I imagine it has something to do with the fact that if they're taking 3 furlough days for the current school year then they need something that modifies the current contract and that is probably the one-year MOU.

Speaking of clarity, I think more clarity is needed on how this impacts things.

The total in APT concessions is about $4.6MM over two years. The three days this year are $1.8MM according to the district website. S&C this year increases the budget shortfall by about $1.6MM. So those three furlough days for the current year wipes out that increase. I'm not clear on if the $1.6MM increase is total of the automatic salary increases for all employees or only the certificated portion. If it is certificated only amount, then the three furlough days are generous by $0.2MM. If it is total cost for all employees, then the three furlough days are extremely generous.

The rest of the APT concessions amounts to $2.8MM for next school year. To gauge the impact, one needs to know how much of the total budget shortfall amount is for next year only. I think the shortfall for the current year is something like $3MM out of the $18MM or so. Is that right?

Can the public get a digital copy of the tentative contract before the Board votes on it? I'm not seeing anything that looks like a contract in the agenda packet.

It is difficult to assess the long-term fiscal impact of a contract that is supposed to be publicly discussed at the next board meeting that one can't look at.

DCOT: I believe the first link you provide is only speaking to a piece of what is actually being presented to the Board on Tuesday. Page 31 of the board materials clearly indicates a 3-year contract, which was the expectation with the former three-year contract expiring.

I think Stacey is correct that what Trevor Knaggs refers to is a side agreement for the current school year concessions. I would trust that Mr. Knaggs knows what he is talking about.

That the details are not posted with the packet is a disservice to the public. That those details will not be presented until the meeting, where there will be possible action, is unconscionable, and perhaps a violation of the Brown Act requiring materials to be presented 72 hours in advance.

This is "off point" ... but Stacey ... you are a wonderful poster. I am amazed at the depth of your detailed knowledge when you talk ... and yes, I've been here for awhile so I've seen you wax eloquent more than once ... anyone I don't want to intrude on the thread ... good job (although I do not always agree with you ... hey ... freedom of speech ... I love it)

From (Web Link
"Continued Flexibility for School Districts to Determine Length of School Year:
Schools receive incentive funding to maintain a 180-day school year. The Governor’s budget provides California school schools (sic) continued flexibility to decided (sic) to, if necessary, reduce the length of the school year by up to five days to accommodate 2009-10 budget reductions without losing any incentive funding they receive to maintain a 180‑day school year."

Does this mean CA funds districts even though the schools are closed? Hurt the kids, hurt the teachers, and PUSD keeps the money. Is it really this crazy?

Sorry, I quoted the number wrong. The three furlough days in the current year is $1.08MM. The five furlough days next year is $1.8MM.

Miguel,
I actually don't know much. I just read a lot to learn about it.

I thought the furlough days amounted to approx. $425k/day. So, 5 days x $.425M = $2.1M

Spouse, while I share your recollection, the $1.8 million amount comes directly from the text of the tentative agreement. It works out to $360,000 per furlough day. This only includes the savings from the agreement with APT -- presumably there will be additional savings once agreement is reached with CSEA.