More Balanced View of School Budgets Needed

The Aug. 15 article by Michele Fuetsch related to the budget situation in the Inglewood School District provides an erroneous presentation of the facts and gives a one-side view of the issue. It is not factual that the “county superintendent of schools took the district to task for attempting to balance its budget in June by ordering a 2% pay cut for all employees and changes in teacher health benefits.” In fact, the district has ordered no cuts in pay or benefits but has proposed a salary cut and other expenditure reductions for all employees as part of the normal negotiation process with employee unions. The county superintendent did not approve the district’s budget at this time since negotiations have not been completed, making all unsettled proposals unacceptable due to a mandated deadline for a finalized budget.

The Inglewood district was not “taken to task,” but was given an opportunity to provide a balanced budget by reducing expenditures that are not subject to negotiation. It is the position of both classified and teacher unions that they would prefer the district lay off employees within the union rather than accept any pay cuts. This will, unfortunately, mean the immediate and permanent layoff of nearly 60 employees, including administrators, teachers and classified staff, which we are desperately trying to avoid.

Ms. Fuetsch quotes Mr. Christopher Graeber of the classified employees union as stating “We feel the people who are at fault should take the cuts,” and he suggests cutting at the top to save more money. According to the official county guidelines, the Inglewood district is below the ratio of administrative positions to which it is entitled in comparison to teacher positions. Moreover, the “fault” of the current fiscal situation does not lie within the management of the district or the administrative salaries, but rather the lack of funding from the state which has affected all school districts in California. In fact, the salaries of administration, including school site and central office personnel, are among the lowest in the county, including most smaller districts with smaller budgets.

Ms. Fuetsch also states that the county superintendent said the district “failed to adequately fund its special education and adult education programs.” In fact, the superintendent’s letter to the district refers to an increase in costs for special education due to the county’s return of special education costs to the local district; the adult education fund has been affected by lower student enrollment.

It is my observation that the tone and slant of the article does not present sufficient facts that were readily available, including the reasons for the budget deficit, i.e. the increase in the state deficit factors resulting in a reduction in the district’s revenue of $227,792; the increase in special education costs; the reduction of anticipated tax revenues on which the district’s budget is balanced; and the loss of cost of living adjustments for three consecutive years.

Finally, the special board meeting of Aug. 11 was properly noticed in advance, as all media were notified along with the public.

The article, in my opinion, presents a one-sided view which omits the concern that is held by the district for all employees, reflected in the superintendent’s recommendation for an equal percent salary reduction for all employees rather than resort to permanent layoffs. The operational continuity of the district will be severely hampered, particularly at the high schools where several teachers may be released resulting in sharply increased class sizes and the closure of others.

It is important that all sides of the story be represented. We rely on the press to be fair and objective in order to avoid confusion, harm, and disruption to our employees, students, and parents. We believe that The Times shares our view in this regard, and we request a more balanced coverage of this important issue.

GEORGE J. McKENNA III

Superintendent,

Inglewood Unified School District