Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Anthony buyout not isolated case, says experts

Fallbrook falls in with union’s state plan

Experts say Tom Anthony’s buyout by the union-influenced Fallbrook Union High School District (FUHSD) school board is not an isolated case.

In fact, it appears that all school district superintendents would be wise to watch their backs when teachers unions achieve majority voting blocks on their school boards.

No longer content to strike when contract negotiations aren’t going their direction, the unions have now found a way to control the administration of the schools in which they work.

One of the union’s surest tactics is ridding school districts of superintendents who enforce rules.

“It’s the same all over,” says Kenneth Flood, a Southern California consultant for the school attendance review board. “Candidates are sponsored by the California Teachers Association (CTA) and they put big bucks behind them. If [the union] can’t get control of the existing superintendent, they buy him out and bring in someone they can manipulate.”

Other cities are experiencing the same thing, Flood says, listing Lawndale, Hawthorne, Inglewood and Redondo Beach.

“At Redondo Beach Unified, they got rid of two [superintendents] and it cost them $750,000 to do it,” Flood says. “The only way a new superintendent would come is if he had a unanimous vote of the board.”

Flood mentions Dr. Carol Leighty, who has more than 30 years experience in education. She served as superintendent of Redondo Beach Unified from 2004 to 2005.

“She began letting people go to balance her budget and the union started [the] orchestration to get her out,” he says.

Three union members sit on the Redondo Beach school board.

Sometimes, teachers unions can be vicious, says Dr. Carl Hartman, spokesman for the Michigan Association of School Boards.

Hartman cites the case of a superintendent who was out of favor with the union and learned the union was “going to make him a poster child for not getting a job.”

Even when the unions successfully get their members on a board, there is always the specter of favoritism, Harman says. “The candidates owe their election to the union, so they listen to them.”

Cherry Dobbs, a former principal and teacher from Rancho Cucamonga, believes the union’s aggressive stance began when teaching to standards became mandatory.

“Teachers want only to have a say in salary, benefits, classrooms and schools – to their benefit,” says Dobbs. “They don’t want interference. As a result, they want a voice on school boards.”

“I’ve seen two excellent superintendents removed who bucked the CTA, then read in the CTA magazine, ‘Our candidates won a voting block on the [school] board six months ago. Woo-woo, look at us!’”

The union is extremely politically active and anti-government, Dobbs says, noting that the CTA locks horns over school budget legislation with Governor Schwarzenegger.

“They have a need for power,” Dobbs says. “They don’t follow the rules and they don’t want a teacher called on [his or her] illegal action.”

Dobbs relates a story about a superintendent who took his district into the 21st Century in terms of finance, technology and transportation. He knew how to finesse governmental agencies and bond issues, she says, but the union didn’t like him because they couldn’t have everything they wanted.

He was particularly assertive, she recalls, and would meet with new board members to orient them to their jobs, even saying: “I know you have an agenda, but we’re serving the interests of the children in the district.”

Dobbs says this superintendent knew how to take care of his board; it was always the kids first, employees second. The teachers union got rid of him, even going so far as to monitor his mileage, “looking for reasons,” she says.

In his article “Strange Bedfellows: Union Supporters on Your Board of Education,” Gary Chamberlain wrote for the Michigan Council of School Attorneys, “…it appears to be a more recent Michigan Education Association [MEA] tactic to place union-backed advocates on school boards for the purpose of influencing bargaining.”

He then adds, “…as a result, union-supported board members are exposed to sensitive financial and strategy information and are attempting to sway decisions on these critical school district matters.”

Chamberlain says when a school board assumes a leadership position within a community, it becomes a powerful ally with superintendents and school administrators. However, when vocal union advocates create an adversarial relationship that divides the board, the conflict and distrust may restrict the board’s ability to function.

Because of Michigan’s funding crisis, a situation California also faces, “Cutbacks and concessions have triggered innovative responses by the MEA – including a movement to place union supporters among a district’s top citizen decision-makers. This strategy has proven effective and will likely continue to be pursued in districts where labor relations are heated and an election opportunity is ripe.”

California and Michigan have the most aggressive teacher unions in the US, according to Myron Lieberman, a former National Teacher Association (NEA) negotiator and current head of the Education Policy Institute.

Lieberman says, “The US Labor movement is in a declining mode and has been since the 1960s. Against this backdrop, the teacher union has experienced phenomenal growth. In 1961, membership in the NEA was 766,000.” It is now 3.2 million.

The NEA and its local unions, such as the California Teacher Association, has become a formidable political force. For example, between January 1 and November 16, 2007, the California Teacher Association expressed interest in 336 bills going through the California Legislature.

While many feel it would seem a conflict of interest to have both labor and management on the same board, no California state law prohibits teacher union members from serving on school boards. In fact, the CTA urges members to get involved in the political process through its Running for Office Track, designed to provide members with the skills necessary to run for association or local public office.

California candidates for school board do have guidelines, however. As published by the California Fair Political Practice Commission, candidates must drill down through an eight-step process primarily focused on economic conflict of interest.

Although Gov. Code Section 87100 appears specific – “No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest” – is it permissible for the spouse of a union-affiliated board member to benefit?

In California, when a school board decides to oust a superintendent, it can be difficult for the public to understand why the governing board (or board majority) wants him or her out, because they’re not allowed access to Closed Session board minutes to discover the reason.

Paradoxically, this is due to the Ralph M. Brown Act, the law which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer wrote in 2003, “Although the principle of open meetings initially seems simple, application of the law to real life situations can prove to be quite complex.”

There is a provision for public input that relates to agenda items discussed in Closed Session, however.

Under Section C. Public Testimony, the Brown Act states, “Every agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the body.”

To prevent union-influenced school boards from undermining the administration of their districts, parents and property taxpayers must elect candidates whose agendas put children first.

A troubling fact, though, is that candidates for school board are not always as well known as they should be, nor does electing seem to be a high priority for voters.

It appears that the significant amount of union money that pays for large numbers of election signs and creative mailers for their candidates is what ends up swaying voters.

In the November issue of Education Next, a journal of opinion and research, authors William G. Howell, Martin R. West and Paul E. Peterson report “…turnouts for school board elections <are> notoriously low. Such dismal figures may make it possible for a motivated group, such as the local teachers union…to disproportionately influence election outcomes.”

The authors wonder whether the relatively small number of voters represent the views of other district residents.

Lieberman concurs, “One reason union-backed candidates get elected is because of low voter turnout for school board elections. A small percent of the electorate votes. However, in each district the school unions have huge cadres of members who respond to the election.”

In the November 2006 Fallbrook Union High School District school board election, out of 27, 835 registered voters, only 17,713 cast ballots, leaving slightly more than 10,000 voters apparently disinterested in the future of Fallbrook’s high school students.

It could have been that disinterest that placed union sympathizers O’Connor, Schulte and Steffler on the board.

Last week, the trio voted to use district tax dollars to buy out Superintendent Tom Anthony’s contract, destined to set in motion a wave of cuts across the FUHSD budget that could reach a half million dollars (when all costs are considered), which has the potential of negatively impacting students, teachers, classified staff and administrators.

 

Reader Comments(0)