By Patric Hedlund

Parents and El Tejon Unified School District employees came to the February 8 meeting of the board of trustees to speak about the upcoming March 15 layoff notices that are scheduled to go out to about 11 teachers.

It is a touchy issue.

On February 1 the board held a “special meeting” with only 24 hours notice and then discussed the layoff plan in a closed session. This is illegal.

Such matters are to be discussed in front of the public, according to California’s open meeting law.

On February 8 another “special meeting” was called to hold the same meeting—again—this time in public. There was very little discussion by the members of the board about the layoff plan, except a dispute between Trustees John Fleming and Ken Hurst about whether voting “yes” in November on a tax on millionaires may be a path out of the state’s school budget crisis.

Trustees apologized to the public for the illegal meeting. The Mountain Enterprise presented a letter asking them to pass a resolution at their next meeting promising not to repeat illegal use of of closed sessions.

They voted to accept the resolution that 11 “certificated” positions be eliminated. [See the list of positions on page 17.]

Superintendent Katie Kleier explained again the disconnect between the state’s budget cycle and the report to teachers who may be affected creates discord.

State law mandates that by March 15 the school administration must notify any affected teachers if there is a possibility they may lose their jobs in the coming school year.

That is two months before the state actually tells the districts what their revenue will be for the following year.

School superintendents and trustees are caught between those union demands on one side and the sluggish performance of the California state legislature on the other.

Out of 9.5 notifications sent out last school year, only 2.5 teaching positions were actually lost by the time school started again in late August.

Teachers and parents spoke to express concern about teacher layoffs and possible elimination of programs.

Joe Flores said, “It seems like this district is collapsing in on itself. You give people dismissal slips and the kids fall through the cracks…. We have to think outside of the box. We’re down 90 kids from last year. That is a huge number.”

Darla Davis said, “Who takes care of our kids? We have 90 less kids but more adminstration. [You] expect the teachers to take the cuts. Let the administration set the example by taking the hit to their pocketbook, don’t take it from my kids.

Lark Shillig said that parents want an accounting of the money saved by eliminating buses to sporting events: “Parents are transporting kids to games, why did that money go back into the general fund?” She also asked for an explanation of who was making decisions about the $20,000 grant from Tejon Ranch Company.

Earlier, two parents presented a petition from parents asking for the dismissal of the superintendent.

This is the Excel chart that was the subject of the illegal February 1 special meeting session. The information is not “exempt” from open meeting laws. It outlines specific positions that are at risk for being reduced or eliminated if the state budget allocations to schools, due out in May, are not better than January estimates. State law requires that certificated personnel who may be laid off must be informed by March 15.

This is part of the February 17, 2012 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.