Over the last few weeks, BUSD officials have produced distorted and inaccurate budget figures and public statements that have misled and confused the Berkeley community. Here are a few examples:
Superintendent: "At the time of the signing of the last BFT contract, the goal was to achieve teacher compensation comparable to other districts. This goal has been met; compensation is similar to other districts." (BUSD "Financial Circumstances" flyer 2/23/05, Daily Planet, 3/1/05)
| |
When our contract expired at the end of 2002-03, BUSD teacher compensation (salary plus benefits) was similar to median level districts. However, BUSD teacher compensation levels are now declining in comparison. Teachers who have settled their contracts in 20 East Bay districts received an average cost of living adjustment |
(COLA) of 2.35% this year (2004-05). Teachers throughout California will receive an even larger COLA for next year (2005-06) because of increased State funding in this area. Meanwhile BUSD has proposed that teachers accept a zero COLA for a third year in a row, and at the same time, pay for an increasing percentage of health benefits costs, a net effect pay cut.
Board of Education Members: "Berkeley now ranks eighth out of 31 districts in total compensation (salary plus benefits)." (Board mtg. 3/2/05, Jacket 3/4/05, PTA e-trees 3/7/05, D. Planet 3/11/05)
|
District officials continue to offer inaccurate, skewed, and outdated information to the public. First of all, the data used to compile this alleged ranking contains many errors; BFT found over ten data input mistakes made by BUSD in one category alone. Second, the formula BUSD is using is based on the maximum benefits that a teacher could potentially receive (rather than the average benefits) which is then |
multiplied by three – a huge distortion. Finally, BUSD's comparison data is at least a year old, and does not take into account the COLA increases that teachers throughout California will receive
this year and next year.
Superintendent: The cost to give each teacher a 1% cost of living raise is $408,006. (BUSD
"Financial Circumstances" flyer 2/23/05)
|
The Superintendent has contradicted her own business office analysts who earlier provided BFT negotiators with calculations that projected that a 1% cost of living raise would cost $336,283, not $408,006. In response to the District's $336,283 figure, BFT has provided the district with information that projects the cost of a 1% raise at less than $300,000. |
Board of Education President: "...a 2% increase for our unionized employees for two years would lead to an increased cost of over $2.7 million in the second year. (Community letter, 3/9/05)
 |
The $2.7 million projection is over-inflated and misleading, as it appears to be directly based on the incorrectly estimated 1% cost of living raise cited by the Superintendent in the previous example. There is evidence that 1% COLAs for other BUSD bargaining units were also miscalculated. In addition, the Board President fails |
to mention that BUSD will receive an estimated unrestricted revenue increase of over $3 million during the same two years. This is a key piece of the equation, and the failure to mention it further distorts the information. Most school districts spend 85% to 90% of their budget on personnel costs. Therefore, $2.7 million out of $3 million is roughly what a school district such as BUSD should expect to fairly distribute in increased compensation for its employees.
BUSD Public Information Officer: "If we contractually commit to low class size and the state pulls funding we're in a jam, and might not be able to stay afloat." (Berkeley Voice, 2/25/05)
 |
This statement implies that BFT's proposals related to class size limits do not take into consideration the possibility that State Class Size Reduction monies and Local BSEP/Measure B parcel tax monies may not be around forever. The truth is that BFT's class size proposals are cost neutral and contain language that protects BUSD should local or state class size funds disappear in the future. OVER * * |
BUSD Budget Projections for 2005-06: Increases of $314,798 are projected for Special Education and the Cafeteria (food service) programs. These programs already receive large contributions from the general fund budget. (BUSD First interim/Second Interim Reports to County 2/16/05, 3/9/05)
|
BUSD officials have repeatedly vowed to address these programmatic expenditure over-runs yet have failed to implement an overall budget reduction in these areas for next year. Instead of reductions, BUSD projects increased spending. If the two programs were merely maintained at their current level of expenditures, the $314,798 saved would provide more than a 1% COLA for teachers next year. |
BUSD Budget Projections: BUSD's first interim budget final version (pg. 9) shows a "general fund only" restricted "Other Local Revenues" amount of $5,706,837. In the same category of restricted "Other Local Revenue" (pg. 16), the "combined general fund only" which should normally be a higher amount, shows $4,706,837, exactly (and mysteriously) $1 million less. In addition, there are key line items within the "unrestricted general fund only" (including certificated salaries) which include BSEP revenues and expenditures and other line items within the same "unrestricted general fund only" which do not include BSEP revenues and expenditures. BUSD's first interim report was required to be revised/corrected and submitted two different times. (BUSD First Interim Report 2/16/05)
 |
In a recent meeting with BUSD officials, BFT budget analysts asked about the missing million dollars and other puzzling accounting practices and are still awaiting a clear explanation. The shifting budget numbers cited above are examples of what BFT consistently uncovers as we look closely at the many budgets we have |
received. Erratic figures make it hard for BFT to trust the District's projections during the negotiations process.
BUSD Analysts: "Among those 31 districts, Berkeley ranks 5th out of 31 districts in benefits for its teachers." "Among the 16 districts in the county, Berkeley ranks first in the county in benefits for its teachers." (Community Flyer, 3/2/05, PTA e-trees week of 3/7/05)
 |
Again, BUSD made several data input errors in their calculations to arrive at this misrepresentation. Furthermore, the ranking formula used by the District is based on the highest level of benefits that a teacher could receive; the large majority of teachers do not receive benefits at this level. In the case of the second |
ranking listed (first in Alameda County), it is a highly distorted figure since almost half of the districts have included benefits as part of their teachers' salary schedules; therefore, they list "zero" for maximum benefits payment. A more accurate reflection of BUSD's benefits is based on statistics from Ed Data. This information shows that BUSD ranks 12th out of 23 Bay Area districts with similar salary schedule structures in terms of the cost of employee benefits as a percent of expenditures per student.
Board of Education Member: "....this COLA (about $1.6 million for BUSD) is offset by contractual and operational mandated increases in costs totaling about $1.5 million. These increases include health-care benefits... step and column increases, .." (Daily Planet, 3/11/05)
 |
BUSD officials have repeatedly contradicted themselves when they project the "mandated increases" of benefits and step/column advancement. Their projections assume that the District will fully pay for an estimated teacher medical benefits increase of 12% next year and ignore the fact that both the District and BFT have |
proposed that portions of these increases will be shouldered by teachers. BUSD budget analysts calculate that step/column costs averaged just a half percent over the last two years, and that they are expected to decrease next year. Nevertheless, BUSD uses a high estimate of 1.5% for step/column increases when it serves their purpose.
IF THIS INFORMATION TROUBLES YOU…
Contact the Board of Education: Nancy Riddle, Terry Doran, John Selawsky, Joaquin Rivera,
Shirley Issel • Voice Mail: 644-6550 • Email: BoardofEd@berkeley.k12.ca.us
Produced by the Berkeley Federation of Teachers – March 14, 2005
To receive copies of BFT's research data, email your postal mailing address to bft4tchr@lmi.net
