Furlough Update #4

On Thursday July 31, Brian and Jeffrey – along with representatives from  OSEA and Bruce, our OEA consultant – met once again with the District to work on a furlough day MOU. This time, the District invited Superintendent Frank Caropelo and board members Michael Reyes and Joyce Rosenau to take part.

The morning began with the District’s counter to our previous offer with some slight changes. As expected, they returned the number of furlough days to 10 – their magic number – though they moved away from the planning days we have been firmly advocating against using and instead proposed we use the four paid holidays we won in our last contract, plus another date to be decided at a later time. While the move away from the planning days was progress, it is not exactly the change we were hoping for (though it was expected).

The District also returned trigger language thresholds to numbers almost double what is needed to bring back a furlough day, mostly out of fear that some other financial crisis might materialize which they would be unable to address. One of the concerns on our part stems from the fact their thresholds would allow them to cover all their hypothetical financial concerns several times over for each day. Simply put, if only one or two of their hypotheticals hit and we accepted their thresholds, they could have the money to return several furlough days but only need to return one or two.

The District also continues to try using threshold numbers that benefit them. They want to use the updated State School Fund total rather than the lower amount in the adopted budget. At the same time, they want to use the higher beginning fund balance in the 2025-26 budget as opposed to the lower, updated numbers. In short, they want to use whatever numbers make it more difficult to return unpaid furlough days.

Aside from these key pieces, they modified some of the language around collaborating with the District should further financial problems occur. Most of this we were able to accept with minor edits.

We have continually reminded the District that our furlough survey results indicate we do not have the votes to ratify an MOU that cuts 10 days that fall on the backs of our time, hard won contract victories, and/or that fail to have strict trigger language holding the District accountable to returning days and making members whole. OSEA, for their part, has continually reminded the District that over half their members qualify for food stamps and that many are looking for work elsewhere as a result of these proposed furlough days.

We have also regularly spoken about the District’s insistence on needing 10 days despite getting $700,000 more than budgeted for in the State School Fund and despite having their PERS liability reduced by approximately $1.3 million dollars. They point to the miscalculation of budgeting for a $10 million ending fund balance that they are currently projecting at just over $5 million. Every time costs appear to be less or more money appears to be available, they claim to have needed it elsewhere and to still need 10 days of unpaid furlough. 

Of course, casting a dark shadow over all the financial discussions is the ever-changing and inconsistent messaging from the federal government about what grant money is coming, how much, and when. Money has been frozen, unfrozen, promised, told it will be canceled, and/or decreased. All such revenue is completely unreliable until it is in the District’s hands.

In response, REA and OSEA came up with a counter that we believe was a move towards the District in understanding some of their concerns, and in finding creative methods to assuage some of their worries while maintaining some of the needs of our members.
First, we conceded to ten furlough days, but only with stricter trigger language and a mandate that the District apply for a waiver from the State to reduce instructional minutes, something they have successfully done when seeking unpaid furlough days in the past. Although we maintain that ten furlough days seems like an extreme solution to a problem the District has not adequately proven, we believe that the strength of the trigger language to bring back days is far more important. If we do not need all ten days, strong trigger language will ensure we bring those days back. And if we are mistaken, the days will already be scheduled. Only time will tell.

Despite some frank discussion at the table about why the District so adamantly wants to avoid getting a waiver from the State to reduce instructional minutes for students, we continued to advocate that the school community needs to share the burden of our District’s financial woes. That education staff at all levels cannot continue to constantly accept the burden and financial costs to make schools function in the face of the state’s refusal to appropriately and equitably fund Oregon schools. The fact these burdens regularly fall on the staff in districts with the most economically disadvantaged students is unsurprising given Oregon’s broken funding mechanism.

Here is where we decided to get creative. While already having agreed to five furlough days in June, we sought two scenarios for deciding the remaining five days. First, our proposal requires the District to seek a waiver from the State. If the waiver is accepted, we offered to use March 16-18 (the three days before Spring break) and June 4 and 5 (while moving up the final grading day and work day to take place on the 4th and 5th). Only if the State refuses to grant the District a waiver, however, are we willing to use our four paid Holidays, as well as one of our planning days (April 13). Keep in mind that in both scenarios we have maximized our ability to bring back the furlough days by pushing them to later in the year (scenario 1) or using paid holidays, which can be brought back at any point (scenario 2).

As for the trigger language, our independent audit trigger uses language that scaffolds the thresholds for bringing back days. This gives the district some buffer for their budget worries by bringing back the first day after an increase of $900,000 over the budgeted $10 million ending fund balance. The second day would be brought back after an additional $700,000 and each of the rest after additional $550,000 increments. Our latest proposal lowers the ODE State School Fund trigger language from the District’s $900,000 proposal to a straight $700,000 threshold. One reason for the difference in numbers for each trigger has to do with the way the audit works in not showing some bills that are paid in September-November but coming from the previous year’s budget. A second reason is that while it costs about $550,000 per day to run RSD, charter payments have to come out of the State School Fund. As a result, any increase there needs to be more than one day’s cost for RSD.

Finally, we included language granting REA and OSEA the sole discretion to decide the order days are brought back.

The District asked to caucus for a few minutes after seeing our counter before deciding they would need more time. We are now set to meet next Thursday, August 7. 
​
While we miss having members in the room with us, in a time when financial support from the State and Federal government cannot be depended upon, it is even more essential to advocate for what we need as educators - reasonable class sizes, equitable pay, and enough planning time to make our classes valuable for students. Solidarity - within REA and in alignment with our OSEA siblings - has never been more important.