1.    Communication:  Just as saying “I do” does not a marriage make, saying “We are open to your ideas” does not a partnership make.  We have reached out to all of you in many different ways, but so far this year only two board members have contacted us independently and only one has offered to attend one of our executive board meetings.  We need you to see situations from our perspective, not always filtered through the lens of the administration.  We need one, two, or even three of you to attend the negotiations sessions (We are well aware of the limitations of the Brown Act.) in at a minimum, as observers.  They do this on a regular basis in other districts such as Lucia Mar and indeed all over the state.  We know that all of you meet with administration officials on a regular basis.  Please contact us with ways we can communicate more effectively on a personal basis.  We have suggested breakfasts, lunches, pizza feeds etc.  This part of our partnership would cost zero dollars against the district budget.

2.    Acknowledgement of the Challenges:  We simply ask that you acknowledge that your employees are suffering in this economic climate.  Teachers sometimes ask me,  “Do they have families and mortgages and insurance and everyday expenses?”  When they hear nothing from you that you understand that financially life has gotten much harder here in recent years many people think that you don’t care.  We know this is not the case, but your employees need to hear it directly from you and the new superintendent.  Perhaps a joint letter that the effort to form this partnership acknowledges the challenges we all face?  This part of our partnership would cost zero dollars against the district budget.

3.    The Budget:  Our input on the budget has been limited to the fiscal policy committee.  We have been told that this body “is the superintendent’s committee” and it gives non-binding recommendations to the superintendent.  The message is that this committee is irrelevant.  Moreover, last year we saw PRPE representation cut from 2 members to 1 and CSEA and parents also cut in the same way. However, administration representation held steady at 7!  When the votes on specific budgetary issues are recorded the deck is already stacked.  The administration already meets with you on a regular basis and in addition has regular cabinet and other meetings when the budget is discussed.  We ask you to propose that a PRPE representative and a senior administrator facilitate a partnered fiscal policy committee that includes a membership based on the proportion of the budget that your group represents.  It would also include parents and community members chosen by PRPE, the administration and you if you wish.  This newly constituted fiscal policy committee would not “be the superintendent’s committee” but would report directly to you.  At least 3 board members should also participate so they can hear directly from their employees.  We know you are busy so perhaps, if you are pressed for time, you could meet a little less frequently with the administration. The superintendent could of course comment on and question the recommendations, but you all would have the final say on what to accept. This also would need to be implemented almost immediately because the fiscal policy process will begin in February.  This proposal would also include the idea that this committee meet from November until May. This partnership proposal would cost zero dollars against the district budget.
 
4.    COLA:  We need to have an in depth discussion about the meaning of this term. It seems to mean different things to different people.  The newly constituted fiscal policy committee could examine the current budget and explore in depth how COLA is applied in both the restricted and unrestricted portions.  This process would increase transparency and build support for budget changes.  This would also be a great venue to look at long term liabilities and capital improvement costs.  This would also provide a forum for explanations from other sources not just those chosen by the administration.    In fiscal policy now we spend far too much time on “wish lists” that have no funding.  Last year Dr. Sayne made a vast improvement in the direction for the group when he said that any new spending should be accompanied by the source of revenue to fund it, but he himself acknowledged that in the majority of instances this was not accomplished.  We need, as partners, to not only look critically at the current expenditures, but also to understand how we can become more efficient and truly evaluate programs and decisions that are already affecting the budget. This partnership proposal would cost zero dollars against the district budget.

5.    Long Term Goals:  We as partners need to agree on general long term goals and how we can work together to protect not only the financial solvency of the district, but also create the best possible conditions for learning.  A newly reconstituted fiscal policy committee is the perfect forum to discuss these issues and develop long term solutions.  This partnership proposal would cost zero dollars against the district budget.  
We hope that you can join us in a productive partnership and move forward together with all stakeholders to find solutions.  I want to challenge each one of you individually to contact me about the partnership ideas listed above.  Please inform me by email or snail mail about the ideas you can support fully, support with modifications and those you reject.  Please also include any ideas you might have to form partnerships.  I will report to the PRPE membership on November 5, 2007.  If I do not hear from you by then, I will assume that you have rejected all of the above listed ideas.  Thanks for listening.  
      Sincerely,

Jim Lynett,  PRPE President