Grosse Pointe Public School Board Approves More Layoffs, Tables Others

Minutes after the Board of Education voted 4-2 to approve reductions in staffing for secretaries throughout the district, it tabled the proposed layoffs for five classroom assistants in a 5-1 vote Monday.

The newest reductions and proposed layoffs are the result of the calling for such cuts.

Board members Fred Minturn and Judy Gafa voted against the reductions in secretarial staff and Minturn gained support in tabling the other five layoffs of classroom assistants.

Gafa said she would vote against the cuts because the schools need the secretaries, noting her lack of support on the budget for the same reason.

The often bragged-about contract negotiated by current assistant superintendent of human resources and Tom Harwood became a point of disagreement between board members. The contract calls for the union representing employees to make up the difference in the fund balance if it dips below 10 percent of the district's total assets.

Minturn said by approving such layoffs and reductions, the district is essentially throwing out the contract that was developed to ensure fund equity remains at a certain level. Making the cuts doesn't allow for the district to take advantage of the contract it worked so hard to secure, he said. 

Meanwhile Cindy Pangborn and Joan Dindoffer said they believe making such cuts is fiscally responsible to help protect the fund equity, which has been dropping quickly and significantly. Dindoffer described her vote as being judicious and to depend solely on the contract to help keep the district in fiscally sound shape would be irresponsible.

Pangborn said she understands the secretarial staff plays an important role in day-to-day operations but the circumstances of the fast-dropping fund equity are requiring more cuts than the board originally thought would be necessary. 

Agreeing with Minturn's position in theory, Board President John Steininger said the problem lies in the formula of the contract, which has yet to be established. The contract is so innovative, no one quite knows how concessions would be taken back from employees, he said.

It is not a simple recalculation of payroll, Steininger said, noting examples of how the concessions could come as the return of vacation days or a contribution hike in healthcare. 

To clarify, Harwood explained the contracts are good through 2013 and they shift out of a traditional contract in the 2012-13 school year–calling for union employee concessions to maintain the fund balance at 10 percent by the completion of that school year. 

To determine if concessions are necessary, the contracts require an outside auditor to assess the financials of the district in October or November of the 2012-13 school year, Harwood said. If the fund balance is less than the 10 percent level, then concessions would be negotiated in December of that school year to ensure the district lands at the 10 percent by the end of the school year, he said.

Determining just how concessions would be made will be addressed then, he said. 

Dindoffer said waiting until then would be irresponsible of the board, that in the meantime is likely to keep spending down the fund balance and making the amount employees have to make up larger.

Minturn repeatedly asked Steininger to call for the vote, saying debate is intended to sway decisions but doing so is unlikely with the board. "We're not doing what's best for the students these days. You four can vote anyway you want. This is just another example," he said.

Ultimately, the board's decision to table the five classroom assistant layoffs was reached with the recommendation to the district administration to come up with other ways to save that money. Board members expressed they are hopeful the secretarial staff can be recalled if the administration is able to find other means of savings.

All of the positions would be eligible for recall, Harwood said. The district for this school year whose layoffs had previously been approved.