A MANUFACTURED CRISIS

Circa 2001 the power went out. A deregulated energy scheme devolved into rolling blackouts, a castrated public energy commission, steep increases in electricity bills, and the graceless fall from Enron’s excessive hubris. California’s budget had never taken so many collective hits, and the largest slice of the state expenditure pie—public education—took the blunt of the blow. Bleak budget forecasts forced districts statewide to reduce staff, services and supplies. Schools closed. Pink slips issued. For some, health care benefits became a thing of the past.

Those reductions in education funding did lead to one notable increase (and not just class size): socio-economic inequity. Locally, elementary schools across East San Jose began cutting budgets. Some of their cross-county counterparts took a different approach.

Take Los Gatos, for example. When parents in the community learned the district would be forced to eliminate a handful of teachers, residents of the wealthy town rallied and raised over a million dollars in an aggressive two-month campaign that more than covered the predicted budget deficit. It’s easy to surmise why Los Gatos routinely skirts lean state and federal budget years; wealthy parents, ample community resources, plenty of time to phone donors and organize events. And don’t forget about those parcel taxes. The Metro claims “The city's 9,000 parcels provided some $2.6 million to schools” in 2004. (read the whole article here: )

On the less affluent East Side, another path to solving the same fiscal management problem is being taken. A statement made at a recent board meeting provides a glimpse of the contrast: “Relying on one-time monies is not going to get us through this,'' said Trustee Craig Mann, who made the motion to approve the cuts the administration recommended” (read the whole article here: ) Rejecting the notion to rely on “one-time monies” is the conservative argument in the complex public education management debate. This view contends that schools must live within their means, and its tenets are defining ESUHSD’s fiscal policy. Beyond the usual chatter of a parcel tax, there’s no call for bringing in soft money to the East Side. Unlike the edu-philanthropy practiced by the conservative-leaning taxpayers in Los Gatos, the liberal-leaning East Side leadership emphasizes cutting, not acquiring. John Fensterwald’s now-ironic editorial on Coto’s land-sale bill demonstrates this pervading thought. The Information Minister seems to concede that the Quimby money could be used to offset the budget, but when all is said and done he essentially argues that the only road to solvency is to force teachers to do more with less:

“It's not an either-or proposition, however. The district appears to be in such bad straits that even with the Quimby land money, the district would need concessions from the union -- in pay, benefits or larger class sizes -- and cuts in programs to balance next year's budget. East Side Union is in the red by about $7.5 million this year and projects a deficit of $10 million next year. Poor fiscal management, fat retirement packages and generous contracts under Coto's watch contributed to the problem.

The state and the Santa Clara County Office of Education already have signaled they would disapprove transferring the land money. That leaves the district no alternative but to persuade the Legislature to grant East Side Union a one-time exemption, under the condition that the district also solve its structural deficit.” (read the whole editorial here: )

Little did the East Side Information Minister know that the District’s attorney and Board of Trustees would cave to the public backlash spurred by 965 unnecessary layoff notices. Nor did he take into account that, given the number of administrative cuts made over the past couple of years—cuts that Coto hinted at making prior to his departure—there would be a projected balance for 05-06. The East Side community who attended the last Budget Task Force meeting received these projections.

These figures have yet to be divulged in the Mercury News.

Should schools live within their means or work to acquire donations? On the one hand the state has a fundamental obligation to provide for a sustainable level of education funding. Once those in power discover that schools are raising their own funds, they’ll be less inclined to fulfill their obligations. Running to the well to support a program that increasingly becomes cost-prohibitive impacts other equally vital services within a district. No matter how painful, tough decisions must be made. But one of those decisions could be to exhaust all revenue-generating possibilities before scratching out the line items.

There’s also the question of timing. Should education programs suffer cuts when a state or district budget crisis might only last a couple of years? Shouldn’t grants and donations be a fundamental part of a district’s budget process, especially a district with a free and reduced lunch population that meets a broader range of grant funding qualifications?

