Preliminary figures from the Franchise Tax Board indicate that General Fund revenues for the month of April will far exceed the Administration’s predictions. Indications are that revenues could be as much as $2 billion over the estimated level of collections projected in the January Governor’s Budget. Read the rest of this entry »
It appears that an infrastructure bond deal may move forward as legislative leaders are reported to have reached a compromise. Both parties have signaled shifts in their positions, with Republicans giving up their demand that the bond package include dollars for surface water storage projects and Democrats abandoning their demand that the package include money for urban parks and natural resource protections. Read the rest of this entry »
The Senate Education Committee took action on its “suspense file” on April 27, 2006. The “suspense file” is a process used by the committee to determine the cost implications of a piece of legislation. In general, all bills that have costs in them that exceed $150,000 are referred to the “suspense file.”
The following bills affecting community colleges were acted upon by the committee: Read the rest of this entry »
Assembly Member Mullins (D-S. San Francisco) has introduced AB 2462, which would provide the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) the statutory authority to supply, or contract to supply, fiduciary, recordkeeping, and administrative services for employer-sponsored deferred compensation plans to K-12 schools, community college districts, and county offices of education that elect to contract with CalSTRS to provide those services. Read the rest of this entry »
The Assembly Higher Education Committee, chaired by Assembly Member Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge), took action on 26 bills this past week, most of which pertained to community colleges. The following is a summary of the bills that were considered by the committee: Read the rest of this entry »
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 continued its process of simply listening to the community college budget issues without taking any action. At its meeting on April 19, the Subcommittee reviewed the following budget issues:
• Nursing Enrollment Expansion
• Career Technical Education
• Noncredit Rate Funding
• Equalization Funding Read the rest of this entry »
General Fund revenue collections for March were $905 million above estimates, an unexpected gain of almost 18% over the budgeted level. Of the three major taxes, both the personal income tax and the corporation tax showed significant strength, while the sales and use tax brought in just what was expected. Read the rest of this entry »
The proposed Community College Funding Stabilization and Student Fee Act of 2006 will not qualify for the November 2006 election due to cost increases in signature gathering, according to sponsors of the initiative. The initiative is intended to provide community colleges with their own separate “pot” of Proposition 98 funding, reduce community college enrollment fees from $26 to $20 per unit, and give the Board of Governors and Chancellor the same independence as the California State Universities. Read the rest of this entry »
The Chancellor’s Office reports that 36 districts reported growth and qualify for Growth Funding in 2005-06 in the amount of $71.5 million. Six districts are growing by restoring FTES lost in prior years, but not enough to qualify for growth funding. Twenty-seven districts are experiencing current year FTES decline that totals more than $70 million. Nine districts that experienced a prior-year decline were able to partially—or, in the case of four of these districts, totally—restore previously lost FTES. Read the rest of this entry »
What are some of the factors that we should be considering related to comparability and maintenance of effort as we head into mediation with our teachers’ bargaining unit?
When preparing for negotiations, we recommend that you prepare every year as if you will need to go through the entire impasse process. That means that you will need to be able to demonstrate your district’s comparability and maintenance of effort, along with several other factors.
In any fiscal debate, it is essential that the district be able to reflect the comparison of its salaries and benefits with those of other districts and to show, as well, the level of financial commitment made by the district to employees. No district presentation would be acceptable without these two characteristics being addressed either in evidence or discussions at the bargaining table.
The level of the district’s salaries and benefits needs to be compared with other districts in an appropriate comparative group. Generally, these are geographical—the same labor market as the district—but they could be comparisons based upon size or based upon revenue level. Be careful, however, to ensure that the comparisons reflect appropriate districts. Southern California districts cannot be effectively compared with Northern California districts—there is a significant differential in salary and benefit amounts between those two regions.
The district needs to also show the level of its financial commitment made to employees. That is, how do the district’s expenditure allocations for personnel salary and benefits compare with those of other districts? The district must be able to show that it can commit a high proportion of its budget to these characteristics—hopefully a higher percentage or dollar amount than other districts in the comparative market. Another method for demonstrating your level of effort is by showing your compensation increases for both salary and benefits over time compared to the comparable districts that you have selected. Demonstrating your level of effort shows your commitment to people versus things or your commitment to teachers versus other parts of district services or classroom expense versus other expenses. Demonstrating your level of effort is a very important part of any district presentation.
Comparisons in salary and benefits are the most important factors in determining whether or not districts should propose a higher total compensation amount. In establishing your negotiating guide, use the comparative analysis of salaries paid and not the percentage growth in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). The COLA allocation as a pass through to employees is a shorthand methodology that will often get the district into trouble. Instead, compare your employees’ salaries to the salaries of an appropriate comparative group and the Consumer Price Index.
