Warning Helped Shape Teacher Contract Offer : Education: County superintendent vowed to declare the district insolvent if L.A. school board promised not to cut pay next year. Union says stance is roadblock to resolving dispute without a strike.

The Los Angeles school board’s final contract offer to teachers this week was prompted by a sternly worded letter from the county superintendent of schools, who vowed to immediately declare the district insolvent if it guaranteed that it would not cut teacher salaries next year.

The Nov. 20 letter from county Supt. Stuart E. Gothold to school board President Leticia Quezada proved to be the decisive factor in the board’s decision not to offer the teachers union what it had been fighting for most.

The letter appears to deal another setback to negotiations, which have turned even more bitter since the teachers union failed in court Wednesday to stop a cumulative 12% pay cut.

That court battle--which also threatened to bankrupt the district--has only inflamed the labor dispute, clearing the way for a strike.

“We’re worse off than square one,” said school board member Roberta Weintraub.

In his letter, Gothold told the board that adopting a teacher salary guarantee would “leave the district with minimal actions to consider, particularly in the face of balancing the 1993-94 budget with uncertain state funding or rising district costs.”

To bridge an unprecedented $400-million budget shortfall this year, the district imposed pay cuts ranging from 6.5% to 11.5% on all employees. This comes in addition to a 3% cut carried over from last year.

Gothold, responding to an inquiry by district financial chief Robert Booker, wrote that unless the “district can demonstrate to us that it has other viable options to consider in lieu of salary cuts in 1993-94, or unless the new teachers’ contract contains contingency language” offering budget protections, his office could not assure the district’s fiscal fitness, and he would immediately invoke a state law permitting the county to take over.

Union President Helen Bernstein called the letter “propaganda written to be used against us in bargaining.” She said Gothold’s calling on the board to come up with “other viable options in lieu of salary cuts” is a key phrase.

“This is what we have been saying all along,” Bernstein said. “If they don’t get the same amount of money next year, what will the board cut first to avoid cutting teacher salaries?”

Under the state law that Gothold cited, the county has the authority to rescind employee contracts that have not been formally approved by the board.

Under law, union contracts must be open to a 10-working day public review period, designed to give the county time to intervene before final ratification by a school district.

Booker had been in telephone contact with Gothold on the impact of the guarantee and other issues. It is unclear whether the district requested his opinions in writing; Gothold could not be reached for comment Friday.

But one high-ranking source suggested that the letter made it easier for the board to decide not to guarantee staving off pay cuts. The source said that in the week prior to the Gothold decision, a slim majority of board members was considering approving the guarantee in order to stop the escalating labor war and relieve pressure from the union.

The letter, however, dismissed the guarantee option, which had become the stalling point in protracted negotiations, the official said. Feeling that there was little more to discuss, the board decided to make the final offer, which promised not to cut teachers’ pay next year if state funding stays the same.

School board member Barbara Boudreaux said that she sees few ways to trim the district’s budget to make up for the financial commitment of a guarantee.

“In my opinion,” she said, “there are no options except cutting instructional and other programs for students” and increasing class size, choices she is unwilling to make.

Weintraub said that cutting extracurricular activities such as sports undermines school quality.

To the anger of union officials, Quezada and district Supt. Sid Thompson publicly announced the terms of the new offer Tuesday, the day teachers received supplemental paychecks restoring salary cuts for one month--money that will now be deducted from future paychecks.

The contract offer was followed by a ruling the next day by Superior Court Judge Stephen E. O’Neil to turn the dispute over to a state labor relations board. The next move is up to the union.

Union President Helen Bernstein said that without a firm salary guarantee she does not believe the 35,000 members will accept the contract, especially since negotiations failed to soften salary cuts this year. A union vote to accept the contract or strike is scheduled in two weeks.

Amid sharp and increasingly volatile rhetoric between Bernstein and Quezada, one issue upon which they agree is that their respective positions are fueling irreparable harm within the district and ultimately hurting the quality of education for children. But it is difficult to see at this point if common ground can be found.

Bernstein argues that classroom teachers are the most important group in the school district. First priority should be given to ensure that the highest quality teachers are in the classroom. This means, she says, teachers must be well-compensated.

