At an open “Fireside Chat” last night, parents and teachers got details on the timeline and sticking points from two Glendale Unified School District board members. If the union does not return to negotiations, a fact finding panel is scheduled for July 16. That panel has 30 days to present a report, bringing the district to mid-August, and then the district has 10 days to respond, just days before of the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.

Two takeaways:

(1) The district’s working budget changes from meeting to meeting. According to board member Christine Walters, whereas the district budget used to be discussed twice a year, it is now the main topic of discussion at every single meeting, “and they are long discussions.” Falling revenues from the state, and impacts of the ongoing state budget crisis, are to blame.

(2) A survey of Glendale residents showed strong resistance to a parcel tax, with respondents rejecting the idea of underwriting sharply higher benefit costs for district employees, as higher health care costs are impacting everyone.

The board members encouraged attendees to invite other parents and teachers to upcoming “Fireside Chats” with the next one scheduled for June 24, 7 p.m. at the Dad’s Club on Canada Blvd. (between the baseball field and the fire station).

RELATED CONTRACT NEWS: Also announced at yesterday’s Fireside Chat were agreements reached with non-teaching unions and associations whose members are employed by GUSD, saving the district $1.2 million. Details of the agreements are in today’s Glendale News-Press.

Antonovich’s office responds that he has made no proposal, but instead has asked the county CEO to determine whether privatization would result in cost savings for the county while preserving access to care.

The Supervisor requested the analysis over two months ago, and his office is still waiting for information that would guide discussion. “At this point, it is merely a question and a study,” said staff member Tony Bell.

Meanwhile, opponents have produced this video, now on the SIEU local website of clients, doctors, Glendale Mayor Frank Quintero, and LA Council member Paul Krekorian speaking against the idea. They have also organized a community forum scheduled for

Saturday, February 20, 2010
10:00am to 11:30am
United Community Church
401 E. Colorado Street
Glendale

From Patterico:

So it’s “terrorism” to hold elected officials to their word??

She “guesses” it’s about free speech, but it’s “extremely unfair”?

This is the sort of attitude we’re seeing in Sacramento. They want to do what they want to do (raise taxes ad infinitum) — and they’re so very irritated at having to deal with petty annoyances like their signed pledges, and the voters’ wishes.

And from Hot Air Blog:

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society. Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else.

Usually, politicians are smart enough to at least pay lip service to getting feedback from their constituents. Instead, Bass calls them “terrorists” for … what? Calling their representatives and telling them not to raise taxes even higher, in the state with the sixth-highest per capita tax burden in the nation? Expressing their opinions? Telling politicians they won’t get their support if they vote for a tax hike? That’s democracy, not terrorism, although I’m hardly surprised that Bass can’t tell the difference.

LA Now reported on another setback to California representatives: a state court of appeals ruling last week that they can’t appropriate transportation funds to cover budget shortfalls.

Carol Platt Liebau stands up to pitches against Prop 13 and the 2/3 majority rule by batting the arguments out of the park:

Ultimately, any honest assessment of California’s plight must assign responsibility for the state’s fiscal crisis – not to the taxpayers who voted for Prop. 13 three decades ago – but to the politicians who have subsequently exploited them without mercy. Indeed, if spending had simply reflected average population growth plus the average increase in the cost of living since 1991, there would now be a $15 billion surplus. After adjusting for inflation, the state now spends nearly 20% more per capita than it did 18 years ago; even as California’s tax revenues increased by 167% during that period, state spending exploded by 189%.

And Capitol Weekly reports on Governor Schwarznegger’s proposal to reduce budget shortfalls by cutting state employee benefits and pensions – a sore subject for California taxpayers who don’t enjoy nearly the amount of health care coverage or future retiree benefits their taxes support for state workers.

The New York Times wondered how President Obama can avoid national insolvency while increasing health care entitlements, while USA Today wonders whether either party, or Congress as an institution, “is capable of addressing the nation’s dire fiscal circumstances, which will only worsen as Baby Boomers hit retirement age.”

Mother Jones suggests expanding the federal safety net, increasing Social Security payments, and lowering Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 55, while reducing the payroll tax burden. How will we pay for such a dramatic increase in benefits? The article doesn’t address this question, except to state that:

…Social Security and Medicare should be treated as the bonded obligations of the government—like net interest—thus making explicit what is obvious, which is that these programs cannot go “bankrupt” any more than the government itself can.

Another view, by Robert Reich, is that Social Security costs are manageable, while Medicare costs are not.

The LA Times covered Arnold Schwarznegger’s budget disaster-preparedness talks last week, while the Wall Street Journal framed government budgets as a taxpayers vs. public-sector unions fight. The facts and numbers in this last article resonate in California and in Glendale, where activists have deplored the growth in city salaries and city employee union influence:

Today, public-sector unions sit atop lists of organizations that devote the most money to lobbying and campaign contributions.

…in California, unions spent more than $50 million in 2005 to defeat a series of ballot proposals that would have capped growth in the state’s budget. Now the state’s teachers union is putting its clout behind a ballot initiative, to be voted on next week, that would restore more than $9 billion in educational spending cut from the state’s budget.

The results of such efforts are evident in the rich rewards that public-sector employees now enjoy. A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

But the real power of the public sector is showing through in this economic crisis. Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%. For anyone who thinks such low unemployment numbers are good news, remember that the bulging public sector must be paid for with revenues that most governments don’t currently have.