Teacher's Contract Undermines Progress

Dear School Board Members:

I write this letter as a supporter of the District and one who greatly appreciates the hard work and dedication of each and every School Board member. I have profound respect and admiration for the District’s excellent teachers as well. I intend my comments as constructive criticism and ask that you consider this letter in that light.

I am very disappointed with the School Board’s tentative settlement with the Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association (“SMMCTA”). Although we all support fair compensation for District teachers, the proposed settlement threatens the financial stability of the District.

Once again, we are facing a potential budget crisis -- this time to address a crisis that, if it occurs, will be self-inflicted and could have been avoided through strong leadership and a more open and collaborative process. This crisis will also be divisive in very unfortunate and unnecessary ways.

If ratified, this tentative settlement will undermine the District’s recent progress in addressing its ongoing financial challenges. As you know, I served on the Financial Oversight Committee (“FOC”) for about five years, my second term ending in June. During that period, though it was the FOC’s role to ask questions about the District’s financial practices and to press for budgetary reforms and more information, the District was clearly heading in a positive direction.

When I left the FOC in June, it appeared that the District had learned from its past mistakes and was operating in a fiscally responsible manner. The District’s future appeared to include balanced budgets, a reasonable financial reserve, and increasingly excellent educational opportunities for our students.

The community’s restored confidence in the District’s fiscal management has paid enormous dividends. Two years ago, the District negotiated a multi-year contract with the City of Santa Monica (after thousands of Santa Monica residents signed petitions supporting an initiative measure that would have required City funding for our public schools). And just last week, we successfully passed Proposition BB -- with a two-thirds vote (only 55% was required) and overwhelming community support.

Much of this progress has coincided with Winston Braham serving as the District’s Chief Business Officer. Mr. Braham has shown great leadership and professional competence in helping guide the District in a positive direction. And Mr. Braham was instrumental in convincing the Board, the FOC and community education leaders to move ahead with Proposition BB last Spring, when the idea appeared to have been abandoned.

As the Board knows, Mr. Braham was unwilling to certify the AB 1200 report filed with the County last month. The numbers contained in that report explain why. Given Mr. Braham’s well deserved reputation as an excellent and innovative financial manager, it would be irresponsible for the Board to ratify the tentative settlement.

From a financial perspective, the key flaw is the District’s violation of the principle that increased District expenses must be paired with known, recurring revenue. The District simply cannot afford to substantially increase spending -- even for the laudable goal of raising teacher salaries -- and then scramble after the fact to find additional revenue and/or cut programs for our students. Such an approach will, in the long run if not immediately, undercut rather than serve our shared goal of providing educational excellence for all of our District’s students while fairly compensating our teachers.

Moreover, we need to renew two parcel taxes that will otherwise expire in 2009 and 2010. These parcel taxes provide about $10 million in annual general fund revenue. Renewing these taxes will require a two-thirds vote. Given these parcel tax realities, the District cannot afford to squander its hard earned reputation for fiscal prudence and responsibility.

Our students and their families deserve better than the tentative settlement. At this moment, they deserve candor and transparency from the Board and District administrators about how this problem arose. This means a release of all District documents bearing upon the tentative SMMCTA settlement. Additionally, our students and their families deserve the Board’s prompt acknowledgment that it has made a serious mistake and a commitment to correct this mistake.

Moving forward, I suggest that initially we need a cooling off period for reflection and community dialogue, informed by the School District’s full disclosure of all relevant information. Additionally, the Board should retain an independent financial consultant -- directly accountable to the Board -- to provide you with the financial assistance you need.

In particular, you need comparative salary information from “peer” school districts and you need a clear understanding of the budgetary implications of various options including but not limited to the tentative settlement. And, again, all of this information should be available for public review and comment.

Only after completion of such a community process should the District and the SMMCTA return to the bargaining table. Future District/SMMCTA negotiations should be fully informed by an open community dialogue and an independent financial assessment by a competent professional consulting firm.

You might ask why the SMMCTA should cooperate with such a process? After all, the SMMCTA’s role is to bargain for its members’ salaries and benefits and it appears they have done so with great effectiveness. But the District’s teachers will not benefit from a settlement that undermines the District’s fiscal stability. And teachers will suffer tremendous harm if we are unable to renew our two parcel taxes because of concerns about District fiscal mismanagement. Teachers will also suffer if the District is forced to cut programming and increase class sizes as a result of a fiscal crisis.

In the longer term, this current problem highlights the need for the Board to rethink how it makes major financial decisions -- especially salary/benefit negotiations with the CTA and SEIU given that salaries constitute more than 80% of the District’s budget. The Board needs to stop making these decisions in isolation.

The Board needs to reform its overall approach and find ways to make the process more transparent. The Board also needs to find ways to take advantage of the incredible resources and expertise that are readily available, especially on the District’s Financial Oversight Committee. Most importantly, the Board needs to make sure it has a clear understanding of the financial implications of its compensation decisions before it makes such decisions.

I have a strong commitment to the success of the School District, just as you all do and just as the teachers do. My parents, my brothers and I all attended Santa Monica-Malibu public schools, as do my two youngest children. In addition to serving on the FOC, I have supported and campaigned for School Bond measures, parcel taxes, and the CEPS measure which led to the current School District contract with the City.

I look forward to working with you as we begin to organize the campaign to secure voter approval to extend and possibly increase our parcel taxes. For that effort to succeed, however, it is critical that the District’s financial operation be in order.

Therefore, I urge the Board not to ratify the tentative settlement and instead to reopen the process as recommended in this letter. I am confident that while this course will be painful, the District’s best interests will be served by pursuing this approach.

Sincerely,

Christopher M. Harding