“It isn’t just the money--that is horrendous and no one can afford it,” Bernstein said about their drive for wages. “It’s about where people view our importance in the scheme of what is supposed to happen to a child in this system. Next to a parent, no one influences the life of a child more than a classroom teacher.”

She said a provision in which the district promises to absorb inflationary costs through program and other cuts could lead to larger classes if teacher positions are frozen.

The board, however, views the pledge to absorb those costs as a major concession that could force painful cuts--from $25 million to $100 million.

Bernstein criticized two other measures in the district offer as weak and uncreative.

A sick-pay incentive for teachers and a program to improve student attendance so the district can collect more state money were both suggested in a report issued by former state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp on the district’s financial crisis more than two months ago.

Bernstein is also unhappy with a board promise to commission a management audit because she says it will not be done soon enough and there are no assurances that its recommendations will be adopted.

On Wednesday, Thompson said he would give serious weight to the audit’s recommendations.

“If that audit shows we are overly managed in a certain area or improperly managed in a certain area, then I will take steps to correct it,” he said, stressing that he wants to restore public confidence in the district. However, Thompson did not say he would automatically implement all audit plans.

Quezada promises that teachers’ salaries will be the last item on the budget-cutting block next year and said the union must face “the harsh reality” that there is no money this year to fend off salary reductions. She said the board will prioritize cuts next year the same way it did this year.

“The first cut was to central administration; the first cuts were things outside the classroom” such as support personnel, equipment and materials, she said.

School District Woes: A Chronology The Los Angeles Unified School District has been beset by financial and labor crises much of this year. Here are the key events leading up to Wednesday’s decision in Superior Court that cleared the way again for a teachers strike over pay cuts. June 25--The Board of Education unanimously approves a $3.8-billion budget that is balanced with $400 million in cuts, including salary reductions.

July 1--School year begins. Anagreement temporarily restores a 3% pay cut imposed last year on all employees.

Aug. 8--Teachers union announces aggressive campaign to fight pay cuts, including calling for the ouster of Supt. Bill Anton.

Sept. 15--An independent commission headed by former state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp recommends ways to save

$94 million, including some salary cuts.

Oct. 2--The Board of Education votes 6 to 1 to adopt a final budget of $3.9 billion that reduces teachers’ salaries by 9% and all other full-time employees’ pay by 6.5% to 11.5%. Adding in the 3% cut that was carried over from the previous year, the cumulative cut for most teachers is 12%.

Oct. 22--Teachers union members vote 89% in favor of a strike, rejecting the pay cut.

Oct. 29--The union lodges a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board, saying that the school board’s adoption of pay cuts amounts to an unfair labor practice.

Nov. 3--Teachers union announces plans for a one day walkout Nov. 13.

Nov. 5--Superior Court Judge Stephen E. O’Neil grants teachers union request to temporarily halt the pay cuts, based on education codes that the union contends prohibit changes in teacher salaries after the July 1 start of the school year. District is ordered to issue supplemental paychecks. Union cancels the walkout.

Nov. 10--The district announces that it will appeal O’Neil’s order.

Nov. 16--The district loses the appeal, despite arguments that restoring the cuts would force it into insolvency.

Nov. 18--The state Public Employment Relations Board enters the court case brought by the teachers union, arguing that it has first jurisdiction in the contract dispute.

Nov. 19--County Supt. of Schools Stuart Gothold announces that he is prepared to intervene in the district’s fiscal affairs if the district loses the court battle.

Nov. 20--Gothold, responding to a district query, tells the board in a letter that if it unconditionally guarantees teachers no pay cuts in 1993-94, he will overturn the contract and intervene in district fiscal decisions.

Nov. 24--The board announces its “last and best” offer to teachers--which includes a promise not to cut teachers pay next year, but only if state funding remains even--and union leaders denounce it. The State Board of Education waives the education codes that the union cited in its court case.

Nov. 25--O’Neil rules that the court has no authority to intervene in the pay dispute and decides that the state Public Employment Relations Board should first try to settle it. The state labor board sets a hearing for Dec. 3.