OPINION -- Don't Shoot the Messenger

By Jim Jaffe

What’s terribly wrong with this picture? The state and the nation are in the worst financial crisis EVER, and the first major item on Thursday’s Board of Education agenda is to take 5 minutes to appoint Tim Cuneo as permanent superintendent with a salary package 34 percent greater than the previous superintendent’s!

Most people, including the press, thought this was a done deal two weeks ago out in Malibu; but in the words of Board President Mechur to me: “We put the appointment off until we have finalized the contract and have it ready for a Board agenda packet and public review.”

So why wasn’t the proposed contract posted online? Is there something about the $270,400 annual package ($220,000 salary; $38,400 for housing; and $12,000 for auto and cell phone) that the Board might find difficult justifying during hard times? What are the implications of the timing of this action when the District is currently in sensitive bargaining negotiations with both employee unions?

It wasn’t that long ago there was a big uproar over a 5 percent raise for teachers that sparked the need for an outside audit after the “house of cards” built by John Deasy and CFO Winston Braham began to collapse. The result from that FCMAT review was to confirm former Superintendent Dianne Talarico’s strong belief that if the District followed its teacher/pupil formulas due to loss of enrollment, the raise would be paid for by cutting 40 teaching positions over 3 years -- saving about $3,000,000 ! And that’s exactly what happened.

Following that example, the potential criticism of the Board ‘s approval of Mr. Cuneo’s lucrative contract could be muted if they commit to evaluate every site and department managerial position in the District using Board policy, enrollment formulas, and duplicity of job descriptions as criteria for possible reduction in force.

I have a plan ( which I will share with anyone) based on that criteria that would cut 11.4 certificated managers and 1 classified manager at a cost savings of about $1.5 million over two years. But the Board must act immediately, because they must give notice to certificated managers by March 15 if their positions may no longer be funded.

A closer look at the rest of Thursday’s agenda is even more depressing. Under Consent Agenda item No. A. 02, the Board intends to -- without discussion -- increase their 3 year contract with the legal firm Atkinson, Andelson, et al, from $450,000 to $600,000. The original contract was approved as a major action item out in the open on October 5, 2006, and assured us it would “not exceed $150,000 per year for Human Resources and not to exceed $20,000 per year for Special Education.”

This request is compounded by the fact that legal services for Special Education are $512,500 over budget as seen on Recommendation No. A. 10. My review of some of their product over time, leads me to believe this firm has given the District sketchy legal advice for years, and it’s time long over due to find a new firm when this contract ends in October.

Back to the agenda and Major Item A. 34, we see listed 5 minutes for 2009-09 Budget Transfers. Why do I think it’s going to take longer then that to explain the $3.25 million reduction in the Projected Fund balances?

And then moving on to D.01, the Board’s going to spend just 30 minutes discussing possible revisions to the detailed Board policy on Inter-district permits with all its budgetary implications. In light of the fact that just two weeks ago, I cautioned Fiscal that they had a possible “glitch” in their Monthly Enrollment Summaries by Permit Status, the Board and the community need to be reassured that the District enrollment data is accurate before any decisions are made.

But, we’re not done! The last discussion of the night will be about the “ongoing budget development process” after staff updates the board with current information. Not providing the public with any budget information 72 -hours before the discussion violates the spirit -- if not the law -- of the Opening Meeting Act.

The Board needs to stop just talking about transparency and commit to the following belief statement: “In order to have trust in their government, the Board of Education and their constituents have the Constitutional right under the Brown Act of receive 72-hours in advance all the accurate background information and data necessary for the decision making process to occur during an open meeting to the public.”

The Board should embrace citizen input and discourage apathy by mandating that the practice of “shooting the messenger” must end. We may not all agree with every decision, put we all should walk away believing the process was fair.