LYNWOOD — Faced with having to cut nearly $8 million dollars from its 2009-10 fiscal year budget, members of the Lynwood school board during an emergency meeting Monday night voted unanimously on several crucial items that will keep the district out of the red next year.

Among the votes were agreements with two district employee unions for four furlough days to be taken before June. When it was all said and done, the board also decided that as many as 119 teacher positions might be eliminated.

“This was a very sad day in Lynwood,” said Rachel Chavez, the longest-serving board member. “These numbers should have been caught two years ago. In the face of this economy — even though no one expected it to get like this — we shouldn’t be cutting our teacher force at all. … 119 is more than 10 percent of all of our teachers.”

The exact number of teachers, and who they will be, have not been finalized, Chavez said, but with time and a better grasp of the situation, she said she hopes the numbers can be refined and minimized.

Chavez said the board’s hands are tied since the orders to trim the budget by several million dollars are coming from the county.

The decisions aren’t easy, said Chavez, but in what she calls “making a sacrifice,” the district was able to reach an agreement with its California School Employees Association Union and with SEIU-Local 99 Union, which accepted giving up one day every month through June without pay rather than cutting positions entirely.

A furlough day is a non-work day, and it saves money because the district does not have to pay an employee for not working. In exchange for the furlough days, the district agreed not to lay off any SEIU or CSEA union members during the remainder of the 2008-09 school year, and to limit classified layoffs in the next year.

To show the board’s unity and support for a shared sacrifice, site and central office administrators and non-represented employees also will take the four furlough days.

“These workers are essentially lowering their rate of income,” Chavez said. “It’s very unfortunate that our budget deficit is being placed on their backs, but at least they can keep their jobs.”

The district’s third union, the Lynwood Teachers Association, however, isn’t agreeing to any furlough days, especially when teachers’ contracts require them to work 182 days.

“This sacrifice is definitely being put on the backs of teachers,” said LTA President Val Zolfaghari. “You cannot ask teachers to take an offer like this because you’re basically telling them, you have to come to work everyday, but you’re not going to get paid for four of those days.”

The problem here, Zolfaghari said, is that the district is not offering teachers true furlough days. “By contract, teachers will have to come to work, because our kids require teachers here 182 days. Teachers cannot just take days off like that,” he said. “Plus, this is a paycut for teachers and in the end, it can affect teachers’ retirement. … Something that is not being taken under consideration.”

The teacher’s union does however, say it will agree to furlough days only under the condition that “no teachers will be laid off,” a request Chavez said is out of the district’s control.

The cuts being made “right now,” Chavez said, are cuts that should have been made last summer.

“All of us, were told last summer that there weren’t going to be any layoffs.
Some of the board members were even celebrating it,” she said. “But all of this planning should have been done last year, to prepare for this. … Instead, we’re finding ourselves back-peddling, and doing last minute cuts. The board wouldn’t be agreeing to all of these cuts, or to even put this on anyone’s backs, if we didn’t have to. Unfortunately, we’ve already shrunk our reserves to a bare minimum. If we go to those funds any further, it will put the district in bigger jeopardy.”

The district isn’t finding itself in the red right now, Chavez said, but it will most certainly be in debt next year.

“Right now, the reserves are at three percent. If it goes down any lower, it is possible that the state could come in and take over the district,” Chavez said. “If we don’t make these cuts, we will be at 1 percent. That’s not where we should be — ever.”

Other school districts, Chavez added, began making cuts last year or two years ago.

“That’s the reason these cuts are so drastic,” she said. “These types of cuts should be done gradually over the course of time, not all at once. Now we have to cut $8 million from our budget. … We’re going to be cutting from now through 2010.”

Chavez said she didn’t want to blame anyone, but said the reserves are where they are because of money being wasted in the district.

If every employee, teacher and administrator would take one furlough day between now and June, the district would be saved, she said.

“Unfortunately, that’s too much to ask for. … Everyone would have to be willing to lose something, in order for the district to gain something.”

The teacher’s union was also given the option of not getting paid for spring break, but that was also turned down.

Chavez said the board is being asked to eliminate programs at every school, possibly cancel summer school districtwide, reduce the number of teachers on special assignment, reduce the number of administrators on campuses, and possibly eliminating certain subjects at the middle and high school levels.

“I’ve had nightmares about this day,” Chavez said. “I can’t believe this is happening in our school district.”

According to the district’s chief business officer, Bill Agopian, the district faces a deficit of at least $6.04 million in the 2009-10 school year.

“The district must hope for the best, but prepare for the worst,” he said. “In the worst-case scenario, the district’s deficit in 2009-10 could be in excess of $10 million. … Additionally, we are still working out the details of the recently passed state budget and federal stimulus package. However, these agreements from SEIU and CSEA are a step in the right direction, and demonstrate a way that employees can help to solve the worst fiscal crisis in decades.”

Zolfaghari said he wants to clarify that in no way are the teachers not negotiating in good faith.

“This is not about the teachers not wanting to help our kids,” he said. “This is about the lack of trust the teachers have in the school district. … If this district is in a deficit, it isn’t due to the state’s deficit. It exists because of the mismanagement of the district’s funds at the district level. This school district has spent millions and millions of dollars on consultants’ fees and on legal fees … a complete waste … and now they want to put this burden on teachers’ backs? It’s an injustice and this is why we haven’t agreed to anything.”

According to Zolfaghari, there is no accountability and transparency in the district.

“Things are done in secrecy around here. … They don’t want to give the teacher’s union any numbers and they refuse to give us a guarantee that teachers won’t be laid off if we accept the furloughs now. There’s no guarantee we can keep our jobs,” he said. “This is a give and take. If the district maybe tells the teachers they will get the pay back once the district has the money, maybe they will accept the furloughs, but the district isn’t offering that either.”

The bottom line, Zolfaghari said, is that teachers don’t trust the district.

“This district is top-heavy,” said Zolfaghari. “There’s one superintendent and three assistant superintendents. That’s unheard of in districts our size. Then there [are] consultants in every department. If people aren’t qualified for the job, then they shouldn’t be working here.

“What this district needs is ethics reform,” Zolfaghari added. “It needs accountability and transparency. They need people from every corner of the district to sit down and look at the budget and make the decisions, and take it out of the hands of the highest paid people.”