April 26, 2010
Dear SFUSD Employees:
I am happy to report that we have three days confirmed to meet with the teachers union and our state appointed mediator: April 29, May 4 and May 10. The District needs to determine the number of teachers who will receive final layoff notices by May 10 in order to follow all necessary procedures with the Board of Education and meet the State mandated May 15 notification deadline.
We are totally in agreement with UESF: It’s time to settle the contract. It is unfair to our employees to drag out these negotiations. That is why we declared an impasse so we could get to mediation to resolve this and avoid any more layoffs than necessary. That is why we have asked UESF to agree to a set of temporary economic proposals that are not contingent upon multiple language proposals.
I want to respect that everyone is trying to do the best they can to help get us through this terrible economic crisis. While it is tempting to set the record straight every time UESF sends out misinformation, I know that you have limited time so I aim to share updates with you sparingly.
The union is saying “SFUSD refuses to accept $27 million put on the table by UESF,” when actually UESF has repeatedly rejected attempts to settle on economic proposals, insisting that contract language must be agreed to as part of a total package. Therefore, without the District conceding to all of their language demands, UESF has not actually put any “money on the table.”
An economic crisis calls for economic agreements. The crisis we face is of the State’s making, not the District’s. All districts are undergoing the same pain and many have reached multiyear agreements with their unions on cost-cutting measures such as “furlough days,” salary roll backs, increases in employee health premium contributions, increased class sizes and elimination of preparation periods. Most of these agreements have been multi-year and have been reached without holding districts hostage to “give us language first” – the current strategy being used by UESF.
There is no hidden source of money that will save us from having to make sacrifices and lose some of our great employees. We have been prudent stewards of tax-payer dollars in better economic times and are fortunate to have $33.6 million in reserve to help offset this economic crisis. All of the District’s reserves and the last portion of the Rainy Day Fund – which is one-time revenue – will be needed to maintain a balanced budget for the next two years (assuming the state does not cut funding further). This money has already been taken into account in the District’s need to cut $113 million.
I look forward to a quick and productive mediation so that our teachers and other District employees will have clarity on their status and we can focus on our shared purpose—educating the children of SFUSD.
Yours truly,
Carlos A. Garcia
The class sizes vs. furlough days are subject to the negotiations currently underway between the district and the union. The two sides are working with a mediator, and a deal could still be reached. But nothing is set — furlough days, class size increases, language proposals — until there is a deal.
Rachel,
I’m confused. As an incoming K family next year, I have been following the issue of increased class sizes. I recall right after the big state education protest and before the Round II lottery/ waitpool run that a bunch of emails went around saying that the issue had been settled and that teachers were going with furlough days instead of increased class sizes. Was this just a negotiation tactic, or was anything actually finalized? Is there still a real possibility of increased class size? I am truly concerned about the quality of education that any kindergarten student can receive in a class of 24 or 25 students. Please advise me as to the current status of this issue.
Thanks,
Jill McInerney