FAQs and FACTS: QUESTIONS TO WHICH YOU WANT ANSWERS!

By C. N. "Corinne" Gordon

A: According to their campaign flyers and door-hangers, the other two candidates incorrectly suggest that their election will "re-establish a majority of board members with children in Live Oak District". Regardless, my two children attended Live Oak schools from kindergarten through 8th grade, and my firm belief is that my present status as a parent with older children benefits the District for these reasons:

- Having younger children can make it hard to devote the time necessary to be an active & effective board member;

- I impartially represent all students at all of our schools, whereas a parent with children in the District may favor the concerns of their child's school;

- As a Board member of a K-8 district which provides the foundation for higher education, I have advocated for articulation efforts with the high school district and see the broader educational picture from pre-school to college;

- My incumbency provides voters with the security of an established record;

- Rather than declining, my level of commitment and contribution to the District has accelerated over the years;

- IÕve been told that over half the electorate in the Live Oak School District are without elementary-school-age children and, certainly as an elected official, IÕm here to represent ALL constituents, not special interests; and, last but not least,

- Far more relevant than having children presently attending District schools is having a history of prior attendance at Board and/or site council meetings to develop the knowledge base and historical insight necessary to form views, guide decision-making, and develop understanding of a school board memberÕs role, as established by law.

Q: Your Sentinel "CandidateÕs Statement" mentions using an alternative collective bargaining model. Can you explain? You also said you want to look at the budget to "maximize funds" for staff recruitment and retention. Bottom line: do you support the teachers' salary increase demand?

A: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - We have amicable negotiations with our other collective bargaining unit utilizing an interest-based bargaining model. Since it was adopted, this approach has uplifted the overall tenor and, subsequently, increased the efficiency of the bargaining process. I believe that this model (or an equivalent) should be pursued when the present round of teacher negotiations has concluded.

The interest-based model involves trust-building, uses mutual problem-solving strategies, and has a training component using an impartial facilitator. Because the State supports this method as the most effective, the training and facilitator costs are reimbursable by the State without impact to the general fund.

SUPPORT THE TEACHERS' DEMAND? - I and the present Board have directed Administration to review and restructure the DistrictÕs budget to assure on-going fiscal solvency while maximizing funds available for recruiting and retaining quality staff. I support meeting the teachers' demand on the salary schedule to the extent that the budget can support it on a long-term basis.

When a board member takes the oath to support the state and national constitutions, part of the community trust is the board member's fiduciary stewardship, i.e. the responsibility of meeting the financial obligations of the district. Certainly the handling of district finances should be akin to the management of one's personal home budget, whereby it would be imprudent to assume an on-going financial obligation that exceeds oneÕs income.

The State has allocated money to raise beginning teacher salaries. However, the salary issue is a complex one, starting with our being a low-wealth district that has had to deal with deficits, including revenue reduction from lower student enrollment last year. This trend of declining enrollment is expected to continue for several years before it reverses again. Therefore, the long-term ramifications of all budgetary decisions must be careful scrutinized.

Another budget factor is that Live Oak receives less revenue per attending student than many neighboring districts, including those receiving more money for serving high school populations. Further, compensation must be negotiated even when State money is allocated or suggested for salary increases; and any negotiated increases in compensation must subsequently be approved by the County Office of Education, which evaluates a 3-year "costing out" to determine the District's ability to support negotiated increases on a on-going basis.

The public and District staff also need to understand that there are restricted funds which, by statute, may only be used for identified purposes. For instance, the land recently purchased for future District growth was paid for by State bond money. Like other State-restricted moneys, bond money is restricted by the State under the statute by which it is approved and may not be used for salary increases.

A few weeks ago, a parent complained that the District was paving Green Acres School before giving teachers more money. My response was to clarify that we are State-mandated to spend at least 3% of our budget to maintain the schools that have been paid for by the State. Just as a warranty on oneÕs car will only be honored if one has maintained it with regular tune-ups, oil changes, and the like, so will the State provide modernization funds to upgrade our schools if weÕve demonstrated compliance with maintaining them over a specified number of years. The "deferred-maintenance" funds used to maintain our schools is, again, restricted for specified uses and cannot be used for teacher salaries.

This information is routinely presented at Board and site council meetings. The present school board and administration has taken much initiative to be open, communicative, and accommodating about budget matters. Last Spring, for example, the Board held a series of afternoon and evening meetings, specifically designed and scheduled to afford maximum participation of staff and community. Despite these opportunities for both learn about the budget and offer input about the District's finances, the meetings were poorly attended.

