Here's what I find funny.
1) Statement #6: "Our District is receiving enough funds from the federal stimulus package to cover over a third of their pay increases."
We had anticipated a onetime infusion of federal stimulus money totaling $2.1 million, but as of this writing, there is a caution from the independent Legislative Analyst's Office stating that it is likely that none of the stimulus money will reach the District as it will be held at the state level to address their economic challenges.
Therefore, we are not counting on the benefit of federal stimulus money for our District. If we did receive any stimulus money, it would be welcome but would only address, with onetime money, less than 10% of the fouryear anticipated shortfall.
Also at the time of that writing (March 24th), Schwarzenegger and some Congress members reaffirmed that they weren't going to allow the funds to be diverted. I guess Casey didn't know that. Casey also didn't seem to understand that the $2.1MM comes from special ed funds and that there's a whole lot of other money available. PUSD, please apply for it NOW! You haven't sent in your application yet.
2) Statement #7: "The PUSD could limit pay raises acrosstheboard
to balance their budget."
The District has eliminated acrosstheboard pay raises this year.
Casey is talking past the anonymous document. The document probably refers to ALL pay raises, including Step and Column while Casey is referring to COLA only. Who is being deceptive?
3) Statement #4: "If the PUSD gave pay raises commensurate with their
revenue increase, there would be no problem at all."
The District has not granted pay raises in excess of the revenue provided by the state.
This one loses me. On the District's website they show a COLA raise of 4.60% in 2005/2006. LAO's website reports that the COLA from the State for that year was 4.20%. What's worse is that the District does no good for itself if it's passing through the entire COLA from the State to COLA raises. What's going on?
4) Statement #3: "The PUSD is threatening deep program cuts and layoffs as the only solution because they are determined to impose a parcel tax on Pleasanton residents no matter the cost."
A parcel tax will provide a stable and reliable funding source for programs in seven areas that are critical for our students. This tax would be in effect for four years in order that these essential programs will not continue to be at risk year after year until the state and global financial situation improves or there is significant education funding reform at the state or federal level.
Those programs will only be at risk then every four years, right? How stable is that? And if it were only "until the state and global financial situation improves" the parcel tax wouldn't been written specifically to address that.
This story contains 491 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.