Guest column: Battle over who controls PUSD budget process

By Kimberley Beatty

President, PUSD Board of Education

Many people have become aware of the recent firestorm involving school district negotiations with the leadership of the Poway Federation of Teachers (PFT). The head of the teachers’ union has decided to wage a scorched-earth smear campaign against the school board using lies, false accusations and distorted disclosures of confidential closed session information. At the core of all of this are fundamental notions of democracy and self-governance.

In a nutshell, this battle is over who controls the budget priorities of the school district — school board trustees, who are elected citizen representatives of the community, or a small group comprised of the superintendent, his management team and the leadership of the teachers’ union. This latter small group claims to be using a 13-year-old process that they call Interest Based Problem Solving (IBPS). IBPS refers to interest based collective bargaining that aims to eliminate conflict and create a “win-win” situation for all parties. An admirable concept, but this self-interested group is misapplying IBPS in ways that raise propriety and legal questions.

For instance the teachers’ union president has admitted that under this process they have been violating the legal requirements of public notice since 2006, the purpose of which is to allow the public an opportunity to weigh in on how their taxpayer dollars are being used to serve our students. Also, under this process, parties at the table have historically received the same raises that are being negotiated by the PFT, creating obvious conflicts of interest and self-dealing issues.

Under the current construct of IBPS, all new revenues are already allocated by this band of management and PFT leaders before input from any other groups. If parents and community members are excluded from input on the budget, doesn’t this make a mockery of the new Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), the governor’s effort to increase community input on budget priorities?

Education Code Section 52060(g) reads “The governing board of a school district shall consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the school district, parents, and pupils in developing a local control and accountability plan.”

Most troubling about this process is the usurpation of the governing board’s constitutional and statutory authority. As authorized by Article 9 of the California Constitution, Education Code Section 35010 states, “Every school district shall be under the control of a board of trustees or a board of education.” Section 35160 states that it is the intent of the Legislature to give school districts “broad authority to carry on activities and programs, including the expenditure of funds for programs and activities which, in the determination of the governing board of the school district … are necessary or desirable in meeting their needs….”

Ultimate authority over budget priorities within a school district rests with the Board of Education because as elected citizen representatives we have a fiduciary responsibility to consider input from all community members when determining how best to spend taxpayer dollars for our students. When on Jan. 20, the board and public were presented with a $26 million budget deficit for this year; when we have critical staff shortages and the highest class sizes in the county; and when we have 143 fewer teachers, but 2,193 more students than we did six years ago, why is the president of the teachers’ union claiming loudly and publically that PFT is “owed” raises based on a predetermined amount of future taxpayer funds agreed to by this small group last October?

Beatty, a Sabre Springs resident, was elected to the school board in 2012.