Commentary: What Does Seven Million in Budget Cuts Look Like?

DJUSD knows what it is like to try to reduce a $4.5 million deficit because they attempted to do so last year. $4.5 million would have meant at least 114 teacher layoffs, possibly a closed school, definitely some ended programs like music, art, maybe da Vinci High as well--at least as they knew it. But while Davis experienced threats, they never had to go through with it. The May revise came in better than the midyear budget estimates. The Democratic legislature restored funding cuts. Davis used one-time monies from its reserves and got a $1.7 million gift and was able to escape last year largely unfazed.

I say all of that because at its core, $4.5 million in budget cuts would have been devastating. Now imagine $7 million in cuts. That is what Woodland is facing right now. That is what the Woodland School Board did on Thursday night, they voted to reduce expenses by $7 million. That is more than twice the deficit Davis is facing right now.

How does one cut $7 million? The Woodland Daily Democrat hardly gives a vivid description of this. Although apparently the public outcry got them to restore a number of programs including the elementary music program.

"Trustees also allotted $793,773 in funds to restore several programs and positions -- two high school vice principals, zero and seventh period, the Elementary Music Program, a high school librarian, an elementary school counselor and an extra teacher for Pioneer High School's Block Scheduling -- that were set to be cut."

It continues:

"While the elementary music program was restored, the board made several reductions to other programs, school budgets and at the district level.

School sites throughout the district froze open positions and cut 10 percent of discretionary funds, the enrollment center was restructured, elementary vice principal positions were cut, and teachers were reduced along with many other cuts. After much discussion, the board agreed to close both Grafton and Willow Spring Elementary schools."

That's right Woodland voted to close two elementary schools.

"Willow Spring and Grafton elementary schools were hotly debated reductions with many parents speaking in favor of leaving the schools open, to no success.

While Trustees Carol Souza Cole and Rosario Ruiz-Dark said they were not in favor of making these decisions without more information or more community input, other trustees said the schools were already set to be closed and students would get a good education no matter where they went. The board voted 5-2, with Trustees Souza Cole and Ruiz-Dark opposing the recommended cuts."

I will leave it to our friends at the Woodland Journal to work out the rest of the details. I have heard enough. This is not about picking on Woodland. Woodland is not alone. School districts all across the state are having to make veritable Sophie's choices between closing down programs and closing down schools. Many will have to do both.

Davis is quite fortunate in a lot of different ways. Some people have suggested in light of certain decisions that they regret voting for Measure W. Well let's do the math. Without Measure W just add another $2.5 million to the deficit that Davis has. That would put Davis' deficit for next year up over $5 million. Take out the generosity of the Davis residents and their $1.7 million in donations last year. We would be looking at the kind of cuts that Woodland is right now.

In other words, Davis is fortunate. A wealthy school district, in a wealthy community that is generous and supports its schools. That is a great thing.

The horrible thing is that across the state many students are not nearly so lucky. They do not live in communities that can dip into their bank accounts like Davis did last year. Heck, Davis probably could not do it so easily this year as they did last year. The economic crisis has hit home in this state. The unemployment rate is over 10%. Tax receipts are way down. The state is slashing billions from schools. That means millions slashed from local school districts, most of whom do not get parcel tax money to make up the difference.

The result of this is that the relatively wealthy and well off students in places like Davis will get by just fine. Their community will give just enough to avoid the kind of wholesale draconian cuts that Woodland is facing. We will tighten our belts. Our teachers may have to take pay cuts or face a small number of layoffs. But at the core our programs will survive and our students will thrive.

There are people on this blog who seem to take these things for granted. They seem to believe that schools have failed us. They seem to believe that there will be no consequences from cutting billions across the state from schools. I disagree with that assessment. I don't think schools have failed us. I think we've failed our schools. Not in Davis, but across the state of California.

California ranks in the middle of the country in per pupil spending, and that was data from a few years ago before the latest round of cuts. California was below the national average. And those are in absolute dollars, it does not account for the higher cost of living in California compared to many of the states below California in per pupil spending.

There was good breakdown last year in my other publication, the California Progress Report.

“The Census Bureau numbers show that California still spends $652 less per student than the national average, even though their figures on "student spending" include funds from outside the state that never make it into the classroom, which arguably inflate the figures. The Census Bureau estimates lump in payments made into the state retirement system, as well as federal funding beyond what the state spends. But even including those calculations, California's significantly below-average spending on students is abysmal. By comparison, the non-partisan national publication Education Week issued a report showing that California spends $1,900 less than the national average, because it only includes the actual funds spent by each state on each student.”

Also:

"even though we have extremely high costs, housing in particular, our teachers are still paid below the national average on a per pupil basis: $3,479 in California - compared to the national average of $3,811."

The bottom line is that we get what we pay for. If California were near the top of the barrel in terms of students scores, then maybe, just maybe we could justify our lack of spending. But it is not. It is towards the bottom.

For years we are told that the problem is just that we pay too much on administrators. Sorry folks, the district has laid the budget numbers bare. Only a tiny percentage of DJUSD's general fund budget goes to administrators. And that percentage has gone down. Davis has cut out it's Associate Superintendent of Education Position, it has cut to the bone its fiscal office. There is nowhere else to cut. The raised salaries that people are moaning about do not amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things--and even they are probably coming off the books and then some.

Davis is not alone. Across the state, districts have done the same. This is not pork. Many of these are essential positions and their absence requires other people to do more work for no additional pay. A lot of additional work. For years, teachers have had to purchase educational supplies out of their own pockets. The same teachers who are paid below national average per pupil--which means that we are teaching to more kids than the national average. California teachers teach to about 22 kids whereas their counterparts teach to 15 kids. Think that might make a difference in the service they receive in return?

The sad thing is that all of the numbers I have just shared with you are numbers that existed before we cuts roughly $7 billion from the state's educational budget this year on top of whatever cuts were accrued last year and the lack of COLA for increased costs of living.

We indeed balanced our budget temporarily through huge real cuts (not simply slowing down the increases to programs, but actual cuts) and tax increases, but we did at a huge cost. Go to Woodland and you can see the very human cost it is going to take.

Remember that this is the childhood of those kids. This is their education. This is their future.

One final note: Somebody had the audacity of accusing me of being a Republican yesterday because I favor fiscal responsibility in the city of Davis and will not support new taxes without an assurance of accountability and responsible new contracts for upper level city employees. What these individual apparently do not get is that we do not have the money and resources anymore to be living the way we did in the 1990s or even the 2000s. We have to pick and choose what programs to support. For me, education has to be THE priority. Everything else has to come second.

The priorities in the city of Davis are out of whack. We are sitting on a $13 million deficit of unmet needs. That's road repairs and infrastructure upgrades. If we do not get our public employee compensation and pension system under control, we cannot keep up with the things that we really need to put money into.

Sorry but there is really not one pot of money for schools and one pot for the city. It is but one pot of money and we have to make tough choices.

A liberal in these times has to be fiscally responsible because there is no money to just throw around anymore.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Teachers Face Agonizing Choices

Under ordinary conditions, it seems unlikely that one would find a person more supportive of teachers than myself. I come from a family of teachers, I have myself been a teacher at times, and I believe in general teachers are unpaid for the importance of the job that they perform. Most people who suggest that teachers have an easy job and work only nine months, have either never taught themselves or never put a full effort into teaching. I am constantly amazed that teachers have the stamina to teach for eight hours and then go home to grade papers (no easy task) and prepare lesson plans.

I say this because after reading the full comments from the teachers from Casar Chavez Elementary School who also spoke up during public comment on Thursday evening at the school board meeting, I'm not sure I could really disagree with them more.

They write:

"First, we do not accept being placed in a position of choosing between salary reductions or seeing colleagues lose their jobs. It is the responsibility of the budget officer, the superintendent and the board to make informed, honest, transparent and responsible decisions.

At the all-district staff meeting held by Superintendent James Hammond on Feb. 11, we were given an ultimatum: Either we agree to a 4 percent permanent salary reduction, before a state budget is even approved, or there will be layoffs this year. We believe there are many more options than just salary reductions or layoffs, and it is incumbent upon the board to ensure that all options are thoroughly investigated."

I am unsure of where these individuals have been for the past few months, but if they read the newspaper at all during that time they might realize that across the state government employees (of which they are one) are having to make this painful decision across the board.

Yolo county employees have taken voluntary furloughs as the county faces a $22 million deficit for next year, in hopes that their colleagues will not be laid off. State employees represented by SEIU have reached agreement with the Governor to take what amounts to a 5% paycut, which is an improvement over the 10% paycut imposed by the Governor. These furloughs and paycuts are happening across a state that has recently had to cut $15 billion in spending due to the worst economic recession in 70 years.

The same thing is happening in the private sector--employees are being laid off in scores. There has been at least 500,000 and sometimes approaching 600,000 job losses per month. So the fact that the district is giving them a choice as to a paycut or pink slips, is hardly unique or surprising.

The teachers have a choice to make because right now the district is running deficits for the foreseeable future in the $3 million range.

The school board takes no joy in this. In fact, I have spoken recently to just about every member of the board and the reactions I have gotten borders on heartbreak for having to make these decisions. They did not run for school board to lay off teachers. But that is the choice that they now face.

