On Friday, Bullis attorneys file motions with the court seeking attorney fees from the 2019-10 lawsuit.
The basis of their motion is the "Private Attorney General Doctrine". As I understand it, that law allows parties to a lawsuit to recover their costs in certain circumstances.
I'm not going to debate the merits of the suit here- again, I prefer that those arguments be made in front of a judge. However, I will point out the foolishness of bringing such a motion.
Throughout the past several years, BCS has asserted that they want to be "accepted as part of the community". I'm not sure how the BCS Board believes that demanding $1.3M from a public school district will endear them to our community. To put this in perspective, $1.3M would pay for about a dozen teachers. If BCS prevails in this effort, we'll be laying off a lot of teachers to pay for their demands.
BCS speaks proudly of their "values curriculum".** I wonder what values this teaches their students? One of their parents famously told the SCCBOE that they were "educating the future leaders" What set of values is this instilling in them?
Beyond the question of values, there's just good old common sense. When I've spoken to their board about this in the past, they've simply asserted "well, it is our legal right." Given that BCS spends more on their professional PR firm each year than we do in a whole decade, I can't imagine what they were thinking. Demanding $1.3M from LASD might sit within the bounds of the law, but if you expect that the people of our community will "accept and welcome" you, well, you are not very good judges of human nature.
Bullis BPA ISO Legal Fees
Wallace Dec ISO Motion for Attorneys Fees
Wallace Dec Ex A
Proposed Order Awarding Attorneys Fees
POS re Attorneys Fee Motion
** I'm always somewhat annoyed when BCS hypes parts of their program that have existed within the LASD program for years, or even decades. It's one thing to mimic our program and call it "new". It is hypocritical to mimic us, call it unique, and then tell your kids what great values you're teaching them.
Showing posts with label layoff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label layoff. Show all posts
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Friday, March 4, 2011
Seniority-Based Layoffs
And once again, a reminder: This is my personal blog. It does not reflect the views of the Board as a whole. It's a place for me to share what's on my mind, and to spark discussion with stakeholders. Don't confuse this with official Board action.
One question that has come up several times for me recently as I talk with community members is the sequence in which we issue layoff notices. In particular, people have expressed concern with the fact that teachers receive notice in the reverse order in which they were hired (Last in, First Out). Once again, this is a matter of State law. California Civil Code requires that we use last in, first out unless we reach a different agreement through collective bargaining with our employees. If we do not reach a different agreement, last in, first out is the process we must use.
Some folks might grab onto that phrase "unless we reach a different arrangement through collective bargaining." While this possibility exists, it is a bargainable item, and one that is not easy to overcome. Recently some school districts across the country have made headway on this, but it is something that requires a long negotiating process.
The San Jose Mercury News published an article on March 1, entitled "San Jose City Council votes to study idea of including job performance as layoff factor" The City manager explained to the council that, while it's worth studying, it won't be possible to do anything for the round of layoffs the city is currently facing. It's a long process, and government entities (like school boards and city councils) can't make radical shifts on our own.
There are a couple of key ideas I'd like to put out there to consider:
1) Just because we can't do this immediately doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it. I'd love to know that this is the last time we'll ever issue a pink slip, but it probably isn't. It would be nice if, at a future layoff, we could include performance evaluations as one part of the process.
2) Making this change would up the stakes of employee evaluations. We have recently redesigned our evaluation process, and in doing so I believe we have made it more professional and fairer to both the employee and the district. This was not a simple thing, but it was positive outcome of the last contract.
3) Teachers frequently express concern about including evaluations or other criteria in the process. Most often, I hear things like "what if I have a really bad principal?", or "what if I have a bad year?" It is important to remember that I'm suggesting that evaluations be ONE factor in the process, not the ENTIRE basis for the discussion. To the comment about a "bad principal", I wonder, "why would you want to stay working for a bad principal?" Most, if not everyone, in the private sector has worked for a bad boss. The response for most of us is to seek out a position with a better employer. Seeking refuge from dismissal would only prolong contact with someone the employee has already said they don't want to work with.
My point in posting this isn't to "stir the pot". I've expressed my thoughts on this to our negotiating team, but there are a lot of things that we need to address. This may or may not make the cut this time around. I also post this because I think it's important to both our teachers and to the community to know that it's on everyone's radar. As I said, this is not a simple change, but it's something worth considering.
As always, thoughtful comments (or personal emails) are welcome.
One question that has come up several times for me recently as I talk with community members is the sequence in which we issue layoff notices. In particular, people have expressed concern with the fact that teachers receive notice in the reverse order in which they were hired (Last in, First Out). Once again, this is a matter of State law. California Civil Code requires that we use last in, first out unless we reach a different agreement through collective bargaining with our employees. If we do not reach a different agreement, last in, first out is the process we must use.
