Teacher Layoffs May Be Part of District’s Cuts

Confronted with an estimated shortfall of more than $500 million in the coming fiscal year, the Los Angeles Unified School District board Tuesday prepared to make deep cuts that would almost certainly include layoffs of teachers and others.

At the urging of Supt. Roy Romer, the Board of Education took the unusual step of setting an early deadline for making the cuts, beginning with a special three-day budget session starting March 3. That is the day after voters will decide on the governor’s $15-billion debt proposal to ease the state budget crisis, a $12.3-billion state school facilities bond measure and L.A. Unified’s $3.87-billion campus construction bond measure.

Romer promised to offer a range of possibilities for board members to choose from next month. Board members agreed to try to meet a mid-March state deadline for sending layoff warnings while fashioning a tentative 2004-05 budget by April 1. With the current operating budget at about $6 billion, the cuts may reach nearly 10%.

Usually, board members wait until June to adopt a preliminary budget, when they can get a better idea of the fiscal picture of the state -- which provides much of local districts’ funding. They then revise the budget over the summer, after the state passes its spending plan.

But state law requires notification by March 15 of teachers and other credentialed employees who might be laid off. If that deadline isn’t met, the district will be precluded from dismissing so-called certificated employees and will need to find other ways to make cuts. If the district later finds that the layoffs are not needed -- if the state’s fiscal picture improves, for example -- it can rescind the notices.

“We’ve got to get at it early,” Romer said. He said he would propose 20% cuts in spending at central headquarters and in the 11 regional district offices.

Many employees in those offices have so-called “bumping rights,” meaning they could displace principals, teachers and others who had less seniority. Likewise, teachers could “bump” colleagues who had less seniority in the district, setting up a complicated sort of musical chairs.

“We have got to be humane about it and to give people as much notice as possible so they can look for other jobs,” Romer said.

Several board members winced at the short timetable; Romer initially had wanted most of the budget decisions made by mid-March. That would coincide with layoff notice deadlines and the due date for the district’s next report to the county Office of Education. The county office has raised questions about the district’s fiscal situation.

“This is too quick,” board President Jose Huizar said of Romer’s proposal to make the key decisions by mid-March. “We need to have time to reflect.”

And board member David Tokofsky, a former high school teacher with the district, recalled the turmoil in the early 1990s, the last time the board issued large numbers of layoff notices to credentialed employees.

Board member Mike Lansing proposed the April 1 date to finish a preliminary budget, with the understanding that the board would work diligently in early March to determine which employees to cut, in time to send layoff notices.

“I’d rather send out the letter with the possibility of rescinding it later,” board member Marlene Canter said, noting that she had changed her thinking since last year.

At that time, she and others had been reluctant to send possibly unnecessary layoff notices because they upset recipients, sometimes spurring them to take other jobs in case the notices aren’t dropped later.

The board also discussed the county’s recent warning that the district had dipped too deep into its reserves.