I don't see many options other than salary reductions or layoffs and I have been over the budget as much as anyone this side of Bruce Colby. But I suspect if you have a counter-proposal the district would be glad to hear it.

"Second, the top four district administrators made an offer to reduce their salaries. This offer is contingent on the Davis Teachers Association's agreement to teacher salary reductions. It is wrong to pressure the teachers with a misleading public gesture. These administrators have recently negotiated with the board a raise for the 2009-10 school year as well as ongoing yearly increases. These increases add up to as much as 15 percent since October 2006."

I agree with the teachers that it was a mistake for there to have been any kind of raise for administrators. I think one of the worst decisions made was the decision to give Bruce Colby a 5% raise in December. It set a bad precedence and it looks bad to the public. Unlike last year, I think we had a pretty good idea as to what coming down the pike.

"Third, when asked about the magnitude of the administrators' raises, Superintendent Hammond expressed that removing these raises 'would not solve the budget problem.' The teacher whose position is erased by these raises certainly will have a budget problem to solve. "

On the other hand, they have offset these raises by cutting back on their own support staff, not through layoffs but through attrition. In essence, each of these individuals are having to go without support staff or performing the work of multiple individuals. Again I understand the point the teachers make, I agree with them to some degree, but they are focusing on literally pennies on the dollar here. There could have been no raises, and we would still be focusing on this plan which would require either layoffs or salary cuts. This is largely a distraction from the main issue.

"Fourth, we oppose the plan to build a $10 million high school stadium while there are schools such as Emerson Junior High which, last year, was under consideration for closure due to dilapidated facilities. Additionally, the long-term effects of the stadium financing on the general fund are not clearly delineated, and a clear payment plan has not been developed."

My understanding is that there are no impact of stadium financing on the general fund. That money comes strictly from facilities money. There was redevelopment money used to finance a portion of this. There was a strong safety issue and liability issue that exists with the stadium in its current conditions. My understanding of the issues with Emerson is that much of the repair and upgrades have to do with being out of date with various codes and can be addressed at a later point. No one believes that there are either safety or liability issues with Emerson.

While I would tend to agree in part that the district has done an exceedingly poor job of explaining this to the public. That it looks bad to be crying poor at the same time you undergo a $10 million renovation of a football field. Nevertheless, much of that public outcry is based on poor understanding of how school financing works and the fact that facilities money and general fund money that would go to instruction are completely separate, money available for facilities upgrades is not available for use in the classroom.

"We believe that salary reductions should be negotiated fairly and honestly, and only after the state budget is approved and allocations to the Davis school district are clear. Additionally, the offer of the top four district administrators should not be contingent on teachers' agreement to salary reductions."

To me this represents a lack of understanding of the collective bargaining process. The district cannot unilaterally impose changes to a contract. The changes to the contract such as reduction of salary must be approved by the Davis Teachers' Association. Therefore to a large degree the ball is in their court on this one.

As DTA President Ingrid Salim said on Thursday, it was her perspective and possibly that of the DTA membership that they would take their chance with 20 layoff notices (by her count, although the district is approving 36.6 FTE position cuts) than taking a salary cut. That is within their right to determine.

The second part of that is that they are demanding the administrators take a cut regardless. That cut is largely symbolic anyway. We are talking about maybe $30,000 or $40,000 in savings against a deficit of over $3 million over the next two years.

I am all for them taking it, but let us not make this out to be bigger than it is.

Unfortunately the district and board are taking a fiscally responsible step of identifying all of the necessary cuts up front and proposing a balanced budget for the three year period.

The really bad news is that this may not be rock bottom. There is increasing belief that the May revised budget from the state will have another deficit in the 11-figure range that will result in more cuts to education funding.

In short, while I sympathize with the position of teachers and all district employees as well as all state employees, I think that there is going to be little choice but to make the tough decision between salary cuts and pay cuts. I also think that the teachers are setting themselves up for deep layoffs in May, deeper than projected right now by not taking a further look at pay cuts.

By all means identify alternative budget cuts. All entities should do that. But if you look at the district budget, you quickly see where the majority of money goes, and it is to teachers.

It is my hope that the teachers work together with the district and board to make this as painless and cooperative a process as possible given the horrible circumstances that we face in this district, in this county, and in this state at this time.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

It is Time To End the Two-Thirds Rule

In theory the requirement in California to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the legislature to vote for a budget sounds like an idea that would promote consensus building and bipartisanship. I wish I could say that was in the intent, but it was more mundane. The intent was to prevent tax increases from being enacted. For many years it has accomplished exactly that; however as time has gone on, it has exacted a higher and higher price. It has prevented the type of wholesale structural changes that we need for reform to take place.

It has led to gridlock, forcing budget after budget to be adopted late. It has led to unnecessary delay, wasted time, and worse yet, in a crisis outright paralysis.

An early February Public Policy Institute of California survey showed that for the first time, a majority of Californians supported altering the two-thirds vote requirement to require a 55% vote. That was before our latest drama with the budget.

For years Democrats have wanted to take it on. Now for the first time they are serious about doing so. The only question is how soon they do it and whether or not there is finally the political will for it to succeed.

At the core, were Republicans who seemingly were willing to plunge California into fiscal crisis rather than vote for a tax increase that their own leadership said they had no choice but to support because it was the only way to balance the budget. At which point, at least in the Senate, they got rid of their leadership and elected a more intractable leader.

It was a process that saw one Senator exact a high price in order to finally secure his, the 27th vote in the Senate, and secure the passage of the budget. The price is a constitutional amendment to have an open primary.

Without the two-thirds vote requirement it is clear that the open primary issue would have never come forward. Speaker Karen Bass at the post-budget vote press conference early Thursday morning expressed regret that it came forward in the manner that it did without the kind of public process she would have preferred.

“I will tell you that none of us felt very comfortable with putting a bill forward like the open primary because it was never heard by a committee, there was no public process, that's not the way we like to do business. But the fact of the matter is that just represents one of the many many many difficult choices that we made over these last few weeks.”

She continued:

“If we didn't have the two-thirds requirement to pass the budget tonight's open primary issue would not have even been a concern. We would have passed a budget a long time ago. But you very well know that we needed one more Republican vote in order to pass this budget. And the requirement for that vote was to pass this bill.”

Indeed both Speaker Bass as well as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg seem ready to lead the effort to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement.

As Pro Tem Steinberg said:

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

Speaker Karen Bass was also ready for the two-thirds requirement to go.

“One of the things I want to be voting on, if not in 09, then 2010, and that's the removal of the 2/3rds vote requirement so that California can be like 47 other states in the union. So the next time when we have a deficit like this we won't go months and months for negotiations.”

The big problem is that two-thirds vote requirement does not produce consensus building, but rather political blackmail, horse trading, quid pro quo, and it often requires the passage of pork in order to secure votes.

To the hold outs get the spoils. Senator Lou Correa is getting an extra $140 million in property tax revenue for Orange County over the next two years and $50 million after that. You see, Orange County happens to have the second lowest per capita property tax revenue in the state. You know who has the lowest? YOLO COUNTY.

However Yolo County is not getting that help, despite a $22 million deficit for 2009-10 in a budget of $66 million. Why is Yolo County not getting that help? Because Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada did not blackmail the Democratic leadership and holdout for pork or other promises.

Senator Correa was not alone. Senator Ashburn, one of three Republican votes got a $10,000 tax credit to people who buy new homes.

And of course it is well known about all the things that Senator Maldonado got in exchange for his vote. There is nothing new about this though.

There is concern that the deal cut with Senator Maldonado to enable the budget to be passed sets a bad precedent. That was downplayed to a large degree. Speaker Bass argued that these types of things always happen, although it is more likely to be a specific project or even policy.

“Every year the budget is debated and frankly at the end of every session there's last minute horse trading. Until we get rid of the two-thirds vote requirement we will be doing the same thing.”

Senator Steinberg:

“I don't like it and it was an unpleasant part of the process, but I'll tell you what the answer is. The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement.”

That movement is already underfoot.

The Courage Campaign has already launched a campaign to end the two-thids vote.

"The rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to pass a budget allowed a small cabal of extremist Republicans led by Senator Abel Maldonado to hold the state hostage to their demands, as they have done year after year. As Rachel Maddow explained on her show, this is part of a pattern of Republican obstruction across America."

They are not alone. Word is the Democrats in the legislature have already hired consultants to spearhead the initiative drive.

The League of California Cities recently put out a publication where the focus was on the two-thirds vote requirements. The side in favor of retaining the two-thirds requirement is represented by Assemblyman Roger Niello. At least give him credit, he was one of the three in the Assembly to vote for the bill.

John Laird, an Assemblymember and former League of California Cities board member writes for the opposing side.

One of the problems hanging over the process is the fact that Republicans who vote for these budgets put themselves in electoral jeopardy:

"After a 2001 budget in which four Assembly Republicans joined all Democrats in approving a budget, for various reasons not one of those Republican legislators returned after the next election. That experience hangs over every budget."

Indeed this time we saw a conservative blogger put Republicans heads on the pike, threats from Rush Limbaugh, and the very real possibility of recall for Assemblyman Anthony Adams.

