SAN BRUNO PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT (SBPSD) UNIONS REFUSE TO TAKE PAY OR BENEFIT CUTS. NEW PLAN TO RAID SBPSD CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 40.

by Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

In San Bruno, it is getting to the point where the employee unions in the San Bruno Park School District (SBPSD) are getting very obnoxious in their refusal to take pay and benefit cuts to help protect the educations of SBPSD students. The SBPSD employee unions think they are somehow immune to bad economic times and should continue receiving bigger checks and benefits for working nine or ten months each year. They are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of shared sacrifice.

Well, there's bad news on the horizon for these folks because California is almost out of money. All the dancing around, noisy demonstrations and intimidation tactics will mean nothing when the money runs out.

At this point, you have to start wondering if these "teachers" and their other union brothers and sisters in the SBPSD are interested in protecting whatever level of education they are providing to the students (only 68.5% of whom will graduate from high school) or are just interested in angling for the fattest paychecks and benefit packages they can yell, scream and intimidate out of the SBPSD Board of Trustees and the taxpayers who live in the SBPSD.

The latest hairbrained scheme being advanced to make sure the SBPSD employee union members do not have to share any burden during this budget crisis is to raid a fund called Fund 40. Fund 40 is a restrictive reserve fund in which money has been set aside from the sale of former SBPSD property. The money in this restrictive reserve fund is set aside for capital improvement projects and cannot be used for general operating expenses such as teacher salaries. The SBPSD has already received a waiver from the State of California to use the interest on the Fund 40 money for general expenses. Now, they want to use the principal in the fund for general expenses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petition being passed around contains the following language:

To: San Bruno Park School District Board of Trustees

"We the undersigned citizens and registered voters of San Bruno, California, respectfully order that during this budget crisis, the board put the commitment to upgrade and renovate Parkside Intermediate School on hold. To spend 20 million dollars from the district’s Fund 40 reserve is fiscally irresponsible and not looking out for the best interest of your students.

At this time, it is far more important to provide quality school programs to all of our children. Eliminating such programs as Class Size Reduction (increasing class sizes from 20 to 31), Physical Education, Music, Gifted and Talented Education, Counseling, School Safety, School libraries, and teacher training will be detrimental to our children. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The unionized teachers in the SBPSD obviously don't think that eliminating programs for the children in the SBPSD would be detrimental to the children because they are not willing to take the pay and benefit cuts necessary to protect the programs the petition seeks to protect by draining Fund 40.

The SBPSD employee unions won't take pay and benefit cuts. They won't agree to layoffs. They won't agree to anything that involves their making a shared sacrifice to keep things afloat in the SBPSD. As I see it, the refusal of the SBPSD unions to agree to lower wages and benefits will eventually lead to massive layoffs in the SBPSD.

 Here's why it does not make sense to raid Fund 40 to pay for current expenses:

1). The SBPSD has already received a waiver from the State of California to use Fund 40 interest for general expenses. By reducing the amount of principal in Fund 40, there will be less interest generated by the Fund. Therefore, there will be less interest available for general expenses on a recurring basis.

2). Fund 40 is necessary to make critical infrastructure improvements to the schools and to pay for deferred maintenance.

3). Fund 40 contains money from the sale of SPBSD property. If this money is not being used by the SBPSD for capital projects it should be returned to the taxpayers. Why isn't anybody proposing a distribution of this money to taxpayers in the SBPSD. I'm sure, in these tough economic times, everybody could use a nice rebate from the SBPSD.

4). If the SBPSD were to be successful in draining Fund 40 to pay for current expenses, there would be insufficient money to pay for long term capital improvement projects and deferred maintenance. Instead of handing out refunds to taxpayers, as suggested in item #3; the SBPSD would be trying to increase the property taxes on people living in the SBPSD.

5). As mentioned earlier in this article, if the SBPSD employee unions would take pay and benefit cuts there would not be any need to eliminate any of the programs in the SBPSD.

Let's look at the reality of this situation. Every parcel of property in the SBPSD pays property taxes that help fund the SBPSD. However, only a minority of those taxed parcels of property have children living on the property who attend school in the SBPSD. Most property owners are paying for a school system they do not use. And many property owners have so little confidence in the ability of the SBPSD to provide their children with a decent education that they are sending their children to private schools at great personal expense even while still being forced to pay property taxes to the SBPSD.

That being said, the SBPSD employee unions are not doing themselves any favors by being intrasigent and refusing to take the pay and benefit cuts necessary to help insure that the students in the SBPSD do not lose programs. After all, pay and benefits to SBPSD employees represent approximately 80% of the SBPSD budget so this is where the vast majority of budget reductions can be obtained. If voters living in the SBPSD become fed up with the stubborn SBPSD employee unions, they may start electing SBPSD Board Members who will take the legal action necessary to make the necessary job, salary and benefit cuts that this pro union SBPSD Board of Trustees refuse to make.

As far as Fund 40 is concerned; any attempt by the SBPSD Board of Trustees to raid Fund 40, to pay for general expenses, will be aggressively challenged. My guess is that there are sufficient legal resources in place to mount a serious challenge to any attempt by the SBPSD Board of Trustees to raid Fund 40.