A reasonable person can surmise that those in power at the federal and state level are not funding education adequately. Schools need money and they can’t wait for opportunistic politicians to solve their problems. If it takes a village, then leave the philosophic debate for another day and encourage the community to save what their local schools offer. That should be the ESUHSD Board position. Instead, the Board is working to live within its means, while districts serving more affluent and less diverse populations raise millions. This form of social inequity is a growing national dilemma, Don’t just take our word for it. According to PEN on-line, “With the growth [of school fundraising], however, have come revived concerns about equity. Many worry that such donation efforts will hurt schools in poor neighborhoods that do not have wealthy individual, foundation, or corporate supporters, or the professional staff or parents with time to spearhead fund-raising efforts” (read the whole article here: )

The ESUHSD Board, or at least one member of the Board, has the Mercury News espousing his fiscally conservative view on, at the very least, a monthly basis. And the Mercury, as usual, is guilty of the sin of omission. To advocate that the district serving the least affluent high school population in the county needs to raise class sizes, cut its program offerings, cap benefits and eliminate cost of living increases, then argue that teachers in underperforming schools need pay increases, all while districts in the West side of town raise more than enough funds to continue providing a range of educational opportunities and competitive salaries is disingenuous and absurdly contradictory. This blatant but unacknowledged inequity best characterizes the root problem of the Mercury News’ editorial opinions over the last year.

The difference between former superintendent Coto and current superintendent Zendejas is decisively clear when it comes to managing district dollars. Coto, a democrat, fought to bring soft money into the district. He had a grant writer who one year brought in three million dollars to the district coffers. He brought in a PR company, PRx, that worked on a contingency basis to raise funds for the district. They brought in over a million dollars to deal with cost overruns at EVHS. His own political connections also assisted in bringing in soft money. A couple of paragraphs from a recent Jon Fortt Mercury article demonstrate that the Fensterwald perception of Coto is not widely shared by district employees:

“Coto's re-emergence as a key player in the East Side budget mess exemplifies the complex politics of the district, where students staged protests last week after two of every three teachers received warnings that they might lose their jobs. It's a district rich with experienced educators, many of whom reminisce fondly about the stable Coto years and blame the current instability on Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas.

Marilyn Bliss, coordinator of Andrew Hill High's lauded Medical Magnet program, earlier this year remembered that Coto always seemed to find money to rescue a valuable program. This month, Bliss got a layoff warning in the mail, and she wonders about the fate of the Medical Magnet.” (read here: )

And just what philosophic position does former Indianapolis republican Esperanza Zendejas hold?

As she told the Mercury last September, ``Joe was a giver. I'm a taker”.

According to one reader of the advocate, when Zendejas was asked directly about hiring an agent to bring funds into the district, she said she didn’t feel the district should pay others to help raise money for the district, even on a contingency basis. She claims corporations, if they choose to donate, should just give the district money. And what happened with PRx? According to one source, there is a pending legal matter between the District and PRx. Though no official details have been released, insiders inform the advocate that the District chose not to pay PRx the contingency fee the company earned raising money for EVHS.

This debate isn’t a matter of superintendent or even voter party politics. Read the Metro article on Los Gatos and you’ll see how much funding schools transcends the local liberal/conservative divide. And acquiring funds is only part of any non-profit’s budget problems; money management is another. Coto was great at bringing money in, but not so great at managing funds. Take, for example, the EVHS costs. Coto put the wrong guy in charge of managing the EVHS building project, and overruns went into the millions. (Read the whole story here: ). The Metro does a great job of detailing where the EVHS construction problems lie, but they missed one key point largely due to the people who spun the story: the Board has the power of the purse. They approve all budget expenditures. And if there’s funding mismanagement, the blame lies with whose signature rests above the dotted line.

When Coto departed, the Board wanted an outsider’s view of the District budget. They needed to evaluate the status of the budget, and in their view that demanded a person unafraid to make tough decisions. They also knew a contract negotiating year was looming, and they wanted to force the union to make some concessions. On top of it all, the trustees wanted to clean house by eliminating the top-heavy administration that evolved during Coto’s tenure. Somewhere the good intentions of budget review took an over-zealous turn. Did the ESUHSD Board decide to hire someone to do what the current Board President of IPS described of the Zendejas years: a “slash and burn?” Yes. And in order to drum up public support for a “slash and burn,” they needed the appearance of a serious budget crisis.

That’s exactly what Zendejas does.

Is it merely a coincidence that every Superintendent job Zendejas held, the district she managed was facing a budget crisis? In the April edition of the Advocate, you read about how Zendejas, while Superintendent of Brownsville, called for an auditor’s report that she used to bring spending into line and to evaluate administrators. But the budget crisis she was attempting to “correct” was kind of petty in the grand scheme of education finances, especially in a Title I heavy district like Brownsville. If she’s a slash and burner, she doesn’t appear to be very good at either practice. According to the Brownsville Herald article “Jackson Sole Pick for BISD” (see our archives), Zendejas has a habit of manufacturing problems that don’t really exist. Of Zendejas’ replacement, one trustee said, "We (trustees) don't spend so much time trying to put out little fires, and can get on with the everyday business of BISD.”