The Redlands Daily Facts reports:

Sen. Robert Dutton on Friday asked state Assemblyman Anthony Adams to resign as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party after Adams voted in favor of nearly $13 million in temporary tax hikes.

...

"Anthony Adams has called Senate Republicans `recalcitrant' because they won't support a budget proposal that raises taxes on hard-working California families by more than $13 billion," Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said in a prepared statement Friday. "It's clear that Assemblyman Adams doesn't represent the core values of the Republican Party and I am calling on him to immediately resign as chair of the San Bernardino Republican Party."

As the Sacramento Bee reported in the Capitol Alerts, he knows this is probably the end of his political career :

Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his "aye" budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, "this will probably be the end of a political career for me."

...

"I think it's important that people know that my caucus is supportive -- that I'm not making any decision lightly," Adams said on his way into a GOP member's office Wednesday. "I'm also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I'm not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus."

The Bee article continues:

A recall effort against him is already afoot.

The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates' crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.

"I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me," Adams told the radio duo. "But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right."

The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams' decapitated head on a stick on their Web site.

Truth be told, Anthony Adams is much closer to a hero in the budget battle than Abel Maldonado ever was. He never tried to hijack the process or hold the state for ransom. Instead, he did what he believed he needed to do to protect the state of California and exercise his constitutional duties as an elected official. For that he is probably looking at the end of his political career.

This weekend it is reported that at the Republican's state convention that the six Republican lawmakers will face the possibility of censure by their own political party.

Who would want to subject themselves to that? Who will do so in the future the next time a budget fight comes down and the legislators have to grapple with unpleasant choices? This is not done. There is a possibility that the May revise will be bring even worse news.

The movement is already afoot to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement. On February 18k, 2009, a ballot initiative was already circulating with the California Secretary of State's webpage to do exactly that.

In fact there are two of them.

The language of the first:

"STATE BUDGET. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, and spending bills related to the budget, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty five percent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the annual state budget. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0022.)"

The second one would retain the two-thirds vote requirement for raising property taxes but remove it for the budget.

STATE BUDGET. TAXES. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, spending bills related to the budget, and budget-related tax increases, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty-five percent. Retains sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) vote requirement for property tax increases. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown state fiscal impacts from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases related to the budget. In some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and/or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0023.)

As this process shows us quite clearly, we need to change the system for so many ways. First, in an emergency we get a watered down budget that often does not fix the problems.

Second, it leads to delay. Had we passed this back in September of last year, the tax measures could have gone on the November ballot rather than this year's May ballot, and the state could have saved the multimillion dollar cost of a special election. Moreover, the delay cost the state billions of dollars, it costs people jobs, it delayed infrastructure projects that will cost money as well.

Third, it leads to political blackmail. It encouraged holdouts to extort prices for their votes. It gave them perks and rewards for holdout and but the people in districts where the legislators did not hold out often need the help just as badly. The process is inherently unfair.

Fourth, it leads to death threats to politicians, usually Republicans, whose career are now threatened for doing the responsible thing.

And just for good measure, Assemblyman Laird mentions another drawback to the two-thirds process.

"As I write this, the budget is almost two months late. The Democratic legislative committees and the governor have long since proposed balanced budgets with some new taxes, none of which include borrowing.

If by the time you read this, there is borrowing in the budget, it is not what the governor or a majority of the Legislature wanted. It will be the two-thirds requirement that will have leveraged it in so the budget process can conclude. To add insult to injury, often the very interests that leverage borrowing into the budget won’t actually vote for the budget — leaving it to the rest of us to approve a budget that includes things we find distasteful.

It’s said the two-thirds requirement protects fiscal responsibility. I think the opposite is true. We got where we are now with the two-thirds requirement. This is no way to run the government of the eighth largest economy in the world. This needs to be changed. There’s a reason 47 other states do not do this — and that their budgets are adopted on time."

Laird is exactly correct. We do not have fiscal responsibility. We did not pass a responsible budget in September of 2008 and we did not pass one now. We have more borrowing, added pork, we have not fixed the state's structural problems, we have special measures on the ballot, etc. Nothing even resembling fiscal responsibility occurred due to this process.

There is always talk of ending the two-thirds requirement, this time, it appears that there just might be the political will to do it.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

DJUSD Looks at State Budget Impact

DTA Stakes Out Position Against Salary Cuts

For the first time, DJUSD last night began working with real budget numbers rather than rough approximations. The bottom line is that California education took a pretty hard hit and unfortunately, they did not get the kind of full categorical flexibility that they were hoping for. In the coming days and weeks, we will examine some of these numbers more thoroughly.

Right now, we will just offer a brief summary of the district's budget picture and focus on some interesting responses from DTA and the community regarding the issue of the Davis High School Football Field and Track Renovation as well DTA's believed preference to take the 20 RFK's rather than a salary reduction.

But first a brief look at the budget climate at least right now. The state decided not to cut the number of school days. So the 180 day school remains in effect. The school district could have saved $250,000 for each day that was cut from the schedule, but that did not make it to the final budget.

Nor for all effective purposes was flexibility in the text books categorical funding. That would have been a way to save over $800,000 by forgoing updated English and Math text books. But again, that is not to be.

Finally, the speculation is that the state is going to soak up all of the federal stimulus money in order to balance their own budget. There was at one point speculation that DJUSD could get one to two million from that pot, but that is believed to be off the table as well.

There is some categorical flexibility, but that flexibility is off-set by nearly one million in categorical fund reductions. Moreover, there are decreased penalties for going over the 20:1 ratio for class size, but it is not a full flexibility either.

In short, the district is going to have to find a way to reduce its deficit and the most likely to occur either through salary cuts to employees or through pink slips.

STADIUM ISSUE

What is becoming interesting at this point is where the teachers and DTA stand in terms of what the district ought to be doing. Several came up and spoke during public comment expressing displeasure at the district's decision to fund the construction of the new DHS football stadium.

This has become a source of great criticism within the community. Indeed in the Davis Enterprise yesterday appeared two letters criticizing the building of the new stadium.

The most pointed read:

"'Teachers asked to take 2.5% pay cut' along with a higher headline citing the school board's decision to proceed with a $4 million plan to upgrade the football stadium. What a travesty!

Obviously, a stadium is more important than classrooms and teachers and student learning."

Coupled with the criticism during public comment, Superintendent James Hammond responded in perhaps his most heated manner yet attempting to explain once again the funding issue.

What the district needs to understand on this point is that they are not only losing this public relations battle, they are getting killed by it. In terms of the facts, the district is right, the funding sources are different, funds that are available for construction cannot be used for instruction.

Guess what? The public is not going to understand that. They see multimillion dollar upgrades to a football stadium and at the same time the district is contemplating about cutting teacher positions or asking them to take salary cuts, and the public is going to be suspicious of the school district.

The district now puts itself into a bad position. They either have to try to explain this to the public, which will be difficult and perhaps not fruitful. Or they can allow these beliefs to fester. There is no election at this point in time, but people do not forget these kinds of things.

From the teachers standpoint, DTA President Ingrim Salim laid it on the line last night.

"I want to address the stadium question because it is out there. I think what you should all be aware of is that certainly there is different pots of money and many of us can grasp that, but not all of us does. That’s just confusing. It’s going to be really hard to mitigate the effects of the confusion.

The second piece from the DTA standpoint is that while probably from the community standpoint they supported the stadium, certainly within the teaching community, they really wanted to see Emerson renovated. There’s not a way to fix that perception either."

The teacher issue thus is somewhat different. They understand the funding differences, at least in theory, but they believe that the priority should have been Emerson rather than the high school.

The district has a difficult position here because they are correct on two essential points. As mentioned before the funding. And the second problem is that the current situation is untenable. You have a serious safety risk, and that is a liability to the district.

However, the timing of this could not have been worse.

DTA WOULD RATHER TAKE PINK SLIPS THAN A SALARY CUT

Ingrid Salim's follow up comments were just as interesting. As she laid out for the district the likely but not official DTA position on salary cuts. Basically they would rather take the 20 position cuts rather than a reduction of salary.

Here is her lengthy statement from last night:

"Last year we did have reserves and yet we RFK’d 114 people. So people are just suspicious even though I can look at the budget numbers and see what happened as a result of last year and now we’re not being quite so conservative. But last year there was money in reserves that weren’t applied immediate to personnel. So we RFK’d people, we didn’t end up laying off, and we backfilled. We filled back in with DSF money… But we didn’t use those reserves right away. So that might give some understand about why people keep questioning about are there reserves and are suspicious that there might be. I personally don’t question that, I think we’re using them differently than we did before. That’s just the background of where that suspicion comes from.

The last piece of that is that it’s just real hard to correct misinformation that gets out. Whenever people are defensive and afraid for jobs and for money or whatever they certainly spin things. We can do our best job to try to correct misinformation but it’s just a battle. So just to know that. We can civilly disagree but the battle of misinformation will still be there. And perceptions are very hard to fight.

The other dicey piece is that you asked both unions to consider salary cuts and where w are is a combination of all of these perceptions. The reality is that we would have to have all of our membership voting or over half of them… Our union will be doing a survey to see where people are in terms of what they want to do.

