BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The Palo Alto school board stumbled into a dilemma last night (June 16) before approving contracts with two unions that could result in the district losing money if property taxes go up too much.
That’s because the district agreed on May 27 to pay the union for non-teachers 80% of all property tax growth above 5%.
Then the district agreed to do the same for the teachers’ union on June 9.
So the district would pay 160% of all property tax growth above 5% to its unions next school year, increasing a budget deficit.
After some confusion, the board decided to honor the contract with the employees’ union and table the property tax bonus for the teachers’ union.
The issue was raised by parent Chris Colohan, who ran for the board in 2024 with a focus on the budget.
Board members were surprised. They said the language in the contracts didn’t match their intent, which was to split property tax growth between the two unions and keep the remaining 20% for the district.
“It sounds potentially problematic. So I’m at a loss as to what we should be doing now,” board member Josh Salcman said.
“Obviously I don’t think we can approve the agreements if we don’t even agree what the ultimate intent of that provision was,” board member Shounak Dharap said.
Meb Steiner, president of the California School Employees Association, the union for non-teachers, urged the board to approve the contracts. She said her union proposed the extra payment because its 850 members are worried about a growing wealth gap, and she’s been working on the contract since September.
“We have people waiting for paychecks, for money,” she said.
Steiner’s union negotiated a 10.2% raise, retroactive to July 1, 2025. Teachers are getting a 10.4% raise, and both unions are getting $10,000 in bonuses.
Acting Superintendent Herb Espiritu said the idea was to offer both unions the same deal, and that’s why teachers were also set to get a bonus from property taxes. He suggested giving the bonus to the non-teacher’s union and going back to the negotiating table with teachers, since the bonus wouldn’t apply until next summer.
“We would have no leverage,” Dharap said.
The board ultimately stopped the public meeting to privately discuss the contracts for 30 minutes.
After the break, Dharap said the board decided to honor the contracts, except for tabling the property tax bonus for the teachers. The board approved the contracts with a unanimous vote.
Read the contracts
The district hasn’t posted the full contract with CSEA (the non-teachers union), just Article VI that was changed relating to compensation and benefits. (Read Article VI.)
The teachers’ union posted their full contract. (Read the contract.)
Both contracts were approved last night.
The agreement that wasn’t approved is the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the teachers’ union that gives them a share of property tax growth. This MOU was negotiated after both contracts, but is tabled for now. (Proposed MOU.)
So teachers are basically receiving a below true inflation raise of 5% per year. My guess is at the end of 2 years the new sup. and Board will say there is no money left. The reality is the money is there if the District dumped made up positions during the era of Austin . Do we really need a rental coordinator or a sustainability person when there are principals and financial officers? It is time for the District to focus on a basic tackle box of needs not wants. Too much of anything just clutters the reality of what a District really needs to run efficiently.
A “below true inflation raise”? How do you define that? Is that like the “feels like” temperature they use on the news to exaggerate the weather reports. “Oh Jerry, it’s 80 degrees but it feels like 100.” God, let’s hope our kids aren’t being taught crap like that in school!
The last paragraph in this article is not accurate. The board passed the CSEA contract with the 80% contingency raise. The board passed the PAEA contract without the contingent raise. And the board tabled the MOU which contained the contingent raise for PAEA.
If you view the video of the board meeting, this action is taken at 2h22m.
I can just hear board members thoughts when approving these contracts came up: “Oh, gee, this is really complicated, let’s just vote yes and move on to something we’re really into like ethnic studies.”
This is not confidence inspiring. They are planning over $50 million in deficit next year, and will likely have large layoffs. But they arent even looking at the numbers or know the terms of their agreement. Wow.
The people of Palo Alto are getting what they deserve. Electing people “without a clue” is becoming a hallmark of the city.
This is probably why they didn’t want to have advanced math classes at Paly.
Next they will put up statues in front of schools with the inscription: Knowledge is good.
How more out of control can PAUSD be?
The entire PAUSD system needs to be replaced with private schools
It is worrisome that it appears that the board trustees do not actually carefully review the items in the consent calendar. Some items will lead to bigger boondoggles than others, but not being duly diligent is a big problem either way
Let me get this straight. The contract would have awarded 160% of property taxes (above a certain threshold) to two unions, which the Board members did not realize until a non-board member parent with a brain and math skills actually read the contract and pointed it out to the five trained seals? Then the Board goes into a private meeting, which should not be allowed, and approves nearly the entire package anyway?
