board that is
inconsistent with the district's ability to meet its financial
obligations. In short, once the district and CUTA have an agreement, it
is subject to BCOE for review and final approval. |
| |
|
| Q. |
How are students being impacted by this current disagreement? How is the community being impacted? |
| A. |
Like
all other school districts in California, Chico has less money for
student programs and services, creating the potential for a negative
impact on students and the community. Just as families suffer when the
primary wage earner loses a job, school programs suffer when the state
cuts our budget. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Q: |
Why is CUSD spending millions on facilities when it is supposed to be in a fiscal crisis? |
| A: |
The
money that is available for facilities projects can only be used for
that, and cannot be used to help relieve CUSD of its fiscal crisis.
Furthermore, now is a very good time to go forward with facilities
projects because costs of materials and labor are relatively low in the
current economy. It is prudent for CUSD to move forward as quickly as
possible with its facilities projects so that they are done at a lower
cost than if they were delayed. Funds saved on current projects means
that there can be more funds available for future projects. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Why can't CUSD use its reserves to cover the shortfall? |
| A: |
Reserves
are one-time money -- think of them as a savings account. You can only
use the money once to pay your bills, and then you need to replenish
it. CUSD is required to maintain reserves of at least 3% of total
General Fund expenditures, which experts -- including FCMAT -- agree is
the bare minimum. In fact, 3% is woefully inadequate when considering
that it will only pay about a week's worth of CUSD's payroll. |
| |
|
| Q. |
What is a retirement incentive and how does it work? |
| A. |
A
retirement incentive is a benefit offered to try to encourage employees
who are eligible to retire to do so earlier than they normally would.
When an employee at the high end of the salary schedule retires and is
replaced by an employee who is at the lower end of the pay scale, there
are salary savings generated. |
| |
There
are costs that come with providing an incentive including: 1) the cost
of the incentive; 2) the cost of setting up the incentive; and 3) the
interest, if the incentive is financed over time. Generally incentives
try to achieve a two-year-earlier-than-normal retirement. Keep in mind
that incentives have to be attractive enough to make up for the amount
of lost service credit and age factor that is built into PERS or STRS
retirement tables and everyone who retires will get the incentive, even
the people who were planning to retire anyway, so that needs to be
figured in as well. |
| |
Finally,
employers who provide post-retirement health benefits are at a
disadvantage to be able to fund incentive plans because they have to
find enough savings to pay for not only the incentive but also the extra
years of retiree health benefits that the retiring employee will
utilize by leaving the work force earlier than normal. Essentially the
district is paying double benefits for the first two years of the
incentive. |
| |
There are some characteristics that make retirement incentives difficult to provide in CUSD: |
| |
1)
The average pay of our teachers over age 60 is $73,152, which is a
relatively low number considering that the top pay of a teacher in CUSD
is $84,597. |
| |
2)
The average pay of our replacement teachers is $45,718, a relatively
high number considering that the incoming Step 1, Column 1 is $38,541. |
| |
3)
In addition, employees in CUSD who have worked five years are eligible
for retirement benefits for themselves and their family up to the age of
65. The cost of the Red Plan for retirees is expected to be $1,240 a
month in 2010-11, a 15.5% increase over the current rate of $1,027. |
| |
To
summarize, our oldest teachers are not necessarily our most expensive,
our replacement teachers are relatively costly because we have been
laying off staff and many "wait in the wings" serving in temporary
assignments in hopes of being returned to permanent jobs eventually, and
we have a very generous and costly retirement benefit plan. All of
these factors contribute to making any kind of incentive for teachers
difficult to provide for CUSD. |
| |
|
| Q. |
I
have followed the financial problems of the CUSD for several years and
have some suggestions and insights I would like to share. (NOTE: We have
listed and commented under this forum as this individual did not share
their name or contact information, the suggestions are summarized.) |
| A. |
1. Terminate employees who are not absolutely essential to the operation |
| |
The
district aligns staffing to the student count on a regular basis or
both regular education and special education classroom settings. The
number of teachers needed is driven by Education Code as well as the
employee bargaining agreement with the Chico Unified Teachers
Association (CUTA). The number of classified support hours hired for
each school site is reviewed annually and reductions and eliminations
are routinely made when workloads change. Administrative support is also
reviewed and CUSD must certify, annually, that it does not exceed a
defined Administrator Ratio -- we are, in fact, far below the norm for a
district of our size. |
| |
Some
sites have additional personnel that are funded from state, federal or
even local grant funds. For example, our Title I schools have additional
resource teachers because of their percentage of eligible students.