But the undercurrent that we’re getting if we’re really talking about 20 jobs, and last year it was 114 and we weren’t talking about a salary cut, that probably the majority of the people say that’s okay. It’s okay to cut 20 jobs. Basically that’s programs that probably need to be tightened anyway if we’re going to have sustainable education with a smaller budget. The bulk of people that we’re hearing and getting information from, and like I said we don’t have a formal hearing to say that for sure, but that’s sort of the sense we’re getting…

We’re certainly going to ask, we’re certainly going to push forward with this concept, and there are people who say no, let’s take a cut for everyone. But that’s kind of what’s out there right now.

The final part is that there are places where we’d say it would be okay to increase class size, for instance at the 9/ 10. I’m not speaking for DTA, I’m just saying things that we might say. The 9/10 English and Math to [a class size of] 24 instead of 22. That’s not a huge impact on class size reduction. That would be preferable to something like considering a salary cut.

We do worry about the logistics of putting into place something like a salary cut or anything like that, because of the exit strategy—when do you change it? What happens to retirees? And all those little tiny things that just seem huge and overwhelming.

We will start that process next Tuesday [petitioning our members]. We’re pretty comfortable about where things are right now in terms of going forward. We’re going to be going over the budget pretty closely ourselves, finetooth combing, trying to find other ways to meet this deficit."

From my standpoint, the position laid out by Ms. Salim makes a good deal of sense from the teacher's standpoint. Salary cuts are problematic for a number of reasons including the difficulty of making ends meet during tough economic times.

Furthermore two other essential points were raise. First, the sheer number, if it is indeed 20, one would think the likelihood of anyone losing their job was pretty small. For one thing you have attrition through retirements and through people moving.

Second, she makes the point, a point that was made on this blog at times, that if we want to have a sustainable education on a smaller budget, and a smaller budget is the reality right now, then tightening up the programs is probably a way to do it.

The part that somewhat surprised me is that the teachers support a slight increase of class size at the 9/ 10 level, a level given full flexibility by the state, from 22 to 24. She argued that was not a huge impact on class size reduction but was preferable to taking a salary cut.

The bottom line here is that a salary cut would have to be negotiated with the DTA through the collective bargaining process. This was a strong and public signal that DTA is not there right now.

The school district has an ongoing perception problem in dealing with the DHS stadium repair. They had better get on top of that issue or it could backfire on them in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Is this When the Planes Start Landing on the Lawn?

It is ironic that Sacramento chose yesterday to honor Captain Chesley Sullenberger who heroically managed to land his imperiled aircraft into the Hudson River and averted disaster by saving his crew. It is ironic because the plane analogy is a metaphor for what is happening right now in Sacramento. In this case the state is out of fuel and needs emergency money in order to land and avert a crisis.

As Senator Cox spoke yesterday on the floor of the Senate, he made reference to a number of metaphors including a correction of Senator Calderon’s botched reference to “Chicken Little.” Senator Cox spoke about the straw that broke the camel’s back, implying that the state taxpayers could no longer bear the load of the tax burden (a tax burden that by most measures ranks somewhere in the middle of the country).

Yesterday was a day of rumors. A day where it was rumored that there was a deal in place and that Senator Cox was ready to flip. It was for that reason that all ears were on the oldest member of the Senate as he rose to speak yesterday afternoon. Instead, those listening, left more confused than they began.

The big news happened in the middle of the night, when the Senate, long rumored unhappy with Senator Cogdill who had cut this deal, finally dumped him and replaced him with the more strident Senator Dennis Holligsworth—a strong opponent of the budget deal that Cogdill negotiated for his caucus.

This is progress? Perhaps only in the sense that Cogdill was incapable of delivering the two other votes besides himself needed to end the stalemate. Where this leaves any deal is now gravely in doubt.

The situation only gets worse from here as Speaker Bass told reporters during her media availability.

“If we don’t pass the budget you know that the situation will get so much worse.”

She went on to lay out the consequences—20,000 layoffs by Governor Schwarzenegger for starters as soon as today. The next step is to stop the remaining infrastructure projects, a process that will lead to the loss of 90,000 jobs and a tremendous ripple effect.

“This is just one more reminder that just one more Republican Senator needs to do the right thing and vote for the bipartisan compromise.”

That appears no closer to happening than it did yesterday.

There are many that suggest that what is actually needed is for some of these dire consequences to occur. There is an air of disbelief. In a sense Senator Cox’s metaphor of “Chicken Little” is apt. There is a sense that some of the voters, residents, citizens of California believe that these things are never going to come to pass. That we will not shut down jobs, close down state agencies, and cease bridge construction mid-span.

They do not believe that the state will run out of cash. They do not believe that tens of thousands will be laid off. They do not believe that the state will default on loans. They do not believe that money for schools and prisons will cease. They do not believe.

The question that is unclear is whether the Republicans do not believe that the sky is falling, or if they know all too well and they do not care.

They should take heed. The lessons of history abound. The year was 1995, the Republicans had just taken over Congress. They believed they had a mandate to shrink the size of government, to end government as we knew. These revolutionaries stormed the barricades and believed they could do whatever they wanted.

They went toe-to-toe with President Clinton, they shut down the government, and they lost. They overreached. Their movement has died.

The people did not like big government, but they did not want their government shut down and its leaders bickering over who was to blame. They blamed the Republicans for this shutdown, their ideological fervor got the better of it. The people simply wanted a better government, not an ideological crusade.

The Republicans are making the same mistake again. No one wants more taxes. But few want to see California's government to cease to function.

In a way these are the last vestiges of this movement. The people of California do want their government to live within its means. But they also do not want vital services stopped and government to cease to function.

We are not talking about just a little bit of less government. Anyone who read Skelton the other day has to recognize how deep you have to cut to get to $42 billion. It’s not just a little snip here and there. You do not use a scalpel to perform this operation. You use a sledgehammer. A sledgehammer to put it mildly is a blunt instrument. Cut off $10 billion to education. Cut off billions to roads and bridges. Cut off billions to law enforcement. Cut tens of thousands of jobs to state workers who do things such as enforce the law, keep the inmates in prisons, hand out unemployment checks, process forms at the DMV, and the other vital functions that government performs on an everyday basis. Guess what—killing all of that, does not solve the problem.

The Republicans created their own budget in December using only spending cuts, they barely got halfway there and the cuts were deep and devastating.

Our plane is out of fuel. The passengers on that plane only has a small sense of what is to come. Unfortunately unlike the heroic Sullenberger, the pilots of this state, are arguing and bickering. Some of them appear to actually want the plane to crash. Only then will people realize the danger.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Maldonado Holds California Hostage to his Flights of Fancy

About the last person I expected to be talking about on the Vanguard was Senator Abel Maldonado. Maldonado represents among other places my former hometown of San Luis Obispo. I remember him as the Mayor of Santa Maria, the moderate Republican who defeated the right wing racist Mayor of that town. He rose to prominence as a moderate, often casting the decisive vote on budgets.

He's about the last person I expected to be holding up the budget, but here he is doing just that. And it appears to be all personal from where I sit. It has nothing to do with policy. Nothing to do with what's good for this state. It is all about what's good for Abel.

I watched yesterday, while outside of his office, as he laid out his asking price in order to release California from its hostage crisis.

He listed off four things--and they were are all about him. You see in 2006 he wanted to run for Controller of the State of California, but he was not supported by the Governor. And he was unable to win in the primary. Now he wants to run again. This time, he wants to create a primary system where a moderate Republican can win; therefore, he wants an open primary system which would allow the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, to run in the general election. This of course would have to be approved by the voters and presumably placed on the May special election ballot with a number of other items that would be passed in this budget.

Next, he wants to pass a law that would prevent legislators from being paid if there is no budget on time. He also wants to ban pay raises for legislators and per diem increases during years of budget deficit. Finally, he wants to remove pork spending from the budget package, most notably, his little feud with the Controller where he wants to block the Controller's office from $1 million to complete its office upgrade to make it ADA (Americans with Disabilities) compliant for access to those with disabilities and and make it compliant for workplace safety rules. The upgrades were approved and money set aside before CA was in a fiscal turmoil.

The four demands have little chance of receiving two-thirds support in the Legislature, so the Senator would accept perhaps one or two. "I think government reform is a priority. It could be one, it could be two, at the end of the day, I want government to be reformed."

Senator Steinberg said it was not possible to place an open primary election on the May ballot, that is certainly not something you would want to create in a day or two. The middle two might be more reasonable. We will have to see this morning at 10 am to see if the Senate agrees to them.

Meanwhile there is a cost for inaction and it is very high.

The Governor's Finance Director Mike Genest told a Senate Committee yesterday that there would be a huge cost for continuing to delay the budget. It would result in halting the remaining 276 public works projects which are roughly $3.7 billion in expenditure.

Moreover, the cost to stop these projects and then restart these projects would be roughly $400 million according to Will Kempton who is the director of Caltrans.

In December, state finance officials halted financing for 5,600 construction projects across the state. However they agreed last month to continue 276 projects that were either too far along in construction or would cost the state too much to halt and restart later.

