Town Square

Post a New Topic

PUSD-APT agreement is for three years?

Original post made by Dark Corners of Town, Country Fair, on Feb 21, 2010

The PUSD Board appears poised this Tuesday to approve a three-year contract with the teachers union ( page 31). Yet the announcements on Friday by the union and PUSD refer to one-year MOU or agreement.
- The PUSD website (Web Link says "The agreement is for one year..."
- The PW article (Web Link quotes union president Knaggs announcing "The agreement will result in a three-year contract, and a one-year memorandum of understanding..."
- The agenda for the 2/23 PUSD Board meeting says in Item 14.1 ( page 31) that the recommendation is to approve the tentative agreement and "This completes the collective bargaining process for the 2010-2013 school years."
Did PUSD and the union really agree to a three year contract? And is there a separate one year temporary cost reduction? Anyone have more clarity on this?
Given that the PUSD board is voting on Tuesday, a quick response is appreciated.
And please, if you post to this thread, stay on topic. Thanks.

Comments (10)

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 21, 2010 at 10:30 am

Stacey is a registered user.

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.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 21, 2010 at 10:43 am

Stacey is a registered user.

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?

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 21, 2010 at 10:48 am

Stacey is a registered user.

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.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 21, 2010 at 10:49 am

Stacey is a registered user.

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.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 21, 2010 at 10:58 am

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.

Posted by Miguel
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2010 at 1:33 pm

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)

Posted by Dark Corners of Town
a resident of Country Fair
on Feb 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

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?

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 21, 2010 at 7:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

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.

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

Posted by spouse
a resident of Del Prado
on Feb 23, 2010 at 8:23 am

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

Posted by Sandy Piderit
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 23, 2010 at 8:39 am

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.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Worried about the cost of climate change? Here is some hope.
By Sherry Listgarten | 23 comments | 3,508 views

Eating retro with TV dinners
By Deborah Grossman | 2 comments | 779 views

Labor unions win big in Sacramento
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 493 views