By DAVID HUNN, Californian staff writer
Thursday April 24, 2003, 11:36:20 PM
David Stiles Senior Partner
Teachers in the Bakersfield City School District are trying to save their jobs the only way they know how -- in front of a judge.
On Thursday, lawyers for the teacher's union told an administrative law judge that the district illegally eliminated hundreds of jobs when the board's resolution called for just 74.
Earlier, union representatives questioned why the district needed to lay off teachers at all.
"We're asking the district to use $14 million in reserves to save teachers' jobs," Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Association President Helen Collins said. "What the district is doing is not necessary." But district administrators say it is.
Almost $12 million of its reserves are in the form of a state IOU, and even state officials agree they don't see that money ever coming back to the district. By law, the district must have $6.5 million in reserves every year for emergencies, Assistant Superintendent of Business Mike Lingo said.
To offset a loss of state funding, the district has moved to cut its $200 million budget by $9 million next year, partly by sending layoff notices to about 200 teachers and 300 support staff.
But the district told too many teachers they would lose their jobs, and didn't cite the right reasons, said union lawyer David Stiles.
According to the district resolution approved at the board's Feb. 25 meeting, the district should have simply told 74 teachers their jobs were at risk.
Instead, the district has told more than 400 teachers they don't have a job next year, including credentialed, temporary and emergency credentialed teachers, Stiles argued to the administrative law judge, Stuart Waxman.
Stiles then outlined the three reasons the district can cite before eliminating jobs. First, he said, the district might not have enough money. Second, the district may lose students.
Finally, it can cut teachers if it needs to get rid of one particular program or service. Stiles said that this last reason is what the board used to justify firing the 74 teachers, but the district hasn't actually eliminated a service. The district can respond to the accusations Thursday and today.
By May 7, Waxman will recommend his conclusion to the district board, and though the board doesn't have to take his recommendation, district Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Dennis Patrick said boards usually do.
As the lawyers battled over administrative odds and ends, dozens of teachers filled the conference room, waiting to hear something of their future. Some read, some nodded off, eyes closing, and others just fumed.
"We weren't told what was going to happen," Chipman Junior High School history teacher Jennifer Sutter said. "We were told to bring any information we have to make our case better to be rehired. "I mean, who would want to fire me?" she said. "It doesn't make any sense. I'm articulate. I do a great job. My reviews are stellar."
But Waxman was careful to tell teachers that they are not being laid off because they did something wrong. "It can be an uncomfortable process, folks," Waxman said. "And for that I apologize." "Please understand that this is not a hearing regarding your competence." School district lawyer David Miller also acknowledged that the process is painful.
"Unfortunately, the state of California is in a disastrous financial situation," Miller said.
