State Waives Law on Eve of L.A. Schools Hearing : Impasse: District wins exemptions to key provisions in union’s case. Pay cuts, possibility of insolvency at stake.

Armed with waivers that could strengthen its case for teachers’ pay cuts, the Los Angeles school district heads into court today after presenting a “last and best” contract offer, which teachers union officials said would probably lead to a strike.

In an unprecedented emergency meeting Tuesday, the State Board of Education unanimously--but reluctantly--waived several provisions in the state education code at issue in the hearing this morning before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen E. O’Neil.

The judge will decide whether the school district can cut teachers’ salaries by 12%. If the court rules that the cuts are illegal and the district is forced to pay $20 million more a month to teachers, insolvency proceedings against the nation’s second-largest school system will be immediately undertaken by the county superintendent of schools.

In Sacramento, the two-hour, 15-minute emergency meeting thrust the state education board into the spotlight of the Los Angeles school funding crisis, with more reporters and TV cameras present than ordinarily attend a year’s worth of its meetings.

On a pair of 9-0 votes, the board waived three provisions of the education code stating that salaries for certificated employees--teachers, counselors and administrators--must be set by July 1 each year and cannot be changed afterward.

Lawyers for United Teachers-Los Angeles cited these code sections when they won a temporary restraining order from O’Neil on Nov. 5. The order, if it is upheld today, could mean that the district must pay $163 million more in salaries by the end of the 1992-93 school year, forcing it into bankruptcy.

Los Angeles school officials and lawyers hope that the state board action will persuade O’Neil not to approve the permanent order.

However several board members expressed reservations about their votes.

“We’re being thrust in at the front end, or maybe in the middle, of a labor dispute,” said Benjamin F. Montoya, who urged his colleagues to delay action until the school district and the teachers union could resolve the dispute or the courts resolve it for them.

Montoya warned that if the board used its authority to waive provisions of the education code, “there could be ramifications--California (organized) labor might try to curtail the board’s waiver authority altogether” through legislation.

A union official seated in the audience was heard to say, “You bet we will.”

After the meeting, Board President Joseph Stein told reporters that the request “was brought to us a little bit late” and “we were asked to take precipitous action.”

Kathryn Dronenburg said she also had a lot of concerns about the waivers but decided “this really is an emergency because children truly could be left without an education” if Los Angeles had to pay the teachers all the money due them and school was disrupted as a result.

Los Angeles schools’ attorney Richard K. Mason had said there would have to be severe cuts in other parts of the budget, perhaps including school police, if the district was required to come up with $163 million to pay the teachers for the rest of the school year.

Lawrence Trygstad, the teachers union attorney, denied that paying the teachers would cause the district to go broke. He said the $163 million amounted to only 4% of the district’s $3.9-billion annual budget and that adjustments could be made to make up the difference.

Trygstad also argued that the waiver request was an “end run around the courts” and he urged the State Board of Education to stay out of the dispute.

After the vote, Mason said he thought O’Neil was unlikely to decide in favor of the union. Trygstad said that he did not know what effect the state board action would have but said that it might be necessary to prepare new briefs in the case, which would delay today’s hearing.

O’Neil’s court clerk said late Tuesday afternoon that the case was still scheduled to be heard at 9 a.m.

The California Teachers Assn., which supports teachers unions, denounced the state board for intervening. The board “has told Californians that laws found inconvenient by employers can quickly be declared null and void,” said association President D.A. Weber.

Meanwhile, school board President Leticia Quezada and Supt. Sid Thompson made a surprise announcement Tuesday that the board has made its final decision on the terms of a new teachers contract offer.

“It was very important to make one last-ditch effort to settle this before going to court,” Quezada said. “All our cards are on the table now. This is our best and last offer and a reasonable offer.”

Union President Helen Bernstein called the offer “insulting.”

Bernstein said she will personally recommend that the membership reject the offer and begin planning for a strike. She said it is unlikely that a strike would take place before the start of the winter break Dec. 19.

Union leadership will gather in a series of meetings next week to schedule membership voting on the offer and possible strike deadlines. Their strategies, however, depend on the outcome of today’s court ruling.

After nearly two months of contentious negotiations, the new offer does not reduce this year’s 9% pay cut or restore a 3% cut imposed last year, making a cumulative 12% reduction over what teachers were earning two years ago.

The school board does not give a firm guarantee that salaries will not be cut next year, a provision that union leaders said would probably propel teachers to strike.

The offer states that there will be no pay cuts for the 1993-94 school year only if the district receives the same funding from the state that it did this year. School officials said they were paid $3,131 in basic state funding for each student, for a total of $1.95 billion.

Three other provisions in the offer have been on the negotiating table for weeks:

* The district has agreed to absorb inflationary costs for goods and services through program cuts and other reductions, which school board members said is a major concession. Several district officials said Tuesday that such cuts could range from $25 million to $100 million.

* The district will offer incentive programs that will enable teachers to receive money for unused sick days. Also, teachers and other employees can participate in a program to increase student attendance to help the district earn more money. The state funds the district based on student attendance.

* The district will undertake a management audit designed to streamline operations and will present findings before June 30.

“This is the best we can do,” school board member Roberta Weintraub said. “As far as I’m concerned this is no more room” for negotiating.

She and other school board members said that cutting teachers’ salaries again would be a last resort. All salaries were cut this year to help bridge an unprecedented $400-million deficit. Dismal predictions of a $7.5-billion state budget gap next year are fueling district concerns that education funding will be vulnerable to cuts.

“We are legitimately in a horrible situation,” school board member Mark Slavkin said. “At some point (the union) has to start confronting reality.”

The union initiated the court case because contract negotiations had stalled over the crucial issue of the guarantee. Bernstein said, however, it is misleading to link the insolvency proceedings to the new offer.

“Now they are telling teachers they would be better off to take this offer than go insolvent. The choice is accept this offer or go on strike,” Bernstein said. “They have angered every single teacher in the district by going before the state today. Teachers think they work for an employer who doesn’t give a hoot for them. They have endangered good teachers in this system forever.”

Trombley reported from Sacramento and Chavez from Los Angeles.