Image 1 of 2
Katie Kleier got a new three-year contract as superintendent of El Tejon Unified School District just before classified employees learned there would be 21 layoff notices.Image 2 of 2
Katie Kleier got a new two-year contract as superintendent of El Tejon Unified School District just before classified employees learned there would be 21 layoff notices. They stood to leave the stormy April 11 meeting.
Schools at a Crossroads Part 5,
See Part 4
Part 3 [Logjam Breaks: Trustees Talk, Argue, Consider New Ideas-in Public]
Part 2
Part 1
By Patric Hedlund
Emotion was high at the April 11 meeting of the El Tejon Unified School District Board of Trustees. As a long-argued contract was extended to Superintendent Katie Kleier, another 21 support staff—from aides to cafeteria workers to bus maintenance staff, were given layoff notices.
Trustees and Kleier said California has dealt its rural school districts a nearly impossible hand. The legislature “borrows” school revenues to pay its own bills and cuts the subsidy for busing rural students to school, then makes the administration turn in a balanced budget five months before they will know what their district income will be.
“Layoff notices have to be given now so staff have 45 days’notice,” said Kleier. She said that the large number of layoff notices was necessary if the board of trustees wants to have the flexibility to cut $1.4 million from the budget to achieve a “positive” rather than a “qualified” budget rating. The ETUSD board has not yet voted on this question, or weighed the matter in public discussion.
On March 29, Kleier and financial director Terri Geivet both commented that when the state is not paying the district what they are owed, perhaps a “qualified” budget label is the lesser of two evils compared to the extreme changes that would be necessary to achieve a “positive” budget in these harsh economic times. But interim trustee Stephen Kiouses said he wants to see what would be necessary to position the district for a “positive” rating.
“Qualified” means the district is pulling from its reserves and may not be able to cover its bills in two or three years if no revenue improvements occur.
Trustee John Fleming argued against handing layoff notices to the support staff before the board has decided if it needs to cut so deeply.
“Why should we put the lives of all these people into turmoil if we don’t need to?” Fleming asked.
Stephan Kiouses also said he wanted to table the layoff proposal to study the numbers more closely. Fleming and Kiouses both criticized the way the layoff list was presented to the board. They said there should have been more information and cost figures attached to the position chart.
“I am being asked to make an uninformed vote,” Kiouses said.
“That’s the way we’ve always done it,” said Kleier, who has been here less than two years. The phrase is a favorite of 25-year veteran ETUSD fiscal director Terri Geivet, said by members of the public to reflect a failure to grasp that ETUSD is facing a crisis that requires new ways of doing things.
Kleier said that the layoffs could achieve a $350,000 annual savings. She said if the board tabled the matter, their decision could cost about $30,000 in lost opportunity for savings if they then decide to go through with the layoffs.
The classified employee layoff list includes 4 instructional aides, 1 reading aide, 4 RSP aides, 2 yard duty aides, 3 health aides, 2 school secretaries, 1 lead custodian, 1 bus driver and vehicle maintenance tech, 1 bus driver and warehouse worker, 1 central kitchen manager and 1 cafeteria worker.
Virtually all of these are positions held by local Mountain Community residents who frequent local businesses. They are parents of about 12 children in ETUSD schools, according to Angela Witham, the local California School Employees Association (CSEA) president. In an interview, Witham said that five years ago there were 60 to 70 classified employees. If these layoffs go through, there will be about 30 support staff left in the district.
Kleier reminded the board that despite layoff notices, employees are often hired back early in the school year once the revenue figures from the state are confirmed. Witham agreed that the early notifications are part of California’s “Ed Code,” as well as union contracts.
In February, 11 certificated employees, including half of the high school teaching staff, were given pink slips.
In 2011 teachers holding 9.5 positions were notified they could be cut, but six returned to teaching positions and one moved to an administrative position, leaving 2.5 people actually laid off. Meanwhile, of the 19 classified layoffs last year (teachers’ aides, clerks and groundskeepers), 13 were brought back for the 2011-12 school year, although most not in the positions they had previously held.
Superintendent’s Contract
The board appeared to have a deep internal dispute about extending a new three-year contract to Superintendent Kleier. In a 3-2 vote, she received a $383,507 salary package over three years. Kleier, who lives in Bakersfield, will also receive use of a district vehicle plus reimbursement for gasoline.
The contract will pay $123,532 in 2012-2013, $127,786 in 2013-2014 and $132,189 in 2014-2015.
According to the 2011 audit, the superintendent’s salary in 2011-2012 was already slightly higher than those paid by districts of a similar size.
The vote was 3-2. Paula Regan, Ken Hurst and Anita Anderson voted to adopt the contract. They agreed that continuity in leadership has been missing in the school district.
John Fleming said he would like to extend the contract for one more year and make an evaluation of the district’s status at that time.
Stephan Kiouses voted against the contract also, saying, “I think the district is at a tipping point. I think it is unethical to enter into a [three year] contract when we don’t know where we will be financially [after next year]. It does not have to do with performance, this is a financial decision. Perhaps in 2014 or 2015 we will maybe need only half of a superintendent… we don’t know right now. That is why I am opposed.”
This is part of the April 20, 2012 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.
Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.