This just came in from the Santa Ana Unified School District, via a little pajarito:
AUGUST 15, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SAUSD BOARD OF EDUCATION SELECTS SEARCH FIRM TO FILL SUPERINTENDENT VACANCY
SANTA ANA, CA * In a special session on August 8, 2006, the Board of Education of the Santa Ana Unified School District reviewed proposals and presentations from nationally-known executive search firms specializing in education in order to select a firm to fill the vacancy created by the recent resignation of the current Superintendent, Dr. Al Mijares.
By a majority vote, the Board selected International Group Education Services, Inc., of Visalia, CA. The Board anticipates entering into a contract with the firm by mid-August, 2006.
The initial steps in the search will be to establish a timeline, and determine focus groups which will be interviewed for ideas and input as part of the process. International Group Education Services, Inc., headed by Robert Aguilar, Ed.D., CEO and President, projects a six-month process to place the new superintendent.
Why not Art Perdoza for the job? Art would be a great choice!
Art Pedroza for Superintendent!
Uptown talk reports Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum attempted to hire the search firm Rudy Castruita is involved with (Castruita retired in June).
Why do Noji & Richardson insist on hiring former SAUSD employees? They’ve been entrusted to act on behalf of students, parents, teachers, staff and community and they refuse to do so. Dipping in the same well is an arrogant display of disregard for a transparent search and could be construed as a political manuever.
Why else would Noji & Richardson lobby to hire Rudy’s search firm?
If Noji loses in November, she’s left her imprint, again, of who will lead this district. If she wins, she has an ally on the board to manipulate.
Noji gave us 12 years of Mijares; it’s time to sideline Noji.
The firm will more likely choose incompetent candidates, so that the board can say, “do we not have anyone who is qualified?”
Then comes the firm and presents Jane Russo as a candidate and she is hired.
Jane Russo does not have the qualifications compared to many potential candidates, but since Noji and company would like her to take that position the aforementioned will be a strategy I predict.
The smart thing to do would be to hire Kim Nguyen from Garden Grove.
If the current board gets to hire a new superintendent, what will keep them from chosing a really weak leader? Most mediocre leaders would feel threatened by competent leadership and would choose someone they would be “comfortable with”. The reason they have such crummy high school administrators is that they can’t find anyone good from outside. This keystone kops group is a disaster.
I know not all of you may agree with this idea, but what about Dave Ream for Superintendent? He’s nearly retired from the City and he might be able to help bring the city and school district together on more issues.
Ernest Salgado said…
“It’s tyime we kick negotiating into high gear and have SAUSD know we are serious and walk out when they are late.” The biggest obstacle to this idea is SAEA and their inept abilities to organize and motivate the members. In the 30 years as a teacher, SAEA has not only failed to organize but when some teachers decided to take the type of action you suggested, they were considered by SAEA as “rebels” and non-cooperative. Go to an SAEA Site Rep meeting and suggest a “walk-out”, and you’ll soon see just how inept our association is. SAEA is afraid and will not go any further than to put flyers in boxes that are full of rhetoric and nothing more. In the 30 years as a teacher, I don’t even recall SAEA providing us, the teachers, with picket signs. As always, negotiations will drag on way into the year, the District will continue to declare that there is no money, and the negotiating team will continue to sit with the District only to have them, the District negotiators, prolong negotiations well into the year because they know SAEA will do nothing! After we received the 4.5% pay cut, I called up one of the SAEA negotiators and asked her how it was that the CTA executive director was given the ability to sit down with the District personell and finalize the contract. She told me that they, the SAEA negotiating team members, were tired, very frustrated and told Joe Krausse to finish up the contract.
“Kick negotiating into high gear”, I doubt it!
Talk to Julie Maneghini or Jeff Goldberg and ask them about a “walk out”. Ask them if and when a “walk out” could occur.
The following is an e-mail correspondence between myself and Dean Vogel, CTA Board Member.
Dear Ernest,
Thank you for the very detailed description of events. I’ll talk with President Barbara Kerr and Vice President David Sanchez and see what course of action is available for us to assist you in this matter. I don’t want to say anything more specifically until I’ve talked with some other people. But I will be sure to get back to you soon.
Regards,
Dean
—–Original Message—–
From: Ernest Salgado
Sent: Wed Jun 30 19:10:58 2004
To: Vogel, Dean
Subject: SAEA Contract/Problems
Dear Mr. Vogel,
I have been a teacher in the Santa Ana Unified School District for the last 28 years. Recently our SAEA, Santa Ana Educators Association, president Tom Harrison delivered an unprecedented 4% pay cut to the
members. Tom Harrison and the two CTA executive directors misinformed the members in order to achieve ratification of the contract. Tom and the two executive directors have developed so much mistrust and anger within
our district, that teachers from other schools are asking me what can be done and why CTA is not taking any kind of action. I too am very angry with the manner in which SAEA disseminates mis-information and am at a point in which I am not discouraging teachers who are considering
dropping their membership.