These shutdowns would affect around 90,000 jobs across California. In addition, the Governor has threatened to send out layoff notices to 20,000 state workers today. That means that if there is no budget, there will be 100,000 people laid off this week.

Worse yet as Senator Cedillo said on the floor of the Senate last night, there is a ripple effect. On the low end 2.5 times, on the high end 5 times the ripple effect. What does that mean? It means that on the low end you could see 250,000 jobs impacted by this inaction, on the high end, 500,000 jobs impacted.

That does not even get into the issue of the state defaulting on loans. It does not get into what happens for counties that rely on state monies. It does not get into what happens for school districts that rely on state monies.

The response of Republicans like Senator Dennis Hollingsworth is how many jobs would the sales tax increase cost? He suggested 50,000 jobs. His colleagues asked him to site his data. I find it difficult to believe that paying one additional cent on the dollar in sales tax, which means one dollar for every $100 and $10 for every $1,000 is going to have that kind of effect.

The Republicans argue that their constituency doesn't want to pay anymore for the fiscal problems of California. No one does, but it is interesting that Republicans do not want to pay any more taxes, but have no problem if others pay by losing their jobs.

That is what we face right now. Moreover, no one has proposed a budget that is balanced with only spending cuts. Not the Republicans. Their only proposal was $20 billion shy of being balanced and that included $10 billion in cuts to education.

We ran through the math yesterday. If you want to fire all state workers including prison guards, release 160,000 inmates, close down the college system, fire teachers, close down all of the state parks, and stop all public assistance including unemployment insurance, you get close to that $41 billion mark. But is that really what we want to do? Is that the state we want to live in? What would that end up costing CA?

More immediately we face a fiscal crisis because there are not 27 votes for that scenario either. Republicans have to understand that there needs to be compromise. The Democrats believe me do not want this budget, they do not want these cuts, but what's the alternative? It is far worse. I spent most of my day talking to legislators and staffers who are sick about some of these cuts, but what's the alternative? They are doing what they have to do. They have come a long way in compromise to get to this point. The Republicans have on the other hand done almost nothing in compromise, only two have come off the no new taxes stance. None have proposed an alternative.

This is what Abel Maldonado apparently does not mind having happen this week if he doesn't get legislation that would make it easier for him to run for State Controller.

We're out of time, the consequences for inaction start this week and they are severe. If you think the economy is bad now, just wait until there is several billion less pumped into the economy.

---David M. Greenwald

Republicans Hold Budget Process Hostage--Their Math Does Not Add Up

Valentine’s Day came and went, and still there was no budget. On deep into the night it continued, desperately trying to find one more Republican Senator brave enough to end this nightmare, to cast the yes vote, and to save the state of California from fiscal turmoil the likes of which it has not seen before in this lifetime or many others. And yet on Sunday, there were no heroes.

First, the word came that Dave Cox, the Senator from the Sacramento Area could be the third vote. But late on Saturday night or Sunday morning, he said no.

The Sacramento Bee took the highly unusual step of issuing an email alert with an online editorial:

“Call Senator Cox and urge him to be a hero.”

The story read:

“As implausible as it may sound, a single vote by state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, could determine if the Legislature saves California from going over a financial cliff.”

But it was not to be. The next word came that perhaps it could be Sen. Abel Maldonado who had shunned the budget largely over his riff with Controller Chiang on office furniture. The Capitol Weekly suggested on Facebook that he might be convinced over the creation of an open primary. But that too was fleeting.

And so here we are, Monday morning, waiting still for a miracle.

The logic here makes no sense. California needs a budget. Someone has to step up and say yes.

No one likes this budget. It cuts deeply into education and other spending. It raises taxes.

The LA Times on Saturday reported that firms would get over one billion dollars in tax breaks while the average person would pay higher taxes.

“The average Californian's taxes would shoot up five different ways in the state budget blueprint that lawmakers hope to vote on this weekend. But the bipartisan plan for wiping out the state's giant deficit isn't so bad for large corporations, many of which would receive a permanent windfall.”

Bottom line it is a bad budget, but it is one that must be passed. But the Republicans continue to hold out. Despite all indications that they have to raise taxes. It has to be done.

George Skelton in his column this morning, does the math. His conclusion:

“To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you'd have to virtually shut down state government.”

Is that the goal of the Repulbicans? Shut down Sacramento?

“The basics: The state has a projected $41-billion deficit through June 30, 2010. It's almost out of cash. Bills are not getting paid. Tax refunds aren't being mailed. Construction work is stopped. Bonds can't be sold.”

Back in December the Republicans issued forth their one and only plan, it continued zero tax increases and all spending. But guess what, that plan came up with only half of what was needed to balance the budget. Skelton continues:

“The problem for GOP politicians, however, is that 52% of Republicans favor eradicating the red ink "mostly through spending cuts."

But the numbers don't add up. The Legislature's two Republican leaders -- Assemblyman Mike Villines of Clovis and Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto -- came to that realization in December as they dug through the budget books. They also knew that even if it were possible to avoid tax hikes, their GOP colleagues didn't have the stomach for the kinds of slashing that would be needed in school, healthcare and prison programs.

"The only alternative now," Villines said Saturday, "is to literally go insolvent and over the cliff. And many of us believe that is irresponsible and giving up our constitutional responsibilities."”

Skelton lays out the math in dizzying terms. If you layoff all the state workers under the control of the governor, that would only be $24.4 billion. But to do that you would have to dump 160,000 convicted felons onto the streets with the prisons being closed and the guards and warden fired. There would also be no Highway Patrol. No state parks. And as Skelton points out that wouldn’t even give you $24.4 billion because some of the employees are paid from special funds that are self-sustaining.

The legislature could be eliminated for another $400 million over 16 months which is a drop in the bucket.

“What many people don't realize is that around three-fourths of the state's general fund flows out to schools and local governments, much of it because of voter-passed laws.

But there is another place to look for savings: You could cut off all state money to higher education -- the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion.”

He continues.

“Don't like any of the above -- all those firings and slamming college doors on kids?

Instead, you could eliminate virtually all state money for healthcare and social services -- grants for the aged, blind and disabled, assistance for the homebound, medical care for the poor, mental health treatment, welfare. . . . No exceptions.

Of course, you'd then be turning away tons of money from Washington, which shares the costs. And you would be violating some federal laws. But there, it's done. You've avoided a tax increase. What a state!”

The math is there. George Skelton does the math. You have to raise taxes. No one wants to do that. No one. But what choice do we have? Shutdown our government? $41 billion is just a very large number. There are many things in this budget Democrats hate with a fiery passion. This is not a budget they want to pass. They had to compromise with the Governor to get it as far as they did. They have shown themselves willing to work with the legislative Republicans, but beyond the leadership there seems to be zero responsible Republicans in the legislature. How can that be? How can a group that represents 37% of the elected legislature bring this government to its knees?

How is it that Californians have allowed this to happen? Hopefully today, Republican lawmakers after a good night sleep bite the bullet and do the right thing. Otherwise, come Tuesday, things start falling out of the trees and the picture gets more ugly than it already is.

---David M. Greenwald report

Budget Passes the Assembly but Remains One Vote Shy in the Senate

After being up all night, the Republicans had one vote for the key piece of the budget picture, that is by Senate GOP leader Dave Cogdill. Sen. Roy Ashburn has abstained but would cast the deciding vote once there is a third GOP vote. The most likely third vote is Sen. Dave Cox, but he voted no despite being courted all night long by Gov. Schwarzenegger and Senate leader Darrell Steinberg.

So stay turned, they are still meeting at this hour (5 am). Updates will follow passage.

This is the Worst Possible Budget Deal But It Needs to Pass

Given the fact that this is the bicycle capital of the world, I risk a lot by saying this, but the priorities of people are a bit off in this country. Originally the state legislature was going to meet at 9 am this morning to vote on the budget agreement.

However there is one problem. Tomorrow in Davis there will be the Amgen Bike Tour. In Sacramento that will be today from 1 pm to 4 pm. There will be 100,000 people in downtown Sacramento today. Not of course to watch the budget vote, but to watch Lance Armstrong.

As a result, the State Legislature will be pushing off their vote on the budget to 5 pm on Valentine's Day Evening. If you're keeping score at home bike racing > Budget > Love and Marriage.

Now that we're clear on our priorities, let us lay out the stakes as if you do not know it. The most immediate stake is that there will be 20,000 state workers laid off their jobs if the budget does not pass. I am certain that some people reading this thinks this is a good thing, I would strongly suggest they put themselves in the shoes of those who make a modest income to begin with and will suddenly not know where their next paycheck is coming from.

That is just the immediate impact. The state is literally out of money. So right now, as we learned from Yolo County's Assistant Administrator Pat Leary on Wednesday, the County is not receiving its normally $5 million in monthly payments from the state in order to carry out its state mandated functions. Those are all of the social service functions the county provides. The county is still performing them, but they are taking the money from an emergency joint fund that is shared money from the cities and other jurisdictions in this county. They have to pay the money back with interest. They will get the money back probably but again, they will lose the interest. This is on top of the $22.5 million deficit the county is facing next fiscal year.

