Unions Unite Against Admin Raises as County Warns of Fiscal Distress

Correction: An earlier version attributed comments about proposed administrator raises to Elizabeth Bredall without sufficient evidence. Those remarks are now presented without naming the speakers. Other unsupported speaker attributions have also been removed. We are improving our system to handle cases of multiple speakers rapidly speaking back and forth with each other to improve attribution.

The Pacifica School District's two labor unions criticized proposed administrator raises at a Sept. 9 board meeting that also featured a sobering county fiscal oversight report and an unexpected $902,000 revenue windfall. The board scheduled an additional Sept. 23 meeting to consider the revised budget, fiscal stabilization plan and proposed administrator compensation.

• Both LSEA and CSEA criticize proposed 3% administrator raises as unfair to underpaid classified workers and unsettled teachers

• County fiscal oversight report keeps "going concern" designation in place, demands district translate $4.1M stabilization plan into actual budget cuts

• Surprise shift to basic-aid status adds $902K in one-time property tax revenue, boosting reserves to 6% — but structural deficits persist

• Public commenter demands accountability on $700,000 in first-year stabilization cuts that exist on paper but not in the budget

• Teachers union opens 2026-27 contract negotiations on pay, hours, class size, and calendar

• Board adds Sept. 23 meeting to review revised budget, fiscal plan, and the controversial administrator compensation proposal

Pay Fight: Unions Ask Who Benefits From Recovery

The sharpest moment of the evening came during union communications, when representatives of both the Laguna Salada Education Association and CSEA Chapter 128 took aim at a proposal to give the district's 23 administrators a 3% retroactive raise for 2025-26 and an additional 3% for 2026-27.

Why it matters: The raises would arrive while the district operates under a county going-concern designation, teacher contract negotiations remain open, and classified employee pay sits among the lowest in San Mateo County. Union representatives questioned how the proposal fits the district's spending priorities.

Where things stand: An LSEA representative opened the critique by questioning administrator raises while certificated negotiations and the parcel-tax and Proposition 3 outcomes remained unsettled. The representative urged the board to redirect any available funding to students, arguing services and resources have already been cut.

A CSEA representative followed with a detailed breakdown of the pay gap between administrators and frontline staff. The representative — a 22-year district veteran earning $28.60 per hour — noted that administrator compensation is comparable to other San Mateo County districts while classified pay is not. "Did they bargain for that 3%? Did they sit across the table and fight for it? Did they make the compromises that our bargaining units made?" the representative asked, pointing out that both unions spent months at the table to win the same percentage that administrators would receive without negotiating.

The CSEA representative also framed the raises in concrete terms: the cost of raising 23 administrators equals roughly two of the district's highest-paid 12-month classified positions. Some classified starting salaries fall near minimum wage on the salary schedule. The representative urged the board to direct available funds toward employees at the bottom of the pay scale.

What's next: During the board's closing discussion, a request was made for the past five occasions on which raises were granted and which employee groups received them, the number of people eligible for the proposed administrator raise, and its total cost. A separate follow-up sought clarification on the basis for calculating the proposed percentage. The Sept. 23 session will serve as the public venue where the board takes up the raises alongside the revised budget.

County Oversight: "Better but Not Fixed"

The San Mateo County Office of Education delivered its annual AB 1200 fiscal oversight report, and the message was blunt: the district has made progress, but remains in fiscal distress.

The basics: The county presenter described SMCOE's fiscal oversight responsibilities and reported that the office issued a going-concern letter to Pacifica on Feb. 18, 2026.

Why it matters: The county emphasized the need to implement the fiscal stabilization plan and warned about the consequences of a district running out of cash.

Where things stand: The SMCOE fiscal presenter outlined the triggers for the designation: lower-than-projected ending fund balances, inadequately budgeted special education costs, declining enrollment, and leadership changes. SMCOE responded with progressive intervention including weekly meetings, a FCMAT fiscal risk health assessment that rated the district as high risk, assignment of a fiscal expert, and a requirement for a third interim budget report.

Remaining challenges include declining enrollment, the expiration of Measure D in June 2027 ($1.2 million annually), rising special education costs, reliance on one-time funding, and unsettled labor negotiations.

The county presenter explained that a projected cash shortfall is the trigger for a state takeover. When asked whether the district's improved actuals signaled progress, the presenter hedged: "It's probably a little premature to say we see you as in better position other than to say your administration is working with us."

The other side: Public commenter Tiffany Button pushed harder. She argued the $4.1 million fiscal stabilization plan adopted by the board has not been translated into executable budget line items — a concern SMCOE itself has raised. She called for clear execution steps and actionable budget line items, demanding that the $700,000 in first-year cuts be calculated, verified, and reflected in the revised budget submission.

