Bassett Unified board approves community workforce agreement after public debate; residents urge parks instead of housing project

The Bassett Unified School Board voted unanimously March 25 to approve a community workforce agreement (CWA) with the Los Angeles and Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council and affiliated craft unions. The vote followed a lengthy public-comment period during which union representatives urged approval for local jobs and several residents urged the board to prioritize parks and green space over development at the district’s Flanner site.

Union speakers described training pipelines and local hiring goals. Luke Romero, a member of the plumbers’ union who said he lives “about three miles” from the district, urged the board to support the agreement because it would create “good and local jobs” and keep tax dollars in the community. Multiple union business representatives and apprenticeship program officials described apprenticeship placement, veteran prioritization and efforts to recruit women and formerly incarcerated residents into the trades. Ironworkers, electricians, pipefitters, sheet‑metal and labor representatives spoke in favor of the agreement.

Several community speakers voiced opposition to a separate proposed development on district-owned property known in public comments as the Flanner (Planner) site. Residents said the community lacks parks and would lose green space, expressed traffic and safety concerns for nearby streets, and asked the board to consider dedicating more of the site to recreational or community uses. One resident asked the board to “reconsider that decision” and argued the Flanner project should allocate more space for community use and include a stage or central gathering area. Several speakers said they believed the labor agreement and the Flanner proposal were linked and urged transparency; board members and the superintendent later clarified the CWA covers district construction projects funded by district bond money and is not directly tied to any private development or Flanner site transaction.

Other commenters raised contract-level concerns about the CWA. One speaker, Sam Brown, noted provisions in the draft agreement that allow rules to be posted at the worksite and amended and urged the board to consider oversight mechanisms and local-hire enforcement before finalizing terms. Brown asked the board to consider tabling the item for a detailed review. Several residents asked for clearer metrics about how the agreement will ensure local residents receive promised work.

Board discussion included statements of union support from board members who identified as pro‑union and said the agreement is intended to prioritize a trained, skilled workforce and local dispatching by union halls. Several board members explicitly stated the agreement is separate from any proposed private development on district land and said the agreement will apply only to district projects funded with district dollars.

Action: The board approved the community workforce agreement on a motion (mover not specified in the record), seconded (not specified), by a roll-call tally recorded as five ayes, zero no votes and zero abstentions; the motion carried.

Clarifying details recorded during public comment included a reference to a local-hire target of 30 percent cited by a commenter and contract clauses noted by a public speaker that allow posted rules to be amended; those points were raised as community concerns and requests for additional oversight and transparency.

Ending: Board members directed staff to continue communication with community stakeholders and to shepherd implementation details for district projects. The board emphasized the CWA applies to district-funded construction and is not the vehicle for private development on surplus district land.