Schools with a higher population of English Language Learners receive
additional resources that can only be spent on that population to serve
the needs of those students. |
| |
2. Replace counselors at secondary level with hourly guidance technicians |
| |
This would need to be negotiated with CUTA insofar as it would be replacing bargaining unit work. |
| |
3. Contract out for custodial services |
| |
This would need to be negotiated with CSEA (our classified support union) insofar as it would be replacing bargaining unit work. |
| |
4.
Evaluate and eliminate programs which are not productive (English
language learners, special education students, pregnant minors, other
high intensive programs). |
| |
We
are required by both federal and state regulations to provide services
to English Language Learners and to students identified as special needs
through an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Regarding our pregnant
minors program, we can abandon the program but the options for these
students to earn their high school diploma become more limited and the
district loses the funding generated by their continued attendance. |
| |
5.
Close the continuation high school, requiring students to earn their
credits in regular setting rather than providing them extra
opportunities to graduate |
| |
The
Board has made a commitment to provide opportunities for all students.
Fair View, our Continuation High School, serves as an alternative to the
traditional comprehensive high school. Many students simply cannot be
and are not successful in a traditional high school setting. Fair View
provides not only an opportunity for high school students to earn
credits, but also an opportunity for many to stay in school and
graduate. Flexibility in the schedule also allows many students to work
while completing high school in this manner. |
| |
6. Limit in-service/training to only those legally mandated requirements |
| |
Release
time for in-service training is limited to federally funded grant
dollars provided exclusively for the purpose of staff development.
Travel and conference expenses are limited to "have to know" activities.
Many staff who are required to travel for their jobs donate both their
time as well as travel expenses. |
| |
Recently
an on-line training program has been developed by our insurance
provider. This program provides on-line "workshops" particularly in
areas of safety related topics. The on-line program was a free service
developed by Keenan and Associates for all schools, and was implemented
beginning in 2009-10. It has been successful and reduced cost for the
district for annual mandated training requirements and those trainings
provided to new hires. |
| |
7. Reduce or eliminate the school day for 12th grade students |
| |
To
eliminate the school day reduces income from ADA for these students. A
reduced school day is a topic that is being discussed by the Board. |
| |
8.
Sell any property the district is holding and apply that money to the
general fund, including the property purchased for the Canyon View High
School |
| |
Sales
of surplus property cannot be used to fund "on-going expenses" in the
general fund. Recent changes in law allow the district to sell surplus
property and use a percentage of any "profit" towards operating expenses
but only if those expenses are one-time in nature. Our largest budget
expense is payroll and would not qualify for these funds. In addition,
the Canyon View property was purchased for more than it would currently
appraise, so there would be no gain to the General Fund. It is also a
very short-sighted approach to the problem insofar as demographic
projections indicate that all district owned school sites, with the
exception of Cohasset, are expected to be needed for growth and
expansion in the next 10-15 years. |
| |
9. Evaluate all sports programs for the cost versus the rewards/benefits they provide |
| |
A
discussion about athletic funding for 2010-11 is scheduled for a Board
Workshop being held on May 12, 2010. Watch the website for time and
location. Currently the district provides about $225,000 in funding for
athletic programs. This amount is far less than what is needed to
actually run the program. Most of the sports programs are funded through
a combination of fund raising which is accomplished through the hard
work of students, coaches, booster clubs and the generosity of our
parents and community. In evaluating program options issues such as
compliance with Title IX (equal opportunities for boys and girls) and
making sure that our sports programs serve a variety of students are
considered. |
|
|
|
|