What's next: The board requested monthly fiscal check-ins with SMCOE. The revised 2026-27 budget will be presented at the Sept. 23 meeting, alongside discussion of the fiscal stabilization plan.

Basic-Aid Windfall Boosts Reserves — for Now

The district's fiscal consultant, Dusty Nevatt, presented the 2025-26 unaudited actuals and delivered the evening's most positive fiscal news: the general fund ended the year with a $5.16 million balance, well above June projections, after the district unexpectedly shifted to basic-aid status.

The basics: A California school district becomes "basic aid" (also called community funded) when local property tax revenue exceeds the state's per-pupil funding formula (LCFF). In Pacifica's case, the district was notified in mid-July that property tax collections had crossed that threshold, generating approximately $902,000 in additional one-time revenue.

Why it matters: The additional revenue helped improve the district's reserve percentage from 3.7% at adopted budget to over 6%. But the shift is treated as one-time revenue, not a recurring boost.

Where things stand: Dusty Nevatt cautioned the board not to mistake improvement for resolution. "The picture is better, but it is not fixed yet, which is what needs to happen with the fiscal stability plan," the presenter said. Multi-year projections improved: the 2026-27 ending balance is now projected at 4.6% (versus under 2% at adopted budget), and the 2027-28 negative projection shrank from −$1.7 million to under −$500,000.

Restricted fund carryovers include $729,000 for expanded learning, $485,000 for Prop 28 arts and music programs, $500,000 in restricted lottery funds for textbooks, and $1.2 million in local grants including the new parcel tax. Salary increases for certificated and classified staff accounted for $1.5 million in expenditures not reflected in June estimates.

Decisions: The board approved the unaudited actuals 4-0 and authorized the superintendent to file with the county office of education.

Teachers Union Opens Contract Talks

An LSEA representative read the union's sunshine proposal into the record under Government Code Section 3547, formally opening 2026-27 contract negotiations. LSEA put four articles on the table: calendar, compensation, duty-day hours, and class size.

Why it matters: The articles signal that staffing levels and total compensation will be central demands — issues that directly intersect with the fiscal stabilization plan's cost-cutting targets. LSEA also expressed hope for continuing interest-based bargaining and asked to be notified if the district intends to change that approach.

No board action was required; this was an informational item.

Teacher Calls for Paraprofessional Investment

Jason Miranda, a third-year teacher at Ortega School and 10-year education veteran, used public comment to make a specific staffing request: targeted paraprofessional hours for two underserved areas.

First, teachers running combination classes — two grade levels in one room — lack the instructional minutes to teach both curricula with fidelity. An eight-hour paraprofessional could support one group during independent practice while the teacher provides direct instruction to the other.

Second, at campuses with Special Day Class programs, meaningful inclusion of students with disabilities requires adult support that current staffing cannot always provide. Miranda asked the district to consider "inclusion paras" at those sites.

"Every teacher wants to teach. Every child wants to and deserves to learn. And giving them the people they need to do both is what I'm asking for tonight," Miranda said. "It's people, not programs."

Board Endorses Prop 3 to Protect School Funding

Superintendent Dr. Bowman presented Resolution 2026-0909B in support of Proposition 3, a statewide ballot measure that would permanently extend California's marginal tax rates on incomes above approximately $360,000. Those rates, in place since 2012 and generating over $120 billion for schools and health care, are set to expire in 2030-31.

The resolution warns that failure of Prop 3 would expose California's 8 million public school and community college students to billions in cuts, including teacher layoffs and larger class sizes. Both LSEA and CSEA voiced support for the measure earlier in the meeting. Approved 4-0.

Minor Items

• Consent agenda approved 4-0 after board minutes were pulled for corrections.

• GANN limit resolution (2026-0909A) adopted 4-0, reflecting an $896,000 increase tied to declining enrollment and the basic-aid revenue shift.

• Ignite Reading MOU with CSEA Chapter 128 approved 4-0. The program, funded by a Give Forward grant, provides $3,000 stipends for one classified employee per elementary site to coordinate daily 15-minute virtual reading tutoring sessions for first graders. No general fund cost.

• Hispanic Heritage Month resolution (2026-0909C) adopted 4-0. Latina students are the district's largest ethnic group.

• Board governance calendar for 2026-27 approved 4-0.

• Board bylaw updates received a first read covering governance, elections, and closed session policies. Will return for approval at a future meeting.

• Instructional policy first reads addressed new state recess requirements (at least 30 minutes for K-6 students on regular days) and athletic competition non-discrimination standards.

• CSEA recognized classified employee Yolanda Pranza for stepping up during peak enrollment season, filling a role previously held by longtime employee Barbara Smith. The union asked leadership to protect the position from being proposed as a budget cut for the fourth time.

• No reportable actions from closed session.

Looking ahead: The added Sept. 23 meeting is scheduled to address the revised budget, fiscal stabilization plan and administrator compensation proposal.