Some folks might grab onto that phrase "unless we reach a different arrangement through collective bargaining." While this possibility exists, it is a bargainable item, and one that is not easy to overcome. Recently some school districts across the country have made headway on this, but it is something that requires a long negotiating process.
The San Jose Mercury News published an article on March 1, entitled "San Jose City Council votes to study idea of including job performance as layoff factor" The City manager explained to the council that, while it's worth studying, it won't be possible to do anything for the round of layoffs the city is currently facing. It's a long process, and government entities (like school boards and city councils) can't make radical shifts on our own.
There are a couple of key ideas I'd like to put out there to consider:
1) Just because we can't do this immediately doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it. I'd love to know that this is the last time we'll ever issue a pink slip, but it probably isn't. It would be nice if, at a future layoff, we could include performance evaluations as one part of the process.
2) Making this change would up the stakes of employee evaluations. We have recently redesigned our evaluation process, and in doing so I believe we have made it more professional and fairer to both the employee and the district. This was not a simple thing, but it was positive outcome of the last contract.
3) Teachers frequently express concern about including evaluations or other criteria in the process. Most often, I hear things like "what if I have a really bad principal?", or "what if I have a bad year?" It is important to remember that I'm suggesting that evaluations be ONE factor in the process, not the ENTIRE basis for the discussion. To the comment about a "bad principal", I wonder, "why would you want to stay working for a bad principal?" Most, if not everyone, in the private sector has worked for a bad boss. The response for most of us is to seek out a position with a better employer. Seeking refuge from dismissal would only prolong contact with someone the employee has already said they don't want to work with.
My point in posting this isn't to "stir the pot". I've expressed my thoughts on this to our negotiating team, but there are a lot of things that we need to address. This may or may not make the cut this time around. I also post this because I think it's important to both our teachers and to the community to know that it's on everyone's radar. As I said, this is not a simple change, but it's something worth considering.
As always, thoughtful comments (or personal emails) are welcome.
Layoff Notices (again)
This Monday, the Board will once again have to vote to issue layoff notices to many of our teachers. This is an unpleasant process, to say the least. I didn't join the school board to lay off teachers. Unfortunately, we can't ignore reality- we have to balance our books.
One strange thing about layoffs for us is that we have to plan for the worst case scenario. We are obligated by state law to notify teachers by March 15 if they may not be brought back for the following school year. In reality, our budget doesn't get finalized for many more months, so we often recall some or all of those teachers who are notified. This has to be unnerving for the teachers, but the Board of Trustees is bound by the law of the State, so we'll do what we have to do. In a better world, we'd be able to wait longer and have a better view of our actual income for 2011-12 before we had to do this.
This year will be particularly grim, because of the variables in the process. Gov. Brown has proposed some tax extensions for the State. Likewise, LASD has placed a parcel tax on a May 3 mail-in ballot. If either of those two tax measures fail, we need to reduce our spending. We don't get to wait until those measures are voted up or down- we have to issue layoff notices by March 15. So, we'll do what is responsible- we'll send out enough pink slips that we are still financially solvent in the worst-case scenario. Once we have the outcome of those elections in hand, hopefully we will be able to reinstate some or many of those teachers.
As an aside, I have heard that certain lawmakers are trying to block putting the Governor's proposal onto the ballot in June. As a voter, I find that idea insulting. The people of California are entitled to vote on a matter as important as this. Grandstanding on ideological grounds puts individual beliefs ahead of the will of the people. I believe we deserve the chance to vote on this important issue.
One strange thing about layoffs for us is that we have to plan for the worst case scenario. We are obligated by state law to notify teachers by March 15 if they may not be brought back for the following school year. In reality, our budget doesn't get finalized for many more months, so we often recall some or all of those teachers who are notified. This has to be unnerving for the teachers, but the Board of Trustees is bound by the law of the State, so we'll do what we have to do. In a better world, we'd be able to wait longer and have a better view of our actual income for 2011-12 before we had to do this.
This year will be particularly grim, because of the variables in the process. Gov. Brown has proposed some tax extensions for the State. Likewise, LASD has placed a parcel tax on a May 3 mail-in ballot. If either of those two tax measures fail, we need to reduce our spending. We don't get to wait until those measures are voted up or down- we have to issue layoff notices by March 15. So, we'll do what is responsible- we'll send out enough pink slips that we are still financially solvent in the worst-case scenario. Once we have the outcome of those elections in hand, hopefully we will be able to reinstate some or many of those teachers.
As an aside, I have heard that certain lawmakers are trying to block putting the Governor's proposal onto the ballot in June. As a voter, I find that idea insulting. The people of California are entitled to vote on a matter as important as this. Grandstanding on ideological grounds puts individual beliefs ahead of the will of the people. I believe we deserve the chance to vote on this important issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