At some point, the state will not only be issuing IOUs to state employees, but to jurisdictions themselves. That means that at some point schools, counties, and municipal governments will have to operate without any state money. That will be an interesting challenge.

The bottom line, and I have spoken to a lot of people about this. There will come a point when the state starts defaulting on its obligations and those entities will basically have to shut down. If that happens, the entire state could come crashing down and then the state's economy will go from on the brink of disaster as it stands now to over the cliff. This is not an exaggeration.

Let's be honest up front--nobody is going to like this deal. No one. It's a bad deal. It's a horrible deal. And it is one that we have to sign because if we do not, things get so much worse. I cannot tell you how many different people have said this same thing in their own words.

On Wednesday, Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill called this deal the best they were going to get.

"My deal, one more time, has always been that I would try my best to get it to a position where I felt it was as good as I could get and I was willing to release my members. That's where I am. So I'm not guaranteeing any votes; it's up to them (his members) to make that decision… But I've negotiated it to the point where I think it doesn't get any better…"

He did say he was turning them loose to allow them to vote if that’s their decision.

In fact, the Senate leader himself would not commit to supporting the package saying:

"We're waiting to see all the language and all of that so I'm not ready to commit who the votes will be at this point."

The question is whether or not they have the votes and one-by-one Republicans announced that they were not voting for it. Until there were just three Republicans who had not announced that they were not voting for it, but they also hadn't announced that they were not voting for it.

This is what Shane Goldmacher from the Sacramento Bee said:

"The field of potential Republican votes for the budget compromise in the Senate -- widely viewed as the most challenging caucus to corral support -- has narrowed so significantly that only three members have yet to throw cold water on the tentative deal.

That happens to be the bare minimum of Republican votes needed to pass the $40 billion-plus budget plan.

Those three are Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill, Sen. Dave Cox of Fair Oaks and Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield."

Here's the Senate Republican Caucus' Morning release:

"What They Are Saying About the Bipartisan Budget Solution...

"...what lawmakers and voters must understand is that the choice is not between this budget and some theoretical better deal; it is between this budget and fiscal meltdown."

-- Los Angeles Times editorial, February 13, 2009

"... there is one overpowering, compelling reason that legislators should approve it: It is the best possible deal that we can imagine out of a dismal reality - economic and political - that has left California government at the brink of insolvency."

-- San Francisco Chronicle editorial, February 13, 2009

"...the tentative budget deal being worked out by the governor and legislative leaders is probably the best we can get. Perhaps the only positive thing about the proposed deal is that its spreads the pain fairly evenly."

-- Fresno Bee editorial, February, 13, 2009

"Given the scope of the state deficit, any budget compromise will contain ugly and unpopular components. But further delays are an even worse option."

-- Modesto Bee editorial, February 13, 2009)

"When Republicans unveiled their budget draft back in December, they put forward their wish list of government changes they wanted as part of any budget agreement. And though details are still coming into focus on the tentative budget deal, it looks as if Republicans made progress in nearly all of the areas they wanted changed."

-- Capitol Weekly article, "Republicans win concessions in budget plan," February 12, 2009)

"While this budget contains a painful mix of cuts and tax increases that nobody loves, the cost of inaction is much, much greater. Every day we wait to pass a budget means further economic devastation, the loss of thousands more jobs, and the shuttering of small businesses up and down the state."

-- Jim Earp, Executive Director of the California Alliance for Jobs, press release, February 12, 2009

"If we don't pass this budget now the pain will only get worse and the budget hole will only get deeper. It took courage for the Governor and our legislative leaders to make these hard decisions but they stepped up to the plate and addressed their responsibilities."

-- Danny Curtin, Director of the California Conference of Carpenters, press release, February 12, 2009"

So do we have the votes? Find out tonight.

What's in the bill?

A mix of spending cuts, tax increases, and borrowing. $15.8 billion in spending cuts, $14.3 billion in tax increases, and borrowing of $10.9 billion some of which will require voter approval.

How bad are the cuts? $5.646 billion from education this year. Another $2.955 billion next year. Higher education will get a 10% cut across the board. In other words, it's really bad. We do not know to what extent this includes budget flexibility. It looks like Class Size Reduction remains however.

The Los Angeles Times declared business the big winner in the budget plan. While we are having to pay more taxes, there is $1 billion in corporate tax breaks.

"About $1 billion in corporate tax breaks -- directed mostly at multi-state and multinational companies -- is tucked into the proposal. Opponents say the breaks will do nothing to create jobs, and the Legislature has rejected such moves repeatedly in the past. But now, to secure enough Republican votes to pass a budget that would raise taxes on everyone else, the Legislature is poised to write them into law with no public hearings at a time when the state treasury is almost out of cash."

Some of this was contingent upon the federal stimulus giving at least some money to California. Some of that borrowing is coming from stimulus money. We will have to see how that plays out.

The bottom line, this is again an awful budget. Horrible things will happen as the result of it. But if it does not pass, it is going to affect everyone's life in profound ways that you cannot imagine.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Lays It All Out for the Teachers and All District Employees

There was a surreal feeling sitting in the partially filled auditorium on the Davis High School Campus. The all-employee meeting was perhaps closer to half employees, but still a robust showing. Superintendent James Hammond, about to lay it on the line for the teachers and other employees, did not recognize the uniqueness of the moment. This wouldn't have happened under his predecessor.

Perhaps it sunk home at the end, after the bad news had been laid forth, all reasonable options had been exhausted, he thanked those in attendance for coming, and they responded by clapping. It is not often news of this sort is delivered and you hear clapping, but that is what happened on this day.

There will be many tough days ahead for the Davis School District. They and the DTA still do not see eye-to-eye on specifics, though they all agree on the basics.

The purpose of this meetings, as Superintendent Hammond put it at the start was to lay out the budget status and assumptions for all to see. Discuss the possibility of salary reductions. And reiterate again that unlike the state, this school district is not going to go outside of the negotiation process.

The meeting was preceded by emailed FAQs to all employees and it will be proceeded by yet another round.

At the end of the day, the district has just one month from this coming Sunday, four weeks really, to come up with their second interim budget.

The struggle as the district has made cleared each time they have gone through this, is that we only have the governor's plan to work off of. Yesterday morning it was announced that there was a budget agreement, and the budget will go forward for a vote. One of the key questions that Superintendent Hammond laid forth was to what degree the district will be afforded flexibility in the area of categorical funds and fund balance reserves. For now they have anticipated the worst-case scenario with no flexibility.

And yet do not hold your breath on the budget agreement. As much as an agreement was announced, there is still a strong possibility that the votes are not there to pass it. Even the Republican's negotiator was noncommittal on the prospect of voting for the bill, even as he said this was the best possible deal.

After a long and apologetic speech about the difficulty of the process and a number of other comments that conveyed his general discomfort with having to deliver such bad news--sincerely delivered, Superintendent Hammond turned the discussion over to Associate Superintendent and CBO Bruce Colby.

They spent the balance of the meeting briefly walking through the budget assumptions and challenges and then addressing questions submitted by card from the employees.

As Bruce Colby explained, the district closed the fiscal year 2008 with a fund balance of around 10 million. Due to ongoing structural deficits, the fact that expenditures exceed revenues, the current fund balance is now down to $8.8 million. This year we have a $2.5 million deficit due to midyear adjustments in the budget by the state. That $2.5 million will come from the fund balance.

The goal of the district remains not to notice any employees.

Right now, our budget challenge is such that we have a $2.5 million deficit for 08-09 (that will be paid for with the fund balance). That grows to $3.3 million for 09-10 and $4.9 million for 10-11.

With the budget flexibility carryover we can we reduce our deficits. The carryover brings up to $0.1 million in surplus for this year, but $2.1 million in deficit for 09-10 and increases the deficit to $4.1 million for 10-11 since we've spent our carryover in the first two years.

If we spend down our reserves as well, we reduce 09-10 to a $1.2 million deficit but increase 10-11 to a $4.5 million deficit.

Staff layoffs or a 2.5% salary rollback will take care of the deficit for 09-10 but we will still have a $3.3 million deficit for 2010-11.

They then threw out these two numbers. A one-day reduction in the work calendar for all employees is $250,000. A one percent rollback in salary for all employees is $500,000.

If all employees take a four percent paycut, the district does not need to lay off one single employee.

Bruce Colby, Superintendent Hammond, and Kevin French then answered a series of written questions.

The first question was why DTA and the Administration were so far apart on how to balance the budget. From the district's perspective part of the governor's plan says that you can go below fund balance. However, his plan does not change ed code and the district believes you have to operate according to ed code. That means you must operate using ongoing revenue or make ongoing cuts. Fund balance reduction is one-time money, not ongoing.

The next question is why aren't all administrators offering to take a five percent pay cut like the "big four." They did not address this directly but suggested that this was a choice. It had to be a mutually agreed upon decision and all have to buy into it or it is not going to make a difference. If only a small number of employees buy into it is, it is just a symbolic offer.

Temporary teachers are hired for a single year. Late in the spring they are notified and let go. Then depending on the fiscal situation, budget, and retirements they could be rehired. Because of how late this process is being pushed this might not occur until very late in the spring if it happens at all.

