Schools Go to Court Over Teacher Pay Issue : Education: L.A. Unified’s appeal of order says district will become insolvent if forced to restore $20 million in cuts. Head of union claims that officials are overreacting.

The Los Angeles Unified School District will face immediate insolvency if forced to pay $20 million this month to restore cuts in teacher salaries, according to documents filed Friday in state appellate court.

“There is not budget support available even for the first $20 million,” said Robert Booker, chief business and financial officer for the school district. The Los Angeles County Office of Education “would have no choice but to move as quickly as possible” to take financial control of the district.

The statements, which portray the bleakest picture yet of the unprecedented financial crisis in the nation’s second-largest school system, were included in the district’s appeal of a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling last week that ordered school officials to issue supplemental paychecks to 35,000 teachers.

Union President Helen Bernstein said Friday that the district is “trying to create an alarming situation” and that paying the higher salaries for one month will not bankrupt a school system with a $3.9-billion budget. “Bob Booker is the LAUSD Chicken Little, crying out ‘The sky is falling, the sky is falling,’ ” she said.

Earlier in the week top school officials had predicted that the district could afford to pay the money for several months.

The surprising ruling against the district by the lower court was initiated by United Teachers-Los Angeles as a last-minute attempt to forestall a cumulative 12% teacher pay cut reflected in Nov. 6 checks.

In documents filed with the state’s 2nd Appellate District, school officials said the “district is on the brink of insolvency” and asked the court panel to issue an emergency stay, rescinding enforcement of the payment order until it rules on the case or the lower court makes a final decision on Nov. 25.

It would cost $163 million this year if the 12% salary reductions are not made. The district’s “sole current budget reserve for economic uncertainty is only $31 million,” the minimum required under law and a fund that already has “significant claims against it due to other unanticipated costs,” the court documents said.

To make up for a $400-million budget shortfall, the district laid off employees, cut programs and imposed $247.3 million in salary reductions.

At issue in the court case, which has serious implications statewide, is whether the school district can change teacher salary rates after the start of the school year on July 1.

The union cited a provision in the state education code that prohibits changing salaries after that date. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen E. O’Neil sided with the union, stating that members cannot waive their right to know what their salaries will be at the onset of the year.

The district argued that union and school officials, through collective bargaining agreements, notified teachers that cuts were under consideration but they would wait until passage of the state budget after July 1 to determine the severity of cuts. School districts across California wait until state funding levels are known before making salary commitments.

In court documents, the district said that the Public Employment Relations Board has the authority to enforce the education code and is already involved in determining the legality of the pay cut issue.

On Nov. 2, the board issued an unfair labor practice charge against the district. The district, however, said court intervention intrudes on the collective bargaining process.

Union attorney Larry Trygstad said he will file response papers next week and the union intends to fight to uphold the order, even if it means district bankruptcy.

Meanwhile, negotiations between the union and district moved slowly this week. Both sides said they hope to draft a new contract offer soon after Nov. 25, in the event the union loses in court.

School board members, however, said that negotiations are boiling down to a number of distressing decisions, including increasing class size. The union is demanding that the district guarantee that no further pay cuts will be made next year. Although no decisions have been made, negotiators are discussing ways that such an assurance could be made.

For instance, by increasing already crowded classrooms by two or three students, money could be saved. But school board member Roberta Weintraub said she is unwilling to make such a concession because it would further harm the quality of instruction.

Supt. Sid Thompson, who negotiated with Bernstein this week, warned there will be no victories for either side in the dispute.

Board member Mark Slavkin said the district may be forced into layoffs next year regardless of any agreement with teachers because of a projected $100-million shortfall. “All of the choices before us are horrible,” he said.