This is the exact same systemic laziness we see in Congress, where Thomas Massie was notoriously the only lawmaker who bothered to read the bills and expose the disasters everyone else blindly rubber-stamped.
Imagine if a private company inadvertently agreed to pay out 160% of its revenue growth? It would quickly go bankrupt and its assets would be liquidated.
No new PAUSD teacher is going to buy a house in Palo Alto unless they have other sources of funding. Rents in Santa Clara County increase by 5.5% a year. Thus, a 5% raise is reasonable, and reflects “true inflation” if housing is part of that figure. Two years of 5% raises is still 5% per year, so get the 10% figure out of your mind because it is a construct. If there is something I am being naive about, please let me know.
Teacher raises should reflect increased rents assuming healthcare is provided under the contract. All this other stuff regarding property tax growth just becomes fodder for critics and skeptical stakeholders (not to mention the local news outlets).
If there is a property tax windfall, then put it into the reserve fund and use it as needed. I know this sounds very simplistic, but it just seems as if common sense has been cast to the wind.
I hope PAUSD works it out because public schools are essential, and if the “Lighthouse District” can’t get it right, or even close to right, then more folks will flock to private schools.
Mark, you are misinformed. Core inflation in the Bay Area, which including housing costs, was 3.0% in the year up to last April. It was slightly lower the year before. That’s according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Western Information Office. A 3% raise, without a $10,000 bonus would have been appropriate and affordable.
Rent in Santa Clara County goes up 5.5% per year. Nothing misinformed about that PA resident. Yes, core inflation includes other items as well, but if my rent goes up 5.5% I have to shoulder that cost no matter what. I can cut back on other “core inflation costs” like recreation, and I can buy cheaper cars or appliances, but I can’t live on the streets (maybe you would prefer that teachers do so). You can play the numbers game all day long, but a 5% raise is not out of line in lieu of increased rents. I never said the bonus was warranted, all I said was raises that track rent increases seem reasonable and simple. By the way, district office employees regularly beat 5% in their raises, and it is more than 5% of a much bigger number. Why should teachers get smaller raises than 25 Churchill “Team Members”? Isn’t it all one big team?
Let me make something clear so as not to be cast as misinformed: I don’t have to buy a car every month or every year. I don’t have to buy appliances every month or even every year. Recreation, in some forms, can cost me nothing. I do, however, have to pay my rent every month, and that cost increases more than 5% every year. No getting around it PA Resident unless I can buy a house, which I can’t.
Every place I’ve worked, the employer says how much the job pays. The employee has to decide if they’ll accept the wage that was offered or get another job. I’ve never worked in a place where employees decide how much people are paid. Then again, I’ve never worked for PAUSD.
Mark, sorry that you are confused about how inflation works and the stats that describe it. Good luck with your unique views.
Pretty simple explanation for what’s happened here. The unions got greedy. The board was naive. The administration was dreaming of their “me too” raises. Then, at the last minute, the unions got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Actually the board fired the senior administrators 4 months ago – the acting Superintendent had been a mid-level HR person. The board gets the credit for this one.
PA Resident,
Sorry you are confused about how rent increases work. Are you trying to tell me that a 5.5% increase in rent is not real because cars and refrigerators are not going up at that rate? If you haven’t noticed, there is a housing shortage in the Bay Area. There is no shortage of refrigerators or big screen TVs. Housing is the largest part of a teacher’s budget by far, so I am simply suggesting that teacher pay increases be tied to the “housing market” instead of the “basket of goods” market that you prefer. That basket, the CPI, does not include gasoline or food. Many PAUSD teachers must commute long distances, so clearly gasoline is an issue, but we should not consider it because it muddies your CPI.
My views are not “unique”. Just ask the hordes of folks who have been priced out of the Bay Area because of housing costs. Do they live in RVs and commute four hours a day from the Central Valley because they enjoy the drive or the camping lifestyle? Would you like your children taught by exhausted commuters and RV nomads? There is no confusion on my part. I see what is going on around me with my own two eyes.
Ultimately, I am advocating for keeping the convoluted and secretive negotiating process simple. I prefer a “rent index” and you prefer the CPI. Either way I’m guessing neither idea will be implemented.
PS: Hey Vince, did you ever get up the courage to ask for a raise, or did you just vote with your feet? If you are thinking of walking out, PAUSD is looking for new teachers all the time.
Mark, I’m sure you were a fine middle school social studies teacher, though I hope your pet theories were not part of the curriculum. Like I said, I wish you luck with your novel approach.