Braham Speaks Out

June 14, 2007

Dear Editor,

I certainly don't wish to become entangled with or continue what now appears to be the start of a volleyball game of allegations.

I have been gone from the District now several months, but for the recent comments to your paper and of course my City Council exchange, have chosen not to (and have not ) openly talked about the business affairs of SMMUSD.

I have remained quiet while speculations and negative suggestions about me are offered by district leadership and others in the community. I cannot and will no longer allow that to happen.

However, the recent allegation regarding the SMMUSD's Board and or Superintendent now saying they did not see nor endorsed nor acted on the AB1200 ( as shared by Council member Bob Holbrook during his question to me on the 12th and your article of the 14th) is a claim I am now hearing for the very first time. It is a claim that is a bold last-minute desperate misrepresentation of the truth/facts.

This is an allegation that is clearly intended to and will undoubtedly harm me and my attempts to secure a CFO post. Given that if believed, I would have violated very important and basic best business practices.

Let me be clear: the Board, the Union, the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, the Financial Oversight Committee (FOC), the Los Angeles County office of Education, SMMUSD Fiscal Staff, Human Resources (HR), and probably all interested parties, knew of the AB1200, were clear I could not and would not support the increase and were further clear as to the impact of said increase.

Note, the FOC during a November Board Meeting made it clear that the contract would be a problem. In addition, the then outgoing Board Member (Shane McCloud) stated from the podium/on the record that because of the potential negative impact to the district's finances he could not support the tentative agreement. He also added that we (the Board ) were told what we could afford.

This particular subject matter/item and my position on its impact, were probably the most important topic of discussion in the district (Closed Session, Cabinet, Sr. Cabinet etc) since July 2006. Once formal negotiations began with the Deputy as the Board appointed Lead, it caused this item to become the then number one topic of discussion with the board and now still eight months later it is still the top issue given the unfortunate fiscal state of the district.

The AB 1200 Document was shared with the Board and the Superintendent. It was signed off by the Superintendent. The leader of the negotiating team got all his advice, directions and guidance from the board and the superintendent. All proposed language, clause and all increases etc., were reviewed and discussed (in advance of their presentation to the union negotiators) with the board and superintendent.

The district's negotiating team did not act nor was authorized to commit the district's resources without the specific guidance and endorsement of the senior leadership.

The board and the superintendent discussed and reviewed all kinds of scenarios and decided to sign-off on the package they acted on several months later some time in the Spring of this year.

I personally produced and had discussions on the contents of several documents to the board and superintendent that summarized the impact of the tentative agreement and underscored my opposition. These in some cases predate the signing of the tentative agreement in the fall of 2006.

Amongst others, the factors that guided/tempered my advice were:

• The impact of Step & Column which is the yearly roughly upward 2 percent pay increase/salary schedule adjustment for the certificated Bargaining unit members,
  
• The COLA which then was projected at 4.03 percent for 2007-2008 and 2.0 percent + for 2008-2009,
  
• The pending expiration of Measure "S" & "Y" which together produces $10.60 million to the district on an annual basis,
  
• The impact of declining enrollment,
  
• The unknown impact of GASB 45, a government code requiring public agencies to declare the cost of Post Employment Benefits (for SMMUSD it was approximately $27.0 million),
  
• The pending November 2006 Elections where we planned on seeking voter approval to issue $268 million in Prop 39 General Obligation Bonds secured by their real properties,
  
• The "Me-Too" practice,
  
• The compounding effect of the increase (which now averages 9 percent per teacher, including stipends and compression of the salary schedule),
  
• The long term survival of the district,
  
• The absence of a cap on heath care benefits,
  
• and the economic re-opener clause in the agreement.

Assuming they now wish to take the position to blame others, then the key question that must be asked is. . .

Who then authorized the Superintendent to sign-off on the AB 1200 document declaring to the State that the District is able to absorb the increase and sustain it throughout the current and subsequent two fiscal years? Additionally, what if any data were reviewed that led to the position taken that was contrary to the advice of the CFO?

Keep in mind the superintendent certification was done after mine on the same document signed by me that we could not sustain the impact of the increase. A signature the Superintendent added knowing and seeing my certification that I could not certify that the district could sustain and remain viable without major deficit requiring greater reliance on outside help and staff reductions.

Note, once I became certain that the district would go ahead and authorize the final agreement, I developed a fairly substantial Fiscal Recovery and Stabilization Plan.

Regards,

Winston Braham