By Jonathan Friedman
Lookout Staff

February 19, 2010 -- At the request of District officials, the School Board on Thursday night gave the go-ahead to reduce staff by 92 employees, including teachers, nurses and counselors. Depending on various circumstances, the number of employees who actually will lose their jobs could be much lower.

The 92 layoffs would take place under the “the worst-case scenario,” Board member Jose Escarce said.

At the next board meeting on March 4, District staff will let the board know if and by how much the number of layoffs can be reduced.

The number would be lowered if the teachers union ratifies a labor agreement on furloughs, something the Service Employees International Union recently did ("School District, Labor Unions Reach Tentative Deal on Furloughs," February 8, 2010).

Jobs also would be spared if more workers announce they will be retiring or voluntarily leaving the District for other reasons.

At the March 4 meeting, the board will vote to finalize the number of layoffs, and those employees must be notified by the District by March 15.

The number of layoffs could be further reduced by the time the board votes on the 2010-11 fiscal year budget on June 18 if voters approve a parcel tax measure on May 25 ("School Board puts $198 parcel tax on ballot," February 2, 2010)

Also, the District has no idea how much money it will be receiving from the State, its biggest financial contributor, and likely won't know for a long time.

“I remain hopeful that we can knock down the number of layoffs to the bare minimum, hopefully do a repeat of this last year where we didn’t have to lay off anybody,” Board member Ben Allen said.

Board members Ralph Mechur and Oscar de la Torre wanted to hold off on voting for the 92 layoffs to wait for further information to come in.

But Mike Matthews, assistant superintendent for human resources, advised against the delay. He wants the District staff to begin working on the layoff process with an initial number, so he could come into the March 4 meeting with accurate information for a final board vote prior to the March 15 layoff notice deadline.

“It is incredibly important for us to be not just mostly accurate, but exactly accurate when it comes to this,” Matthews said. He added, “The longer you wait, the greater chance for an error in this process by rushing it.”

Teachers union president Harry Keiley opposed Thursday’s vote, calling it “premature.” He said the number of layoffs was based on assumptions for next year’s budget that were too conservative.

“The assumptions within this budget are so conservatively presented to you that they are almost unlikely to materialize,” Keiley said. “And therefore, the number of layoffs that are being presented to you this evening is excessive.”

Keiley said he was also disappointed that no administrative jobs were targeted for elimination.

Matthews said a proposal on that subject would come before the board on March 4 because “we’re still analyzing that and putting dollar amounts on that.”

Keiley said after the meeting that there was no reason that proposal could not have been ready on Thursday.

Among those targeted for layoffs are the 10 teachers of the elementary music program. Several public speakers said it would be detrimental to music education in the District to knock out the entire program.

“Can you imagine students doing well in advanced math if they didn’t have any basic math at the elementary school level?” asked music education advocate Virginia Kohfeld.

Others targeted for layoffs include 42 elementary school teachers, three nurses, seven middle school and high school counselors, 22 middle school teachers and six persons from the child development program.

“The assumptions within this budget are so conservatively presented to you that they are almost unlikely to materialize,” Harry Keiley

The 92 layoffs would take place under the “the worst-case scenario,” Board member Jose Escarce