SM Times position on SMUHSD

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

December 22, 2006

OUR OPINION
There is plenty of blame to go around
(San Mateo County Times)

TEACHERS in the San Mateo Union High School District have expressed a decided lack of confidence in the leadership of their superintendent, Samuel Johnson Jr., and one of his primary deputies, Associate Superintendent Ethel Konopka.

That's not surprising in light of the fact that Johnson, along with Konopka, who handles personnel matters (such as layoffs) for the district, is a primary architect of budget cuts which affect the unionized instructors.

We can understand their frustration. But to blame Johnson, who has been employed by the district in a variety of capacities for 39 years, and Konopka entirely isn't fair. Furthermore, we're concerned that the degrading relationship between teachers and management will worsen, especially as both entities attempt to agree on a contract.

As we have noted before, the board of trustees also bears a big share of the responsibility for the district's financial morass. After all, it was the trustees who voted 4-1 (with Peter Hanley dissenting) late last spring to OK a 2006-07 budget even though they knew they were in the red. Warnings about the district's perilous fiscal position projected expenditures appeared to exceed anticipated revenues significantly had been sounded. But the trustees (and Johnson) went ahead anyway.

There is no question that Johnson and the trustees have handled the situation poorly. Johnson, Konopka and the board members are going to be painted as inept and uncaring.

Are they incompetent?

We don't think so. In today's climate of shifting education budgets, their task is not easy.

It would be helpful if all sides could simmer down, step back and analyze dollars and cents, both today's and those owed in the future, in the cold light of day. Ongoing strife is not going to serve the district's 8,500 students or its taxpayers well at all.

– Written by JC

Posted in Bayfront Development

4 responses to “SM Times position on SMUHSD”

KRN

December 22, 2006

1. Comment: Johnson and Konopka are the primary architects of the budget cuts.

Response: The original position of the board was that there was going to be a joint committee of administration, CTA, CEA, and board members to review the cuts. Johnson cut out this collaborative effort to put the cuts together himself. The district also put out a suggestion box? for all parties to propose cuts. In the end, the administrations special programs and special people were spared. Teachers and staff were cut.

2. Comment: We’re concerned that the degrading relationship between teachers and management will worsen, especially as both entities attempt to agree on a contract.

Response: The teachers have been more than willing to help the district from the first day. Zero percent salary increases, forgiving grievances and labor disputes were offered to the district in return for a new contract with healthcare increases and BINDING ARBITRATION. As reported, the cost of settling the contract TODAY is $30,000. The district has REJECTED THIS OFFER because the want a healthcare cap and they FEAR binding arbitration.

3. Comment: it was the trustees who voted for the budget even though they knew they were in the red. Warnings about the district’s perilous fiscal position projected expenditures appeared to exceed anticipated revenues significantly had been sounded. But the trustees (and Johnson) went ahead anyway.
Response: Johnson was given multiple warnings about the reduced tax revenue and to build up the reserves. Johnson and the board expanded programs in a period of declining revenue.
4. Comment: There is no question that Johnson and the trustees have handled the situation poorly.

Response: Johnson hid the scale of the financial situation from the CTA and CSEA. The district hired teachers away from other district KNOWING that they would have to fire these teachers a few week later.

5. Comment: It would be helpful if all sides could simmer down, step back and analyze dollars and cents, both today’s and those owed in the future.

Response: The district has refused to provide CTA in a timely manner with the financials in order to formulate a position. CTA has put a low cost proposal on the table and the district is refusing to budge. The CTA proposal is based upon past practice and the current contract with the SMUHSD.

The Articles of No Confidence are listed on this blog and can be reviewed by the public. The articles reach beyond the scope of the financial difficulties of the district and reflect the position of 91% of the teaching faculty of the district.

If the board and the administration want to act in the best interest of the students and the taxpayers, they may start with responsibility and disclosure and continue with building bridges rather than burning them.
Joanne

December 22, 2006

KRN, you keep repeating that $30,000 number, but I’ve yet to hear the explanation behind it. Can you find out the answer and post it here? An increases of $1300 per teacher for healthcare per year x 400 teachers does not equal $30,000.
KRN

December 22, 2006

I will have it after the school break.
bill

December 28, 2006

Extremely good point, Joanne…perhaps the SMUHSD teachers need remedial math…but then there is no one available to help them during lunch or before/after school…perhaps that is the problem.

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board. Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.