In order to achieve ratification of the contract, Tom Harrison went
throughout the schools in the SAUSD and told the teachers that if ratification for the contract was not achieved, the State would take over the operations of the District in two weeks. This was not true. Ron Bennett of Student Services Inc, stated at a District Board meeting that the very soonest the State would take over was in another 5 months. At another teacher gathering, a School Board member, Rosmarie Avila, also confirmed that a state takeover, if solvency were not achieved by the District, was not eminent.
Teachers were further misinformed when they were told that a state
takeover meant that all bargaining rights would be lost as well as losing protection from any existing contract if the District could not prove financial solvency and there were a State takeover. This was also not true. I personally e-mailed the California State Department of Education and in the response by Janet Finley of School Fiscal Services Division of the State Dept. of Ed., the State informed me as to what the process was as well as informing me what affect a State takeover would have
on bargaining rights and contract protection. The State informed me
that the existing contract legally had to be honored. Furthermore, the state informed me that when an existing contract expires, negotiations do still occur. The state does not simply impose pay cuts without negotiations. Negotiations are held with a State trustee as opposed to negotiating with District personnel. The misinformation was further
promoted by the two CTA executive directors from our association.
The entire process of informational meetings conducted by Tom Harrison and the voting for ratification for the contract was held simultaneaously within a one (1) week period. This was done, according to SAEA president, to avoid an eminent State takeover in two weeks, which we now know was not true. The hurried vote resulted in the lack of ability by
the members to become properly informed as well as creating a lack of ability for teachers who were on an off-cycle to vote. We are a District of more than 3,000 members and many of the elementary teachers are in year-round schools.
Many teachers asked Tom Harrison and the CTA executive directors to
delay the vote so as more information could be obtained and achieve proper organization of the members to act and pressure the District to obtain a better contract. Tom and the CTAexecutive directors did just the opposite and promoted the ratification of the contract within a week.
In addition, Joe Krausse placed language in the contract that became a focal point of controversy throughout the District. In order to ascertain the reasons and the true affect the language had on the contract,
at an informational meeting I asked Joe Krause, one of our CTA executive directors, very specific questions. I subsequently called a District Board member as well as an SAEA board of director member who contradicted what Joe Krausse had said. The ratification for the contract by the District School Board narrowly passed by a vote of 3 to 2. Despite the large amount that our association was giving the SAUSD, the major issue of concern for the Board members was the domestic partner language that
Joe Krausse had placed in the contract. In a conversation that I had with the SAUSD School Board president, he stated that if not for the large 4% pay cut over the two (2) year period, he would not have voted to ratify the contract with the domestic partner language. Additionally,many teachers in our District, as myself, did not know what domestic
partner was. I was told by an SAEA Board member that it was in the
contract however, the contract did not define what domestic partnership was. I personally had to look it up on the internet. On a personal note, I do not care if domestic partner is placed in the contract or not as long as the membership is properly informed as to what it is and as long as I know that there are no major objections by teachers or School Board members that would influence in any way a pay cut. After my
conversation with the School Board president, it appears that the language may very well have had a negative affect on the monetary terms of the contract. In other words, the District may very well have accepted a contract with less of a pay cut, or maybe no pay cut at all, without the domestic partner language included in it especially when taking into account the 3 to 2 ratification vote by the school board. I have continued toask Tom Harrison for evidence that Joe Krausse stated existed but, Tom refuses to address the issue in a proper manner. At an SAEA Board of
Directors meeting, Tom passed the issue over to the Bargaining Team
Chair who later turned her back on me and walked away from me when I asked her for an approximate date the issue would be addressed. Tom Harrison did not make any attempt to rectify the situation and when I asked Glady
s for help, she also refused. It is this type of behavior by the SAEA president and the two CTA executive directors that has caused mistrust,
anger and a search for other options by many of the teachers within our district.
It should also be noted that one week after the School Board ratified the contract, the District administrators presented the District Board with a multi-year contract that indicated that solvency had been achieved. This was done after SAEA told the teachers that the District was
$29 million dollars in deficit. No one to date has given me a reasonable explanation how the District can go from a $29 million dollar deficit to solvency in a week other than mismanagement from the district may be the cause or that the district and/or our association lied to us.
One of the irritating side notes to the solvency, is that our district had RIFed over 400 teachers. In all of the informational meetings I
attended, our association anticipated that the district would follow through with at least half of the RIFs. In other words, Tom Harrison and the CTA executives were telling the teachers that at least half of the
teachers would truly face lay-offs. As the District began to rescind the RIFs, Tom Harrison began to take credit for saving the teachers’ jobs. He is making a bad situation worse by taking credit for something he
had no intention of doing.