A question was asked whether the pay cut comes from this year's salary level or next year if one is getting a step and column increase. It was explained that there is a matrix to determine the steps and columns and each cell in that matrix would have a 2.5% decrease. So it would be based on next year's rate.

Next question was whether the salary reductions would be one-time or ongoing. Answer is that they will be ongoing until the district has the ability to restore them.

Next question asked about the impact of salary decreases on retirement. The answer is that while it would be different based on which retirement system the employee is on, they are trying hard to not let it impact retirement.

Then next question asked about self-qualification. A qualified budget is when one does not have the ability to balance the budget over three years. You can qualify in two ways. First you can say it is balance and the County Office of Education can qualify it. Second, if the district know it cannot balance the budget for the third year, they still have to put a budget together, it would kick in another reporting period requirement, and the county could bring in a fiscal advisor. Regardless the district would still have to have a plan and make salary reductions.

There were concerns about cuts in positions to the classified employee bargaining unit. At this time there are no plans to fill positions at this time given the budget. That means that existing employees have multiple responsibilities and job titles.

There was a question about changes in class size reduction requirements. If the district were to change the K-3, and the 9th and 10th single subject class size reduction requirements from the current 20 to 1 and decrease it to 22 to 1, that would be the equivalent of 14 full time positions or FTE.

There was a question as to the salary reduction DTA would have to take in order for there to be no layoffs. As mentioned earlier, the number is 4 percent.

There was a question about the DHS Stadium. The funding for the stadium does not come from general fund money. So it has absolutely no impact on the status of the budget or employee salaries. The district cannot transfer that money to pay for employee salaries. The district considers this a very serious problem and believe that the liability from an injury is strong enough that it could have to pay a settlement from the general fund in the millions.

As such, the district is set to receive county redevelopment money as a starting lone and then looking into a debt instrument for the remaining money. That debt instrument cannot be used for general fund purposes. Just like Grande and the Nugget Fields, the money from these purposes can only be used for facilities not general fund.

Finally they clarified that the four percent reduction would mean no notices and also no class size reduction modifications.

At this time of course, DTA is arguing that the district does not need to make these kinds of cuts and is arguing for a self-qualification. However, at the end of the meeting, the response was appreciative.

The other thing I think that needs to be mentioned is the anguish that the administration and school board are going through with regards to these cuts. No one wants to make these cuts. But they believe that cutting salary will prevent layoffs and given the economic times, losing one's job could be disastrous.

Unfortunately DTA does not appear poised to agree to these cuts prior to March 15 when the second interim budget report is due and therefore, you will likely see a repeat of last year with a number of teachers notified with pink slips. It is unfortunate and it could be avoided.

The district has been clear that if flexibility enables it, the salary cuts would be the first thing off the table. Also I reiterate, do not count on the budget being passed tomorrow. Right now the votes aren't there for it, and even if it does pass, the numbers are bleak.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Administration Opposes Self-Qualifying Option for Budget

Yesterday, the Vanguard published excerpts from the Vanguard Radio interview with DTA President Cathy Haskell and incoming President Ingrid Salim. One of the recommendations the teachers made during this interview, was support for self-qualifying.

Ingrid Salim:

"one of the ways that we would advocate that we would make the budget balanced now is what is called a self-qualification. On paper we acknowledge that that third year out we don’t make ends meet. We will deal with that over time. If we self-qualify that way and make a couple of other cuts, there are no cuts necessary right now in order to balance the budget right now. We say that we haven’t balanced it, we acknowledge that…"

"We’re looking at something like 70 percent of districts in the state of California who might be doing that. That’s just a reflection of not having a budget now, not having assumptions, and seeing that there’s no way to make it balance in three years unless you cut your staff."

As Cathy Haskell put it, the problem this year is the state's revenue stream to local districts, not our fiscal management.

"Last year we chose to show that we had a positive certification. And to be positive it means you have to show that all three years you will be in a positive cash flow.

This year the trouble isn’t how we’re organized as a school district, it’s the funding from the state. With the Governor’s projection of what the budget for the state will be, I don’t know a district in the state that won’t be in trouble the second year out. Most of them will be trouble next year. We now have some of that cushion of Q and W, but nobody has a cushion for a 16% cut."

Today in the second part of our series, we have the response from the district Chief Budget Officer, Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby, who opposes self-qualification.

Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby's response

It is the responsibility of the DJUSD Board and district administration to ensure a healthy district protecting kids, programs, and teaching. Maintaining fiscal solvency is part of maintaining a healthy district. It is the statutory responsibility of the Board to submit a multi-year projection to the County Office of Education at interim reporting periods. This report is used to assess the fiscal health of the district. If the district is unable to show fiscal solvency over the three year reporting period, the County Office of Education is required by law to put together a fiscal intervention plan to get the district back on a healthy fiscal track. A district can voluntarily go into this intervention status or it can be assessed by the County Office of Education.

This obviously becomes a challenge during tough economic times when the State funding levels are being reduced. In order to maintain our fiscal solvency, the district must develop and approve actions to reduce expenditures if needed to close our budget gap created by the State budget. Our district is responding to this challenge and our Board and Administration are developing plans to maintain a "positive" status, thus showing ability to maintain fiscal solvency without outside intervention. This is being fiscally responsible.

Unfortunately, the budget assumptions by the State are not clear and the district must review and discuss multiple scenarios based upon different levels of assumptions. The impacts of these scenarios have been discussed including the use of operating savings, "categorical flexibility", staff reductions and employee salary reductions. In the end, balancing the budget will most likely require the use of all these options.

The DTA leadership has opined on their preference, which is to maintain current staffing levels, spend down cash reserves and "self-qualify". The Board and the Administration does not believe this is in the best interest to the long term health of the district. It does nothing to solve our fiscal challenges and puts the district at greater risk in the future. DTA leadership is only looking at the problem from a high level. Fiscal solvency means adequate cash to pay the bills. Due to the drop in State funding, use of district reserves, and slowdown of State apportionments, cash levels for the district will be much lower than in the past, requiring higher levels of short term borrowing (TRANS). This borrowing will be a at risk if the district does not respond with a realistic reduction plan. The financial markets are very much aware of the State budget and the impact on school districts. The debt rating agencies will be asking very detailed questions regarding our financials. If we have no answers, we risk getting a loan. Without a loan, we are out of cash. The district can not take this risk.

The Board and Administration are in agreement with DTA in developing solutions to maintain staff in these challenging times. The district is trying to use staff attrition when possible to develop savings, reduce operating expenses and use "categorical flexibility". This however is not enough to close the gap, and the Board is asking all employees to agree to a possible 2.5% salary reduction to save staff cuts. In order to save staff cuts prior to the March 15th notice period, employee associations must agree to a salary reduction by the end of this month.

These options will be discussed an all employee meeting schedule for this week. I have attached a report from School Services of California that describes the process for fiscal status and interventions.

{Click on the top right to enlarge and read the full document}

SSC Fiscal Report Budget Reports

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Research davis school distric selfqualification

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Davis Teachers Respond To DJUSD Budget Crisis

The Davis School District is facing a multiyear, multimillion dollar shortfall due to the state's economic and budget crisis. Complicating the already problematic nature of the state's economy is the political impasse that has gripped the state's budget process. That has meant not only are local districts facing budget cuts, they are dealing with large unknowns. The word leaking out of Sacramento is that the big five have reached a tentative agreement that could be announced today. Many are expected the results of that to be devastating to local governments and schools.

As a result of the uncertainty, the district is planning for the worst--budget cuts with zero flexibility. That means pink slips and pay cuts are on the table. Right now the proposal is for a 2.5% cut for teacher salaries.

On Wednesday of last week, the Vanguard interviewed DTA President Cathy Haskell and incoming DTA President Ingrid Salim. You can catch the entire interview here.

This is the first of a two part series. Tomorrow, we will have the district's response from Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby.

From the teacher's perspective one of the biggest concerns is to avoid a repeat of last year when there were 114 pink slip notices sent out to teachers.

Ingrid Salim:

"You may recall that despite all of the pink slips that did go out, those are the RIF notices or reduction in work force, that say that teachers might get laid off. They sent out 114 of them. They rescinded I think all of them. They ended up hiring teachers this year because some of them had already found other jobs. So we knew that they were taking a very conservative path last year."

The teachers hope that we learned something from last year however.

"We think they had learned something about the impact that had had on morale in this district this year, and at least these expectations now, even in the worst case scenario... the expectations are that RIF notices will be much much smaller. Superintendent Hammond was mentioning [Wednesday] twenty-something perhaps and that's anticipated to even go down or be rescinded after the March 15 date when they have to get out."

One of the questions that arises is if the district has and is using carryover or reserve money this year to plug some of the gaps, why didn't they use that money last year.

Igrid Salim likened it to a leaky roof situation and whether you use your savings account to fix the leaky roof or you hold onto in case there is a worse problem down the line.

"You have a savings account, do you fix the leaky roof now or do you keep the savings account because something worse might happen later and just live with the leaky roof? That's not a fair analogy here, but in the end it is the board who makes the decisions about how to use the money."

