Bonita Teacher Union Battles Superintendent

In an ongoing battle to oust Bonita Unified School District Supt. James T. Johnson Jr., the district teachers’ union has filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission charging that Johnson violated election laws by writing an official memorandum last fall in support of two incumbent school board candidates.

The Oct. 24, 1985, memo, signed with Johnson’s initials under a school district heading, urges management employees to make contributions “in the $10 to $20 range” for the campaigns of Robert Green and Frank Bingham, both of whom were reelected handily by voters in the district’s cities of San Dimas and La Verne the following month.

The Bonita Unified Teachers Assn. already had filed a similar complaint against Johnson in April with the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing and earlier this year collected more than 1,000 signatures from parents and teachers demanding that he be suspended.

In Office 16 Years

Charging that Johnson is “a dinosaur in education,” union leaders charge that the superintendent has been unresponsive to their concerns and unwilling to share the power they say he has wielded autonomously for the past 16 years.

But Johnson, noting that district superintendents routinely support school board candidates, said in a recent interview that it was the first time he had used an official memo to make such an endorsement.

Denying that his action was improper, Johnson charged that teachers have exploited the memo as a way to gain the upper hand in a bitter contract feud that lasted most of the past school year.

In fact, both district officials and union leaders agree--but for different reasons--that the memo itself is only a small element in a much deeper rift between teachers and administrators that has shaken the Bonita district this year.

The Bonita district has been troubled all year by what one union leader called “a siege mentality” with these crises: a breakdown in salary negotiations, resignation of the union’s past president, a dispute over lottery funds, a critical reaccreditation report for one high school, charges of alleged Health Code violations at an elementary school and complaints by parents that the district has been insensitive to their request for a new school.

Low-Wealth District

All of these problems occurred against the backdrop of a growing student population that has made solutions in this traditionally “low-wealth” district even harder to come by, administrators said.

Bonita ranks last among the 42 unified school districts in Los Angeles County in dollars spent per student, according to figures supplied by the office of the Los Angeles County superintendent of public schools.

But when it comes to pinpointing the problem or seeking specific remedies, many teachers and district officials agree that the dispute is rooted more in conflicting tactics than in concrete disagreements.

“There’s a very strong feeling of frustration, but the teachers have a very difficult time identifying in a unified way what that frustration is,” said Skip Mainiero, a professor at the University of La Verne and a former school board member.

Whether referring to the memo or the negotiation problems that left them without a contract for most of the school year, teachers frequently complain about Johnson’s administrative style, which one high school instructor described as “old-style, 1950s, Eisenhower-era management.”

Style Criticized

Mary K. Nichols, president of the Bonita Unified Teachers Assn. and a district teacher for 17 years, said that teachers are seeking a more participatory role in school affairs, but are being hampered by what she called Johnson’s authoritarian style.

“Philosophically, the basic difference is that he believes it’s necessary to maintain an adversarial relationship,” said Nichols, adding that about 85% of the district’s teachers are union members. “That defeats the whole purpose we’re working for.”

Johnson, however, contends that problems in the district stem from collective bargaining and were exacerbated when the teachers’ association for the first time invited a representative from the California Teachers Assn., the state union, to sit at the bargaining table last year.

Johnson charged that the state union “targeted” his district and that teachers took “a personal-attack approach” during the contract talks, even after successful negotiations in earlier years and several tentative agreements for 1985-86 already had been reached.

“They have a goal and that is to achieve their contract on their terms with the least amount of resistance,” Johnson said. “I happen to be a visible sign of resistance.”

Talks to Begin Again

Although the union was able to reach a contract agreement during the final months of the school year, which ended last week, teachers will have to begin negotiations for next year’s contract in July.

While union leaders admit that Johnson’s memo is being used as a symbol of their frustrations, they deny that those frustrations are entirely a result of salary conflicts.

“The memo is only the tip of the iceberg,” said Dan Harden, vice president of the teachers association. “It demonstrates to all people the arrogant attitude that he has, that he can do anything, and that he is not answerable to anyone.”

Concern over the memo was first expressed earlier this year when the union attempted to pursue accusations against Johnson through the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. After several consultations, teachers said they were told that the district attorney had no jurisdiction over the case.

Teachers then collected more than 1,000 signatures demanding Johnson’s suspension and presented their concerns in a letter to the Bonita school board in February. Because it was a personnel matter, Johnson and school board members have refused to comment on whether the district has taken any disciplinary action.

Complaint Being Considered

In April, the teachers’ group filed a complaint with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing charging that Johnson illegally used district personnel and resources in his endorsements of Green and Bingham.

