|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District Board of Education at Tuesday’s meeting greenlit a multi-million dollar tentative agreement with the teachers union while also postponing decisions on how to make approximately $14.8 million in ongoing reductions for next school year.
The options up for board consideration on Tuesday included cuts to 101.4 full-time equivalents as well as the anticipated attrition of 25.5 FTE working within special education, closure of two unnamed elementary schools, work year reductions for district administrators and elimination of select technology. An additional reduction of $1.5 million is anticipated for the 2027-28 school year, according to the meeting agenda.
In response to the options, trustees unanimously agreed Jan. 13 to postpone their consideration of budget cuts. They also voted 4-0 — with Trustee Deena Kaplanis abstaining — in support of approving the tentative agreement with Livermore Education Association.
The board’s decisions aligned with the majority opinion of meeting attendees who gathered en masse to denounce the reduction options and support the union agreement.
Meanwhile, the board faces a looming deadline of Feb. 10 to formally approve cuts for the 2026-27 school year.
“Approving this agreement comes with some hard realities and we are all aware of the reductions and adjustments that we will need to make to remain fiscally solvent”, Trustee Emily Prusso said during the meeting, adding that the decisions can be painful.
“At the same time, as a board member, I cannot ignore the collective advocacy of our employees and our community and this agreement represents a direct response to what we were asked to prioritize,” she added.
Covering collective bargaining agreement items such as workday, wages, health benefits and leaves, the newly approved agreement with LEA is expected to cost the district a total of $13.1 million when also accounting for “Me Too” increases for other employees during this school year and the 2026-27 school year.
Singularly, LEA members gain approximately $8.8 million in compensation when combining the two years.
Sharing sentiments in favor of the agreement were Trustees Craig Bueno and Christiaan VandenHeuvel as well as Board President Steven Drouin.
“We’ve heard about LVJUSD teachers being ranked 9 out of 11 in compensation compared to nearby districts, the rising cost of healthcare and a steep decline in morale,” Drouin said.
“In light of these, I heard the community wanted us to prioritize teachers and those closest to students”, he added.
Kaplanis agreed that teachers need fair pay, but decided to abstain from the vote, given the ongoing cost of the agreement and the district’s need for reductions. She intended to wait until approval of the reduction plan to consider the tentative agreement.
Kaplanis later suggested that the board affirm Title IX provisions to receive $15 million in federal Magnet Grant funding.
She also suggested that two board members with partners working at LVJUSD recuse themselves from voting on the tentative agreement out of concern for a potential conflict of interest.
However, according to the district’s legal council Dulcinea Grantham, all trustees were legally permitted to vote on the agreement because their spouses had been working at the district at least one year prior to the board members assuming their roles on the dais.
In addition to the letter of the law, VandenHeuvel attested to his ability to vote without a conflict of interest.
“Due to the cost of the tentative agreement, with all the Me-Toos included, we will require budget reductions or revenue enhancement in order to meet our minimum reserves requirement and not have a negative ending fund balance”, LVJUSD assistant superintendent of business services Kayla Wasley explained while presenting a resolution acknowledging the district’s need for budget adjustments.
Although not required, the resolution would assure the Alameda County Board of Education of the district’s commitment to make required budget adjustments.
Prusso expressed her reservations about the resolution, citing it as an atypical item for the LVJUSD board as well as neighboring school districts in Pleasanton and Dublin.
Ultimately, no motion was made regarding the resolution.
Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, the public submitted approximately 200 letters to the board, with many parents, district employees and students expressing concerns surrounding potential budget reductions.
Similarly, folks rallied in person to condemn the reduction options.
Library media specialist Rebecca Hanley attested to the negative impacts of cutting working hours for herself and peers, as listed in the reduction options.
Class visits will be shorter and libraries may not be open before and after school, Hanley explained.
In support of maintaining an early intervention program for social-emotional learning dubbed Kid Connection, Junction Avenue TK-8 School program specialist Renee Andrus attested to the value of the service.
More than 500 kids rely on Kid Connection yearly, she explained.
“Without these services, many concerns are simply deferred until later when they are more entrenched, more disruptive to learning and more difficult and costly to address,” Andrus added.
Commenters also expressed disapproval of the district’s communication surrounding reduction options.
“Families are hearing about budget cuts, job losses and possible school closures through emails that are difficult to understand unless you already speak the language of budgets,” Junction PTA Board President Jen Valley said. “When communication isn’t clear, rumors fill the gaps, neighbors turn on each other, staff feels disposable and parents worry in silence.”
Although some commenters expressed opposition to closing specific sites, LVJUSD officials have not identified specific schools for closure, district spokesperson Michelle Dawson told Livermore Vine.
However, to avoid the optics of a LEA raise triggering a reduction such as school closures, Bueno expressed his support for tabling the board’s consideration of reduction options.
Additionally, VandenHeuvel and Prusso expressed unease with the task of selecting specific reductions.
“My responsibility is to set values, priorities and guardrails in getting us to a balanced budget, rather than selecting or ranking specific cuts”, VandenHeuvel said, adding that he would not suggest rankings at any meeting.
The micro-level decisions are up to the superintendent and her team, based on direction from the board, he explained.
“Our superintendent and staff are capable of making some difficult decisions,” VandenHeuvel added.
The crowd erupted into shouts of disagreement, expressing their distrust in the current administration.
After completing negotiations, the board gave Gibson direction to use the moment as an opportunity to repair relationships, reimagine the district as well as meaningfully collaborate with stakeholders, Drouin later said.
“In good faith, I do not believe that those directives have been followed to this point,” Drouin said.
The crowd once again erupted in applause and cheering.
“I believe the options list was largely created by two people with minimal and reluctant input from others,” he added.
“The end result is that this feels like a rush job to get done and move on with,” Drouin said.
Further, he urged the board to pause, meet again to create a plan and communicate the plan with the public for their input.
