Conejo Valley Teachers Seek Slice From State Lottery

The Conejo Valley teachers union has filed a grievance against the school district in a dispute over whether state lottery funds should be included in the pool of money used for teacher-salary increases under the current contract.

Emily Avey, president of the Unified Assn. of Conejo Teachers, said Thursday the union decided to file the grievance after informal talks with district officials failed to resolve the issue. Avey said the union also will file charges of unfair labor practices with the state Public Employee Relations Board if the district refuses to negotiate over use of the lottery funds.

Avey said the union’s decision was in response to a statement Monday by Tom Boysen, superintendent of the Conejo Valley Unified School District, that the school board will not negotiate on the issue any further. Under state law, the district has 15 days to respond to the grievance, which it received Thursday.

District’s Stance

Boysen said lottery funds are not covered by the contract because the guidelines for using them had not been decided by the state at the time negotiations were held.

The two groups have been at odds over the issue since October, when the school board told the district’s 700 teachers that lottery money would not be included in the pool of funds to be used for raises. The current teachers contract stipulates that 55% of funds the district gets from the state will be used for teacher salaries and benefits. However, it does not specifically mention the lottery windfall.

Besides the $55 million a year the district receives in state funds, it now expects to get about $730,000 in lottery money for the 1986 academic year. The money, to be allocated in quarterly installments, is expected to reach $1.6 million in 1987.

Under state law, about 27% of all lottery revenues will go to local school authorities, who can choose how the money will be used. The first installment is scheduled for distribution late this month.

If the lottery money were added to the district’s pool of state funds, it would raise the amount teachers receive by increasing the size of the pool. How much that would add to individual paychecks is unclear, district officials said.

Avey said that, during 1984 contract negotiations, the district agreed to include lottery funds as part of the revenue-sharing process the district uses to determine salary increases for teachers.

“It was a surprise to hear in October that the district was unaware they had bargained the lottery money,” Avey said. “We reject the district’s position that the lottery money was not negotiated.”

Boysen said the teachers’ “recollection and notes lead to one conclusion, and the board’s recollection and notes lead to another conclusion.”

He added that, although the issue of the lottery money is likely to be part of negotiations for a new contract in 1987, the union has agreed to the current contract, based on state aid without lottery income.

“If we’re in the middle of a contract and we’ve made provisions for where increases for salaries and benefits will come from,” Boysen said, “we feel under no obligation to use lottery funds.”