The commission, which is currently considering the charges, is expected to announce next month whether it will take action.

The most recent complaint against Johnson, received last week by the state Fair Political Practices Commission in Sacramento, charges that the superintendent violated the Political Reform Act by using the influence of his position to unfairly favor incumbent candidates. The commission, which has not yet reviewed the complaint, can levy fines of up to $2,000 for every violation of state election laws.

However, school board member Roger Campbell said he believes that only the Bonita school board has jurisdiction over the complaint and that the issue already had been resolved in meetings earlier this year.

“The memo allows the (teachers) association to keep things in the newspapers,” said Campbell, a school board member since 1981. “As far as I am concerned, it has been laid to rest.”

‘Attack Is Inappropriate’

Harry Jacobs, a member of the school board since 1983, said that he was originally concerned about the memo but is convinced now that Johnson committed no impropriety.

“The current attack on his reputation is really inappropriate,” Jacobs said. “The issue is moot and we should move on.”

Sue Moran, president of the school board, said that it has been difficult for her to respond to the teachers’ concerns because she has never been presented with a formal request to discuss the matter.

“I’ve heard the rumblings, but no one has ever come forward and said, ‘This is the problem,’ ” she said.

‘Adversarial Relationship’

In addition, Moran said, many of the conflicts between teachers and district officials are unavoidable because of collective bargaining.

“Collective bargaining does not belong in education,” she said. “In and of itself, it makes for an adversarial relationship.”

Conflict over the 1985-86 contract emerged when negotiations reached an impasse in mid-October. After the district and the union met with a mediator in November and again in January, nearly 90% of the union’s 270 members voted to reject the district’s offer.

In March, the contract impasse was assigned to a state-appointed impartial fact finder, assisted by representatives from the district and the union. The fact finder issued a report dated April 24 that favored, in primary areas of concern, the union’s positions.

The fact finder’s report broke the impasse and a union contract was signed. However, the district’s representative on the fact finding panel dissented from the conclusions because he said the fact finder discussed issues that under the Educational Employment Relations Act were not appropriate for him to consider.

State Representative

Johnson charged that negotiations were protracted because the California Teachers Assn., which oversees the Bonita teachers’ union, had a representative at the bargaining table.

“The only variable from past years was a CTA representative,” Johnson said. “The union and the parent union felt somehow or another that this would be a target district.”

Kelly Horner, a staff consultant for the California Teachers Assn. who represented Bonita teachers at the bargaining table, said she was not surprised to hear that district officials blamed her for the salary dispute.

“To say that the district has been targeted does not really deal with the teachers’ concerns,” Horner said. “It was the teachers who (originally) said, ‘No, these items are not acceptable.’ ”

Union Leader Resigned

But Stan Whitley, president of the teachers association until February, said that he resigned because Horner’s tactics were contributing to the conflict.

“You can overplay something,” said Whitley, who complained that Horner had instructed teachers not to speak to any district officials during the negotiations. “The commotion was unnecessary in solving a contract dispute.”

Whitley, however, said that he hoped something positive would come from the turmoil in the district.

“The teachers have been ignited to get together, to be a voice and be heard,” he said. “It’s just that some of us have got out of hand and gone too far in expressing our dissatisfaction.”

TEXT OF CONTROVERSIAL LETTER BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT October 24, 1985 To: Management/Confidential Employees From: James T. Johnson, Jr. Subject: Contributions for Board Candidates

As has been the case in recent years, we are seeking financial support for incumbent members of the Board who are seeking reelection. This election the two incumbents are Bob and Frank.

Those of us in management and those in confidential positions realize more than other employees the importance of reelecting Board members who have demonstrated support for management and our confidential functions. Both Bob and Frank have done that.

When I came to the District sixteen years ago, one of the Board members asked, “If you come to Bonita, how long would you expect to stay?” My response was, “as long as you don’t try to do my job for me--or for the administrators who work with me.” None of our Board members have and it’s been a great time. Both Bob and Frank are committed to the continuation of our good working relationship--their establishing direction and policy and us administering those policies and doing our many functions in a professional manner. It works!

Checks may be made out to:

1) Committee to Reelect Frank Bingham

2) Committee to Reelect Bob Green

Checks in the $10 to $20 range should take care of their respective, low-key election expenses. (The challenger is spending far more.) This is a purely voluntary activity. However, if you wish to help, please mail the checks to Aleda and she’ll see that they are forwarded to the proper persons.

Thanks for your assistance.

(Signed with initials J.T.J.)

P.S. If you have some doubts as to how important this is, look around. Read the papers. We’re surrounded by “horror stories.” Let’s keep a strong working relationship going. Both Bob and Frank deserve our support.