Throughout this entire process, I have been in contact with the
classified association. They stated that they believed the District did not have to impose the cuts they were proposing. Just recently, only a couple of months after our school board ratified the contract, classified settled and they, the classified, settled without taking any pay cut other than having to take two (2) furlough days. The District RIFed 79 classified personnel but their association is anticipating most of those positions being rescinded in light of a new budget report which now indicates even more monies in the district.
At a Site Rep Council meeting held a couple of months ago, the reps
overwhelmingly voted ‘yes’ on a motion to send a vote of “no confidence” to our superintendent. Two rep meetings later, a rep asked Tom Harrison if he had carried out the motion as was directed by the site council.
Tom stated that he had not completed the motion due to legal
liabilities per Joe Colton, a CTA attorney. The issue was to be addressed more in debate later in the meeting. The meeting adjourned before debate could occur. I later called Tom and asked him if in the a vote of “no confidence”, and only if the truth were written, would there still be liable issues. Tom refused to answer. I subsequently called Lloyd Porter
who, subsequently contacted a CTA lawyer, and he, Lloyd Porter, informed me that if you put it (the vote of “no confidence”) in writing, you should not write anything liable otherwise there was a possibility of a lawsuit. I also researched the issue on the internet and found that all
over the country, “votes of no confidence” are sent to
superintendents. I found a case from I believe the CTA website archives, in which the
then president of CTA, Wayne Johnson, spoke positively of a vote of “no confidence” to the San Diego school district superintendent by the teachers’ association. I found examples all over the state of California
of associations, many with NEA-CTA affiliations, sending “vote of no
confidence” to superintendents without any legal ramification. I also called Glady’s Kessler to ask to speak with Joe Colton but in her response, she told me that the Site Council had already decided not to send the “no confidence” vote. This was not true, the debate never occurred. Tom Harrison’s and the two executive directors’ manipulation and
distortion of information for their own purposes is creating a divide in our district that I have never witnessed in the 28 years as a teacher.
Presently, it appears that Tom and Glady’s have been selective as to
whether they will represent certain members based on their opposition to Tom’s candidacy. Furthermore, there is an unfair labor practice filed with PERB due to the manner in which the ratification was conducted.
We recently had chapter elections which are also being contested for
numerous improprieties. Tom Harrison and Glady’s Kessler are the basis for a couple of items of improprieties.
The situation is very serious in our district. Many teachers no longer have any confidence in Tom Harrison or the CTA executives. I ask that CTA look for ways to rebuild the confidence in the association by reassigning the two executive directors. If you do not have the ability to do so, please let me know what procedures we could take to have them reassigned.
With the district budget showing solvency and extra monies available, all this after all RIFed teachers have been rescinded and the classified settled without a pay cut, it is apparent that the teachers did not have to take a pay cut. Tom Harrison’s reluctance to follow through with a “vote of no confidence” promotes mistrust. Teachers are realizing that not only did the membership not have to take a pay cut but that our
own president is not doing anything to get our pay back! Many teachers believe that Tom is worried that if he initiates actions to have the district reinstate our salary, he would be admitting that the pay cut was
not needed and that he and the CTA executive directors made gross
mistakes in rushing the contract ratification. He may very well be more worried about his own reputation than the needs of the membership. Furthermore, the CTA executive directors seem to be aligned with that philosophy. What must be realized is that teachers are already upset and as
the news gets out that the classified did not take any pay cut, many will begin to realize that this truly was the case. Add to that, once PERB comes in, it will completely be out of not only his hands, but it will also be out of the hands of CTA. If PERB decides in favor of the complaint, that will confirm to the membership that the teachers were
lied to.
Reassigned CTA executives will be a strong message to teachers in the district that CTA is trying to address our concerns and rebuild some of the teacher confidence again. It will in part show to the teachers that the $800 association fees is useful and does give us, the teachers in our district, action . It will also send a strong message to Tom Harrison that he must be completely honest with the membership.
Please, help us rebuild confidence in our membership.
Ernest Salgado
Teacher, Santa Ana Unified School District/SAEA member, School Site Rep Alternate
P.S. Please find attachments as part of the proof of the
misinformation disseminated by Tom and the CTA executive directors. There are other items or issues not mentioned here. We are asking for major CTA intervention.
Ernest Salgado was one of the leading teachers of the superintendents actions. Ernie attended several school board meetings demanding the SAEA and the School Board stay true to their word when it came to grievances, disputes, and salaries. At that time, the need to organize and protest was at its highlight, and to no avail, the majority of the teachers did not support him. Now that the teachers have finally awoken, I sure hope Ernie is still active and ready for another big fight. This time hopefully with the teachers united.
Ernie is a good guy who has worked for the district and the students of Santa Ana.