Vote stalled on teachers' raises

Teacher’s union negotiator Tim Hauck let his irritation be known Monday night, January 22, at the Fallbrook Union High School District board meeting after Trustee Bill O’Connor announced he was pulling the voting item regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the District and the teachers from the agenda. The fiscal impact of the proposed increases in salary and benefits totals $1,618,598.

Admitting he was angry and frustrated, Hauck addressed the board and said his feelings “will spill out” into the other 150 staff members. According to disclosure statements obtained from the Registrar of Voters office, the three newly seated Trustees – O’Connor, Mike Schulte and Marc Steffler – acknowledged their campaigns for office were primarily financed by the teacher’s union.

Hauck and fellow union spokesperson Tim Oder were two of only a small handful of teachers in the audience expecting a resolution to the raises that would be retroactive to 2005.

“I was looking forward to a new beginning,” Hauck said. “We’ve treated this in a professional manner.”

O’Connor, choosing his words cautiously, said of pulling the item, “It was a necessity. This is a frustrating situation. Hopefully, you can trust us, perhaps, that we are doing what we have to do.”

While O’Connor did not give a reason that the item was pulled from the agenda, there is speculation that the three new board members, two of which have wives on the teaching staff and one who is retired and collecting benefits, may be further investigating the potential personal liability involved if a conflict of interest were determined to exist.

In a previous conversation with Nathan Barankin of the California Attorney General’s office, he said that to the best of his knowledge no known case law exists relating to a matter exactly like this; therefore, the letter of the law can be interpreted in different ways by different legal counsel.

“The way this would be answered definitively for us would likely be through a court decision,” Barankin said.

Dan Shinoff, an attorney who has provided legal counsel to the board, said at a previous meeting, “It’s a very complex issue. As lawyers, we rely on appellate court decisions on these types of matters, but there is not a lot of case law on these issues.”

While O’Connor said the matter would be “back on the table” for the February 12 meeting, he did not indicate whether it would be a voting item or not.

“I can’t tell you how disappointed I am,” Tim Oder said.