Part of the standard procedures for laying off local teachers
involves what a union official called an
”
ugly
”
process in which educators must argue in favor of their own
qualifications
– striving to bump others with more seniority. In most cases, as
the Hollister district’s recent appeals showed, seniority wins
out.
Part of the standard procedures for laying off local teachers involves what a union official called an “ugly” process in which educators must argue in favor of their own qualifications – striving to bump others with more seniority.
In most cases, as the Hollister district’s recent appeals showed, seniority wins out.
The Hollister Elementary School District sent final layoff notices to 24 teachers last week as it continues to fight financial problems that have plagued the district over the past few years.
The layoff notices came less than a month after a state judge heard testimony from a group of teachers hoping to avoid a layoff and gain points toward seniority standing at the school. The April 13 hearing was the last step for many teachers to avoid the final layoff notice in May.
With currently projected layoffs of 24 teachers and the loss of an additional nine full-time positions due to temporary jobs ending, the district expects to save around $850,000 next year, Human Resource Director Dennis Kurtz said. School officials are trying to cut more than $5 million the next two years, while the Hollister teachers union has yet to agree on $1.9 million in pay concessions requested by the district.
Sixteen teachers from the school district applied for the hearing – required as part of the state education code – after receiving their initial layoff notices in March, but not all of them spoke at the April hearing, Kurtz said. Summaries of arguments from the hearing before the state judge were included in the district’s agenda for last week’s meeting.
“It’s part of the layoff process,” Kurtz said.
The “ugly” hearing had teachers trying to strengthen their status among the district while lessening their fellow teachers, said Joe Rivas, president of the Hollister Elementary School Teachers Association.
“I’m not going to lie – it does get ugly,” he said. “I’m not going to tell you it doesn’t. People are fighting for their jobs. We all have families and kids.”
Erinn Mitchell, who is finishing her first year as the Rancho-Maze Band instructor, was one of the teachers vying to keep her job. After spending last school year training with former music instructor Joe Ostenson to take over the band, Mitchell proclaimed that because of her special training she should be preferred over a teacher with more seniority.
“In essence, she requests to be ‘skipped’,” according to Administrative Law Judge Mary-Margaret Anderson’s proposed decision.
Another teacher, Frederick Brewster, asked for a waiver from the layoffs because after six years, he was close to earning a math authorization from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
“Brewster related a near-Kafkaesque tale of attempts to satisfy the CTC,” according to the judge’s decision. “He is now very close to completing the requirement, and requests the board grant him a waiver. Brewster presents a compelling case, but no authority exists to order the board to grant a waiver to a teacher.”
Rivas, who was one of the teachers issued a layoff notice, explained that the hearing also served as a way for teachers to make sure the district was using correct information when issuing the layoff notices.
Janenne Gaver complained in her appeal that the district had the wrong seniority date, listing Jan. 26, 2004, instead of Aug. 21, 2002. The district contended that because she took an administration position, her seniority date would be affected by two years.
Gaver said she didn’t know that would happen.
“Gaver did not know there was a difference between working at a school site versus at the district office,” according to the judge’s decision. “She therefore took the position in the office, not realizing that this decision would cost her seniority. She maintains that if she had known about the education code provisions concerning accrual of time for administrators, she would have made a different decision.”
Gaver’s seniority date was not changed.
At the hearing, some teachers strengthened their seniority status with the district in hopes that if it tries to rehire teachers, or recalls some of the layoff notices, they would be higher on the list.
“It definitely got a little rough,” Rivas said. “We are all doing everything we can to make sure we have a job next year.”
Teachers’ placement on the district’s seniority list is based on the date of hire, but if multiple teachers were hired on the same date, a tiebreaking procedure is used. The tiebreaker assigns points to teachers’ accomplishments such as every credential and credit the teacher has received, as well as advanced degrees and experience in multiple subjects and grade levels.
Each accomplishment is assigned a different point level.
At the hearing, the judge assigned tiebreaker points to two teachers, including Mitchell, that would affect their status on the seniority list, according to the judge’s proposed decision, approved by the district’s board of trustees last week.
The teachers were given their final layoff notices May 13.
As part of the layoff process, though, the district usually does bring back teachers after it has a better idea of what its budget will be, Kurtz said.
He didn’t know how many teachers would be brought back at this time.
“It’s truly up in the air,” he said.
The district’s teachers do expect some jobs to be saved, but only a few.
Rivas expects three or four teachers to be brought back before the start of next year.
“All we can do is wait,” he said. “We have no idea what will happen.”