One will hopefully realize by my discussion of just a few budgetary complexities that the teacher's salary situation is not as simple or cut-&-dried as one might have heard. With negotiations currently in-process, there are bargaining issues on the table that are not public information, and legal protocol prohibits Board members from disclosing or discussing the particulars. This is especially frustrating when audience members may speak without restraint during the "open communications" portion of board meetings, while Trustees are legally obligated to refrain from responding. The unfortunate result is a negatively-skewed public perception, and parents and staff who receive only a partial (and/or partially accurate) view.

Q: Please address such topics as the "new offices" for administrators, special education kids in portables having to travel across campus to use bathrooms, and SPECTRA funding. Do these issues point to a problem with District priorities?

A: The problem is the circulation of incorrect or incomplete information. Let there be no question: my priority is the District's service to children and the making of decisions with children at heart.

RELOCATION OF THE DISTRICT OFFICE: In 1974 the Live Oak electorate supported building the Brickley Building, adjacent to the Green Acres campus. In 1998, the County Office of Education vacated the building and returned it to Live Oak School District use.

The District Office had occupied classroom space at Green Acres for over 30 years under increasingly cramped conditions. When the Brickley building was converted to office space, the vacated classroom space formerly occupied at Green Acres by the District Office was subsequently added to the school's square footage, thereby increasing State modernization funds.

The District already owned the 25-year-old Brickley building, and conversion costs were borne by State deferred-maintenance funds, which are, again, a restricted category and cannot be used for teacher salaries.

The re-location of the District Office was a win-win situation both for the DistrictÕs centralized services and for Green Acres School.

BATHROOM ACCESS FOR SPECIAL ED STUDENTS: Green Acres is going through the modernization process which, when completed, will create a new classroom, including a bathroom, for this group of students. The present issue was reviewed, and the teacher declined installation of a bathroom, which was offered by the District. This is a temporarily inconvenient housing situation for which an alternative was offered and declined.

SPECTRA: A month ago, a teacher wrote a Letter to the Editor saying that "Live Oak chose to cut funding for the SPECTRA art program this year...they then also lost out on the $25,000 matching fund money that they received".

First of all, we neither received nor "lost out on...$25,000 matching fund money". I have a May 2000 "SPECTRA Request and Report" from the Cultural Council offering to contribute $8,481 for the 2000-2001 school year if Live Oak would contribute $25,500. In other words, if we paid 75%, theyÕd pay 25% towards the total program cost of $33,981.

The truth is that Live Oak, IÕm told, has been the only County-wide district to fully fund SPECTRA from the general fund for many consecutive years. Most districts support the arts through the fund-raising efforts of parent/community groups.

This is the first year in which the funding source was SHIFTED away from the general fund. Each school received State block grant money which could have allocated for SPECTRA by the site councils. Other income sources, such as School Improvement Program (SIP) funds, could also have been used for SPECTRA. (I believe that two schools chose to put money into SPECTRA, one using part of the block grant, the other with SIP money.)

Shifting the cost of SPECTRA from the general fund 1.) allowed site-based decision-making to determine the use of site-allocated funds, and 2.) freed up more general fund money for negotiations.

Q: You note in your Sentinel "CandidateÕs Statement" that you want to strengthen District relations with employee and community groups. How would you do that, and how will you rebuild trust among staff?

A: The current level of teacher negotiations is highly-charged, emotionally. This creates rhetoric and misinformation, which is perpetuated even further by a "safety in numbers" group mentality. It may be persuasive for gaining public sympathy, but it clouds the issues, feeds mistrust, and creates destructive patterns of communication.

A multi-pronged approach is necessary to improve the present climate. Shifting the collective bargaining format is a hopeful prospect. Trust-building is an intrinsic component of any interest-based training that may be considered.

It's also important to get to know people as individuals and have all levels staying engaged with one another. For example, our administrators are involved at the school sites. The elementary principals and one of the District-level administrators participate with students in the Reading Recovery program. The superintendent spends time visiting classrooms at each of our schools. This visibility and connection is important to reducing the "us-them" mentality that creates and sustains polarized attitudes.

One tool that may contribute to rebuilding a positive school climate is the Program Quality Review (PQR) process. Our schools are presently in a one-to-two-year PQR process, which has a component to evaluate site strengths and weaknesses. When the process has been completed, the culminating reports will collectively aid the Board in setting future goals.

As for personal goals, I have served and will continue to serve as an active, accessible Board member, visible at the sites, serving on committees, demystifying the public school system for parents, and strengthening community relations by talking with people one-on-one and at parent-group meetings.

These componentsÑsetting up a new bargaining model, engaging people in collaboration at all levels, the PQR process, and Board member involvement--will all contribute to trust-building and improving the present morale.