In the end she said, the board felt more comfortable in terms of the overall status of the budget, by sending out pink slip notices to quite a lot of teachers rather than eat into the reserves.

However both teachers felt that this had a hugely detrimental effect on the morale of teachers, the students, the parents, the community and even the board and administration.

"We did learn last year that if you lay people off, even if they’re rehired that it has an enormous price on morale, which in the end has a consequence in the classroom and for education overall. I certainly know that our chief financial officer Bruce Colby and our Superintendent Dr. James Hammond have been incredibly earnest about wanting to not lay off people. They have certainly learned that that was a horrible process to go through."

One of the key questions facing the district is how much flexibility the district will in dealing with the decreased amount of money.

Ingrid Salim:

"Things are going to be dire in terms the budget coming from the state which we don't have yet. We have a couple of proposals, the Democrats have one proposal, the Governor has a different one slightly. Each of them have a lot of different factors which will impact how much money we are not getting from the state, not how much we get, but how much they will take back."

However, regardless of the proposal, we could get something in the way of flexibility.

Cathy Haskell:

"We have looked at flexibility offered in the Governor's proposal and there's some in the Democrats' proposal, but where pretty sure we're going to get some flexibility."

The two biggest areas would be an ability to use more of the carryovers from the previous year than we normally would. That would be a chunk of money according to Ms. Haskell. The other chunk would come from class size reduction money, something that the teacher's would like to avoid even in Davis where that would simply mean going from 20 to 22 students per classroom.

Ingrid Salim explained how the categorical process works.

"Unlike our paycheck that we get every month that we can use however we want, budgets for school districts have little categories that you can only use for specific things, for example, buildings are called facilities money. You can't use those monies to pay teachers."

One item that might be cut would be money for new textbooks.

Ms. Salim explained that while the could use new Math and English textbooks, teachers are a much higher priority:

"We do have books, we could use new ones but we don't *need* them, we need teachers."

One of the big questions, and one of the things that the board and administration are asking teachers to do is to give up salary and possibly instructional days in order to balance the budget.

For both this seems to be the area of last resort, cutting salaries.

Ingrid Salim:

"We’ve talked long and hard about what we’d be willing to do. The short answer is this: there has been a suggestion that we give up a couple of days of salary, and the other union has been asked the same, and the administrators have been told that they will be expected to do that."

Cathy Haskell said that cutting two days from the instructional calendar would be approximately one percent pay cut. So a 2.5% pay cut would be the equivalent to five days of instructional time.

Ms. Haskell:

"There are some very interesting discussions about what does it mean to have one less day of school. Or does it mean that we still have that day of school, we just don’t get paid for it."

Ingrid Salim quickly followed up on that thought:

"So what she’s referring to is a voluntary cut in salary without a reduction in days. That’s another option on the table."

However, the teachers seem opposed to this option.

"We believe that there are measures that we can still take that on paper will of course balance the budget without us having to give up."

However, the district seems to feel otherwise and are now moving ahead with a plan to cut 2.5% from salaries. A plan that may not come to fruition depending on what the budget looks like as it announced today (if it announced today).

"Our reasoning is that it’s not just us giving up salaries, which absolutely we are affected by, but it certainly takes away from the educational process in this district. So if take away two days from instructional time, that’s two days students are not in class. If we take two work days from our time, that’s two days that we’re not preparing. We don’t feel that this serves education and we’re not willing to take the hit when there are other things that can be done."

She continued:

"Unfortunately it would impact real people who already make less than half of what our top administrators make. We don’t really want to point that out all the time, they do a tremendous job. But most of us are parents that have children that live and work in this city. We make the normal salary that teachers make, it’s not off the charts, it’s livable, but it would hurt us, we would feel that particular amount [of cuts]."

However, she said that as a last resort, and there is nothing else that can be done, they would be willing to enter into discussions on this. They simply believe that other options exist at this time.

Ms. Salim continued:

"If we felt we had to do that in order to put the district in a state where it had a balanced budget, I think we’d be willing to talk about that. We really do believe there are ways to begin addressing the budget deficit."

One of the biggest differences that is emerging between the board and the teachers is the issue of self-qualification. The district is required to show a balanced budget for a full three years. Under normal conditions that is a reasonable requirement. But when you do not actually have a budget, it gets tricky to try to budget for the third year.

As Ingrid Salim put it:

"It’s the absurdity of trying to balance the budget three years out without even a current to really work on. We’re talking about assumptions, putting numbers into a spreadsheet, plugging in equations, to figure out numbers for a budget that we don’t even have."

The district is moving toward more draconian cuts right now primarily because it is trying to have a positive assessment for 2010-11. The alternative is to balance the budget for this year and next year, and then address the problems with 2010-11 in the future when there is more certainty.

That is the approach the teachers favor.

Ingrid Salim:

"one of the ways that we would advocate that we would make the budget balanced now is what is called a self-qualification. On paper we acknowledge that that third year out we don’t make ends meet. We will deal with that over time. If we self-qualify that way and make a couple of other cuts, there are no cuts necessary right now in order to balance the budget right now. We say that we haven’t balanced it, we acknowledge that…"

She continued:

"We don’t want to cut salaries; we don’t to want to cut people. Let’s allow ourselves to be self-qualified. Let’s allow us to take our reserves down to the legal limit—it’s been hinted that we’d be allowed to drop them further than they are. That’s a little bit nerve wracking because it means you have less in your savings account. We advocate let’s do that first—yes, it’s less conservative, but we believe it’s a better policy to keep people and keep their salaries where they are and allow them to live, than it would be to do anything else."

The teachers feel respected in this process by administration.

"We’re feeling valued from them [the administrators]. We’re not completely sure that the board understands all of that. But then we acknowledge that none of them are fiscal experts. They are all people donating their time mostly to serve in this capacity. We really appreciate the amount of time and energy that they put in trying to wrap their minds around pretty big issues. It’s quite a lot for them to take in in small amounts."

Last year, the district tried like the plague to avoid self-qualifying. The fear was that the county would take over the school district and that would be a horrific outcome, we would lose out autonomy.

"Last year, don’t self-qualify… the county will come in… They heard this over and over. So they took action that was very conservative to prevent that. This year, they’re hearing the sky won’t fall in, it will be okay."

It is difficult to understand why that has changed now. However, according to the teachers, what has changed is the fiscal circumstance of the state.

Cathy Haskell was actually willing to take more of a chance last year rather than face the wrath of 114 layoff notices.

"I think it has to do with your level of risk that you have to take… 30% of the school districts last year ended up doing not a positive certifications. This year with the numbers the way they look it is for me not a surprise to hear that self-qualifying keeps you from doing some things that maybe you don’t want to do. I was actually ready last year to take more risk, but as a collection of people we couldn’t get there. I think we’re in a much different place this year, knowing that it’s not about this year, it’s not about next year, it’s about the second year out. Last year we were actually talking about the current year."

One of the things that has changed is that the process was horrible that no one wants a repeat of that scenario this year.

As Ingrid Salim explained, the entire point of self-qualifications is to prevent districts from mismanaging their money. During an economic crisis when the state is drastically cutting back its funding for local districts, counties are not going to immediately assume that districts are in the red in year three because of fiscal mismanagement. This is particularly true for districts that have a good track record.

"We’re looking at something like 70 percent of districts in the state of California who might be doing that. That’s just a reflection of not having a budget now, not having assumptions, and seeing that there’s no way to make it balance in three years unless you cut your staff."

As Cathy Haskell put it, the problem this year is the state's revenue stream to local districts, not our fiscal management.

"Last year we chose to show that we had a positive certification. And to be positive it means you have to show that all three years you will be in a positive cash flow.

This year the trouble isn’t how we’re organized as a school district, it’s the funding from the state. With the Governor’s projection of what the budget for the state will be, I don’t know a district in the state that won’t be in trouble the second year out. Most of them will be trouble next year. We now have some of that cushion of Q and W, but nobody has a cushion for a 16% cut."

Igrid Salim continued:

"Both from Bruce Colby’s understanding of what this means and the circumstances and the landscape changing, a self-qualification today isn’t going to mean the same thing that it meant a year ago."

Moreover, the hope is that seeing actual numbers will produce less drastic results.

"We want to wait and see how the budgets are going to really come in over the next year, and then we’ll accommodate that. We know that counties now are going to look at that and say okay, they’re thinking about that, they’re on top of it, they’re not losing it, they’re not going to be going bankrupt… So the reigns are a little bit more lax."

Ms. Salim also believes that because so many districts are facing these fiscal problems, that counties will be more reluctant to intervene, having not the resources to do so. In the worst case scenario, the county could hire an accountant to oversee the district's books. But she played down even this possibility.

“We don’t expect that to happen because there will be so many in this situation and because it’s a reasonable situation now. If we were flush with money, it wouldn’t be reasonable to be self-qualifying.”

One thing both agreed upon is that there is no way to cut our budget without deep cuts. The bad news is that we do not have a lot of pork and extra programs that can simply be cut. So any cut that the district makes will be painful.

Tomorrow we will see that the district does not agree with some of these assessments by the teachers, particularly with regards to self-qualification and also cuts to teacher salaries.

---David M. Greenwald reporting