story launched 11 p.m. Monday

story updated 3:30 p.m. Tuesday

Story highlights:

* Administrative law judge says district should not have based layoff criteria on completion of English language learner certificate in nonbinding finding;

* Trustees vote 4-1 to reject opinion, but reinstate teachers without ELL certificate because they had committed to obtain it;

* Group of parents serves four trustees with intent-to-recall notice; would require 20 percent of residents in district to sign on.

The continuing drama over the issuance of layoff notices in the Dry Creek Joint Elementary school district took several twists on Monday, as board members rejected an administrative law judge’s finding against the district and a parent group said it was targeting four trustees for recall because of their handling of the incident.

At a special session held on the Silverado Middle School campus, trustees by a 4-1 vote rejected the nonbinding finding that the district was wrong to issue layoff notices to teachers because they lacked possession of an English language learner certification, known as CLAD.

But in the same motion, the board reinstated the affected non-CLAD teachers because they have “enrolled in and demonstrated their commitment to complete CLAD certification requirements next year,” according to the board’s resolution. Their spots on the chopping block were filled with seven junior teachers.

That didn’t quell parent and teacher uproar, which first erupted after about 20 teachers, some with more than 10 years of experience in the district, were issued the layoff notices because they lacked the certificate. Less experienced teachers who did have CLAD were not laid off. CLAD stands for Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development.

The layoffs came as the district grappled with a $1.3 million budget shortfall. Superintendent Mark Geyer said analysis of attrition and enrollment data has allowed 28 of 35 original layoff notices to be rescinded. Trustee Anne Silberstein, who initially voted in favor of the layoff plan, has said she no longer supports it. She cast the lone dissenting vote Monday.

After Monday’s vote, parent Paul Di Loreto handed trustees Tracy Pittman, Diane Howe, Ryan Darke and Barry Stillman what he said was an intent-to-recall notice, the first step in launching a recall drive.

“We are concerned with the actions the board has taken as it related to the education of our children and the use of our tax dollars,” he said to a packed house before handing trustees the forms.

After the meeting, Di Loreto, a parent of children at Quail Glen Elementary School, said the effort was being spurred by a “large group of parents” at the school, which saw two popular longtime teachers, Jerry Dodge and Scott Olin, affected by the original layoffs. An intent to layoff notice requires ten signatories.

Silberstein was spared the notice, he said, because “she seemed to get it.”

Organizers will need to garner signatures from at least 20 percent of the electorate and submit them to the county elections department, according the Secretary of State’s office. Placer County Elections Department officials said they had yet to see the petition, which must be filed within seven days of being served.

In his opinion, the administrative law judge, Gary A. Geren, found no evidence that the board’s original layoff plan was “arbitrary or capricious.” He also noted teachers’ reasons as to why they failed to obtain CLAD “were less than compelling.”

However, because the district had previously represented to teachers that lack of CLAD might result only in reassignment, it should have been more explicit in notifying them CLAD could prove criterial for job cuts, he wrote.

Board members have said the layoff criteria was in line with state law that mandates students be taught by teachers with the certificate, and that they were given ample opportunity to receive the certification. In their rejection Monday, they cited what they said was legal precedent for the CLAD requirement.

At Monday’s meeting all board members also expressed regret for laying off the seven teachers. Several of them also defended their decision to implement the CLAD-based layoff criteria.

“The board has never said that we don’t think senior teachers are valued and that they don’t think they are valued, we absolutely do think they are valued,” Pittman said. “…The issue is that the state requires us to do certain things.”

But many said the controversy had done long-term harm to the relationship among teachers, parents and administrators.

“It’s tough to go in and give 100 percent when you’re keeping one eye on your kids and one eye on your administrators,” Olin said after the meeting.

Darke called the parents’ sometimes pointed remarks to board members “difficult.”

“We do need to work together to go forward from here and this kind of stuff–” he said,holding up the petition, “I understand this is the democratic process, but I don’t see how that’s bringing us together.”