Teachers union rejects 5.5% raise, strike looms

BY AMELIA BISCARDI
Daily Post Staff Writer

The Las Lomitas School District is preparing for its teacher’s union to strike on Wednesday after the union turned down the board’s latest offer Monday. 

The school board offered the teachers a 5.5% raise on Friday. The teachers, who have been asking for a 10% raise, turned down the offer on Sunday, according to an unsigned announcement from the district. 

The school board received a fact-finding report from the Public Employment Relations Board, which recommended a 7% salary increase with an increase in health benefits to $1,972 per month, or a two-year increase with 6% in 2023-2024 and 5% in 2024-2025.

The school board is offering a 5.5% salary increase, fully paid health insurance and a “tenure” stipend of $3,311.  

According to documents from the school district, Las Lomitas teacher make between $78,181 to $167,146 depending on experience and education level. The union says salaries range between $71,320 and $146,634.

The district is warning parents to expect limited bus services on Wednesday since bus drivers and other employees are also planning to strike.

It has also said classes will not be canceled. However, absences will be excused.

The district is comprised of two schools, Las Lomitas Elementary and La Entrada Middle School. Together the schools serve about 1,100 students from Menlo Park, Atherton and Ladera.

The district said the union’s 10% increase would cost $2.3 million, and the report’s recommendation of 7% would cost them $1.7 million this school year. The district said the money would come from its reserves.

The district’s teacher’s union has voted 98% in favor of a strike. 
According to the fact-finding report, the union claims the district’s property tax in the past four years has increased revenue by $9 million and at the end of this school year, the district will have over $20 million in reserves.

The district prefers to have reserves equalling 55% of its annual budget to cover “any unexpected circumstance,” the PERB report said.

The school district has said that the state average for reserves is 24%.

The school district said teachers are satisfied working for the district, and the retention rate is 85%. The union countered by saying 98% of its members voted in support of a strike.

The teacher’s have been working without a contract since July 2023. Negotiations began in December.

In February, the union wanted a 12% raise and $448 added toward their health insurance premiums. The district countered with a 3% raise and $1,882 toward health insurance. 

The report said it is unlikely the district will see a decrease in property tax revenues, pointing out that last school year the district received $600,000 more than expected. The report recommended a middle ground of 7% between the district’s proposed 5% increase and the union’s 10% increase. 

“It is beyond cavil that the parties are unable to settle this labor dispute considering the revenue generated by the well-healed Atherton community,” wrote Cheryl Stevens, the neutral chairperson on the three-person PERB committee which wrote the fact-finding report. 

Representatives from both sides wrote responses to Steven’s report, with each agreeing and disagreeing with the non-binding ruling. 

“(The school district) is more focused on feathering their personal nests than promoting great schools for their students,” wrote Larry Spotts of California Teachers Association union. 

Spotts said Stevens’ recommendation does not go far enough. He contends that since the district has increased spending on administrators, consultants, supplies, books and personal development, it can afford the 10% raise. 

Spotts said that the district has still not provided some data that the union and panelists have requested several times.

Representing the school district, Matt Phillips wrote that fulfilling the 7% raise option would reduce the district’s reserve to 12% of its budget by 2027.

Phillips, a CPA, said Stevens received inaccurate information and despite getting the correct information, she did not adjust her findings. 

“The recommendations do not give adequate acknowledgment to the district’s current commitment to teachers … nor to the financial peril that would result from implementation of said recommendations,” Phillips wrote.