The Los Angeles teachers’ union just locked in a contract that adds roughly $1.2 billion a year to LAUSD’s bills and expands union bargaining over things like AI and subcontracting, a deal struck while an acting superintendent with a family tie to union leadership held the reins; the arrangement raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, district solvency, and who really pays for these concessions.
United Teachers Los Angeles finalized a wide-ranging agreement this week that delivers double-digit raises, new hires, and enforceable special education ratios, all at a time the district faces steep financial strain. The timing and generosity of the settlement stand out because the acting superintendent who negotiated the deal has a close family connection to top UTLA officials. That relationship was not disclosed publicly before the agreement was announced, and it matters here.
The district had been on the brink, with warnings about potential insolvency within four years driven by deficit spending, collapsing enrollment, and the loss of one-time COVID funds. LAUSD’s board had even warned of possible layoffs affecting thousands, with several hundred expected to be carried out, which makes the rollback of layoff notices included in the deal particularly striking. Yet the new contract rescinds at least 200 layoff notices and adds more than 450 staff positions, all while promising steep pay increases.
What pushed this over the finish line was a rapid shift after the superintendent went on leave amid an FBI probe into a contractor; the board named Andres Chait acting superintendent late in February and the unions set a coordinated strike deadline for mid-April. At the last minute, Chait agreed to terms that far exceed the previous offer and expanded bargaining rights to cover AI and subcontracting—items that were not part of the earlier talks. That expansion effectively hands UTLA stronger leverage over future district decisions.
Key elements of the deal read like this: at least 200 rescinded layoff notices, teachers getting 11.65% base increases with effective raises around 13 to 14%, a restructured salary scale, more than 450 new positions, paid parental leave, enforceable special ed ratios with penalties, and broader bargaining authority over AI and subcontracting. Those wins reshape the employer-union balance at LAUSD and lock in long-term financial commitments without a clear plan to fund them. Meanwhile, district leadership says it will seek state help, though Sacramento faces its own fiscal pressures.
Chait’s pay also jumped substantially when he became acting superintendent, from roughly $278,205 to about $395,967, plus a monthly allowance for a driver, which will look awkward to taxpayers asked to absorb the deal’s costs. This raises the question of whether the people negotiating the contract had the district’s financial health as their first priority or whether political and personal dynamics played a role. For many observers, the outcome looks like a raw exercise in power rather than a responsible fiscal plan.
More concerning is Chait’s family connection: he is married to Laura Orozco Chait, a UTLA member and LAUSD teacher, who is the sister of UTLA Secondary Vice President Alex Orozco, who is married to UTLA Director Victoria Casas. The proximity is intimate and relevant because Orozco played a leading role in bargaining for UTLA. That creates a perception—and arguably a real instance—of negotiating with family across the table at a time when the district is promising billion-dollar commitments.
Insiders say the relationship was widely known internally but not publicly acknowledged when the appointment happened, and the board has not explained why it chose Chait over more senior administrators. When decisions that affect layoffs, raises, and bargaining power are made by someone with close union ties, the public deserves clear answers about why the appointment was made and whether ethics rules were followed. LAUSD’s stated ethics standards emphasize avoiding decisions that directly benefit close relatives, but the board’s communications on this matter have been sparse.
Critics call the deal dangerous for the district’s long-term finances and accuse the unions of leveraging insolvency for massive gains. “When the [unions] gang up on an insolvent district to ‘force’ — using their terminology — agreements of significant pay and benefit increases of a district that has no money to make those deals, that is called extortion. These deals will only further exacerbate LAUSD’s financial problems and do nothing to improve the delivery of education for their declining student base.”
The board’s internal process for selecting an acting superintendent remains opaque; unlike prior interim picks who reported directly to the superintendent, Chait came from lower in the organizational hierarchy. That choice, combined with the family ties and the costly contract terms, leaves taxpayers and parents wondering who benefited most from the deal. With very real budget shortfalls and declining enrollment, handing over expanded bargaining power and big pay increases without a funding plan looks like a risky bet.
LAUSD leaders say they will press the state for assistance, but there is no guarantee Sacramento will provide the necessary funds. In the meantime, the contract obligations are set and the district must find ways to meet them, potentially at the expense of other programs or through new local burdens. For conservatives watching this play out, the story reads as a cautionary example of what happens when union influence and insider relationships steer public institutions away from fiscal discipline.
Add comment