Evidence in our archives from IPS tell a similar story. Read these paragraphs from the Indy star, Andrea Neal’s “Parents Now Calling the IPS Shots”: “In 1996, Indianapolis Public Schools faced another in a string of financial crises. A $7.5 million deficit loomed and Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas was desperately seeking ways to balance the books.

The solution - layoffs of "non-essential" teachers in phys ed, music and the arts - so enraged a group of Northside parents that it proved to be a turning point for IPS.”

In another Indy Star article, “IPS Board Rejects Proposal to Allow Firing of Principals,” one revealing paragraph demonstrates how all of Zendejas’ proposals, including those dealing with the budget, left the community weary of her reforms: “The surprising decision has left many, including board members, speculating on how long Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas will stay in a district that is increasingly abandoning her controversial reform proposals. She already has warned them of eroding support.” In another Indy Star editorial, “Zendejas’ Reforms Came Fast But Went Too Far for Some,” we can divine that one reason she was brought to IPS was to close some schools, but again, personality and other questionable acts got in the way. Her supporters “point to her bringing accountability to a district satisfied with the status quo, making IPS more fiscally responsible with the closure of 10 elementary schools, and helping settle a teachers contract dispute.

But critics say her dogmatic leadership style didn't allow parents or educators to buy into her vision. They argue that her policies caused low morale, driving hundreds of quality teachers and administrators out of IPS.”

Later in the article, the author details how her budget reforms helped the district’s finances: “And she helped break a six-year pattern of IPS teachers starting school without a contract. Zendejas pushed the board to give the district's 3,000 teachers a 13.5 percent pay raise over a four-year period, retroactive to 1994.

Zendejas also was credited with bringing sound financial management to IPS. Not long after her first year, the district projected a $15 million deficit by the end of the 1998 school year because of poor decisions in previous administrations.

She proposed cuts of antiquated programs and later persuaded the board to close 10 elementary schools because of rising costs and declining student enrollment.

Thanks to that cost-cutting, extra money from the legislature and savings in personnel and health care costs, IPS now has a $35 million cash balance.

With those new funds, Zendejas and the board awarded teachers an extra raise of 5 percent and expanded full-day kindergarten programs.”

In spite of getting teachers a raise, her contract was bought out. Or, as one parent activist says of Zendejas’ reforms in the article, “"I think you can accomplish that without beating people over the head" (See our archives!)

One has to question how much of the “sound fiscal management” attributed to Zendejas actually resulted from the parent reaction against her reforms, which ultimately led to an influx of “extra money from the legislature” to help balance the books. Loyal Advocate readers will recall the Indy Star’s more recent articles praising Zendejas’ successor, Duncan “Pat” Pritchett, for repairing the damage she caused.

The Indy Star never mentions a severe budget shortfall occurring during Pritchett’s tenure.

As Team Unruly argued last month in relation to the excessive layoff, decisions made by current District leadership can be measured against either end of the murder definition spectrum. In other words, do the decrees arising from Dr. Zendejas’ brand of fiscal management stem from gross negligence or intentional malice? If she and the Board find it prudent to abandon soft dollar revenues, while concurrently making an abundance of media appearances lamenting the lack of funding for our neediest students, all while more-affluent schools proactively scramble for—and receive—soft money donations, that’s gross negligence. So is the dramatic fluctuation in budget red ink (from 15 million to 6 million to zilch in six months), the misplaced decimal point that cost a cool million, the cautious planning for a doomed-from-the-start pension reform ballot initiative, a 400k 2% home loan, a school board that publicly admits they are unaware of site morale problems, and a premature authorization to cut 170 positions with 965 eventually rescinded pink slips.

Unless she was told to do it.

The preponderant evidence behind this voluntary fiscal budget slaughter? A Board of Trustees that feeds the local daily paper nonsense about ESTA having a generous contract, a blatant and partially successful attempt to deport International teachers on work visas, the yearly threat of pink slips, plus the attempt to cut librarians and counselors, dismantling successful programs, the illegal attempted thuggery to shift Title I money even after being told “no” by the County Office, and, most of all, a superintendent with a proven history in three states of manufacturing budget problems to meet the slash and burn reform desires of her public office-holding employers. That’s intentional malice.