>Date: 5/9/02 3:45 PM 
>From: SDCS Information 
>Dear Employees: 
> 
>As a result of recent announcements related to the district's budget
status, it is clear that there are a number of misconceptions among
employees. As we are committed to clear communication in the organization,
you deserve straight answers to your questions. 
> 
>Teacher Salaries 
> 
>Since July 1998, San Diego City Schools employees have received general
salary increases totaling 16.8 percent, including the 1.36 percent increase
(retroactive to July 2001) scheduled for consideration by the Board of
Education on May 14. These increases are in addition to salary increases
paid to employees for step and/or column salary increases as well as fully
paid medical, dental and vision benefits for our employees and their
families. The average teacher salary for 2000-01 in San Diego City Schools
was $53,152 for 10 months. In addition, using the average salary, a teacher
received $11,365 in benefits, such as medical, dental and vision care and
retirement in 2000-01. 
> 
>In August 2000, the district and the San Diego Education Association
leadership signed a new contractual agreement that requires the district
fold the total income from the revenue limit COLA it is paid by the state
for all employee compensation. Per our agreement with the teachers union --
a formula followed also for our employees on the management salary
schedules, confidentials and peace officers -- the order of priority for
that money is 1) maintain the salary schedule, 2) cover the increased cost
of benefits and 3) pay the remainder as a general salary increase,
including benefits tied to the salary amount. For the coming year
(2002-03), the COLA we expect to receive from the state will be less than
the amount we will have to spend to maintain the salary schedule and to pay
a substantial increase in the cost of medical benefits ($9.3 million, up
from $5.8 million for 2001-02). Under the district's agreement with SDEA,
which was bargained in good faith and approved by ! 
>both sides, there is nothing left after this calculation for a general
salary increase next year. In 2002-03, about half of our teachers are not
yet at the top of the schedule and will receive a salary increase because
the district will still pay annual service advancement and will pay column
increases earned by employees. 
> 
>Last month, we told the Board that the district is moving to close a
better than $31 million budget deficit for 2002-03. This deficit was caused
by a combination of events, including declines in enrollment and the
state's economic situation following the energy crisis and the recession
after Sept. 11. Even if we did not have this deficit, we still would not
have the revenue limit income to pay any general salary increase under the
terms of the 2002-03 contract with the SDEA. Some have suggested the lack
of a raise is related to spending for educational reforms as part of the
Blueprint. Those who say that are either mistaken, or intending to mislead
others. Blueprint spending involves categorical funds from the state and
federal government only, and these funds cannot be used for general salary
increases. Rather than being a drain on salaries, the Blueprint actually
has provided an opportunity for teachers to earn additional money beyond
their contract and for additional teachers to be employed. Since
implementation in 2000, teachers have seen $33.2 million more in their
pockets in 2000-01 and $33.7 million in 2001-02 (through May 8, 2002), as a
result of the reforms, such as pay for professional development, expanded
summer school offerings, extended day programs and creation of the Peer
Coach/Staff Developer positions. The bottom line is that the district is
fulfilling completely its legal commitment to the teachers union and all
other employee groups where agreements exist, as expressed in the contract
signed in 2000. 
> 
>Superintendent's Contract 
> 
>A number of employees have emailed questions about Superintendent Bersin's
contract. Here are the facts. The superintendent joined San Diego City
Schools in 1998 at a base salary of $165,000 a year, an amount less than
the previous superintendent received. In each of the years since then, he
received no salary increase. Given the amount of official travel within the
district that he incurs, the superintendent receives a $10,000 per year car
allowance, which is about the average for superintendents in similar
California districts. His 1998 contract included an incentive compensation
package that involved a potential bonus each year, subject to board
approval. He was eligible for $10,000 in his first year, and received
$8,000; $15,000 in the second year and he received $10,000; $20,000 in the
third year and he received $15,000. This summer, he would have been
eligible for a bonus of up to $25,000. In recognition of the district's
need to tighten the financial belt for t! 
>he coming year, the superintendent volunteered to go first and asked the
board to refrain from considering any bonus for him this year. With regard
to the contract that takes effect July 1, 2002, the superintendent's new
base salary will be $189,500, which is a 14.8 percent increase from the
1998 salary. He will still receive $10,000 a year car allowance. The
contract contains the same potential annual incentive compensation concept.
Next summer, he would be eligible for a bonus of $25,000, if the board
approves. That will range to an eligibility in his fourth year of this new
contract of $40,000. As part of his contract, the superintendent is
eligible for a 2.5 percent pay raise each year, but only if district
employees also receive a raise. 
> 
>In addition, the contract provides for a retirement package that includes
additional performance-based compensation. The contract calls for placing
$11,000 per year in a retirement account, and up to another $30,000 a year
for retirement, if the board is satisfied with his performance. It is
important to note that the superintendent's total compensation for the past
three years is also actually lower than the previous superintendent's for
her last three years. In her final three years as superintendent, Ms.
Pendleton's compensation totaled $823,944. In his first three years, Mr.
Bersin's compensation totaled $558,000. 
> 
>Again, some who are mistaken or intend to mislead would like to bypass the
facts and try to make a case that the superintendent's executive committee
is substantially better compensated than his predecessor's cabinet. Again,
not true. If Superintendent Bertha Pendleton's cabinet were still in place
today, and had received the same general salary increases that all other
district employees received between 1998 and today, that cabinet
collectively would be making $2.3 million in salary and benefits, about
equal to today's Executive Committee. Taking into account the upcoming
retirement of Henry Hurley and the departure of Dr. Luis Villegas (who has
been named superintendent of public education for another district in
California), the present executive committee's collective compensation will
drop to $1.9 million in salary and benefits. This is public information and
open to one and all. Conclusion 
> 
>While it levels the informational playing field, none of this changes the
fact that we all will face together a difficult year. This situation is not
unique to San Diego. The fact is that we are in much better shape
financially than the other large districts in California. Our goal has been
to keep a focus on the educational program, and protect it from harm in
order to continue to serve our students and their needs. Together, we all
have contributed to the progress our students have made over the past four
years. Together, we will keep them moving forward. Thank you for all that
you do in this regard. 
> 
>T.L. Smith 
>Chief of Staff