LNEA’s negotiating team met with the board’s team at 7pm on Wednesday, August 5. LNEA began the meeting with a presentation of a counter-proposal to the board’s last offer. A packet containing the proposal in detail was distributed, and an oral presentation began. Less than 5 minutes in to the oral presentation, Mr. Chapman, who was visibly distracted, called a caucus, and when the board’s team returned, Mr. Chapman announced that LNEA’s proposal did not contain the provisions the board was looking for and that he was unwilling to discuss the matter further. We pointed out that several issues in the packet we had handed to him needed some adjustments as well as some explanation. We asked him to be patient and allow us to finish our presentation, so that we could explain each item as we progressed through the packet. In that presentation, we acknowledged the board’s willingness to grant movement on the salary schedule, but continued to ask for an increase in the health benefit, acknowledged the board’s willingness to increase elementary planning time to 280 minutes per week, and conceded to the board’s request that beginning the 10-11 school year, high school teachers be required to teach 6 classes instead of 5. After our presentation was complete, and after a second caucus called by Mr. Chapman, he announced that they believed we would be unable to come to an agreement and the board would be filing impasse papers. He declared that LNEA was welcome to make a joint filing, but if not, the board would be filing it without our signature.
Linda Schukman stated that LNEA does not agree with him, and that the teacher team strongly feels more talks could be productive. After an LNEA caucus, another counter-proposal was presented that conceded to the financial segment of the board’s proposal. The board currently has an offer on the table that includes lateral and vertical movement on the salary schedule, but includes no other financial increases – no increase on the base pay, no increase in health benefits, no increase in the $1350 embedded remuneration.
LNEA shifted focus to issues still on the table that will exhibit respect for teachers and their time as a finite resource. LNEA is still asking for protection of planning time (language that would exclude PLC time or other organized collaborative efforts), so that the very important job of planning for class, calling parents, grading assignments, etc., is not totally pushed into teachers’ personal time. PLCs of course are very valuable, but LNEA does not believe those meetings should supplant the scant time available to teachers during the day to tend to planning needs. We are also still asking that on the days we teach all day and then must be available for parent conferences that afternoon and evening, a short period of time be provided for teachers to have a quick break to attend to their families’ needs before beginning a long evening of conferences. Further, in the light of LNEA having tentatively agreed to increasing high school teachers’ load by 20% (teaching 6 classes instead of 5 beginning the 10-11 school year), we insist that the increased load be assigned in a fair and equitable manner. This is a measure that is important in curtailing the preferential treatment that has been exhibited in the past.
The two teams are scheduled to meet again Tuesday, August 11, 5 pm at the board office. If you are interested in any of these issues, we highly recommend you attend this meeting to support your team as they determine how to react to the board’s counter-proposal. The meeting will last no longer than 2 hours, as team members have other obligations.
Below are some FAQs. If you have questions concerning the issues currently on the table or about the information below, please e-mail us at lneanews@gmail.com.
School is starting, and we haven’t settled. How is that handled? Our August paycheck is the last payment under the 08-09 negotiated agreement. But our contract, of course, covers more than simply the rate of pay. The continuing contract law dictates that work will continue under the previously negotiated agreement – all articles in that agreement will be in full force, including salary, until another contract is ratified. (Supplemental contracts – coaching and activities – are not subject to the continuing contract law.)
What will LNEA do if talks break down? Your team will do everything professionally possible to avoid a total breakdown. (You have seen your team choose this avenue before – we publicly insisted that we were willing to settle, even though the board refused to engage in meaningful negotiations.) We firmly believe that the best possible solution to negotiations lies in the two teams working collaboratively to reach an agreement. Generally, involvement of outside parties muddies the waters and causes polarization. If all our efforts to resume talks fail, we will reluctantly begin the impasse procedure.
How are supplemental contracts affected if we haven’t settled on terms for a primary contract before schools starts? All supplemental contracts – anything listed on our supplemental pay scale – function ONLY for the period of one school year. Coaches/sponsors are not guaranteed continuing employment for those activities the same way teaching positions are guaranteed. If a teacher has not signed a supplemental contract for the upcoming school year, he/she has no obligation to fulfill those duties. Once a supplemental contract is signed for the current or upcoming school year, it functions just like any other contract – the teacher is required by contract law to fulfill the duties set forth, or surrender the pay for those duties.
What is the impact of high school staff teaching 6 classes instead of 5? Because the negotiated agreement requires a minimum amount of planning time per day, assignment of 6 classes to a teacher requires a seven period day at the high school. Therefore, block scheduling, even in the modified form it is being used in the current school year, will be a thing of the past. This is a much more efficient use of staff, and will allow for further staff cuts at the high school. If staff is not reduced, the total student load could be spread over 6 periods instead of 5 and each class of course would be smaller. In these economic times, however, it is highly unlikely that the board would pass up the opportunity to further reduce staff. Further, the opportunity to assign staff to support and supervision duties would either be eliminated or drastically reduced. In an effort to alleviate opportunities to treat teachers unfairly, LNEA is insisting that if and when this teaching load is increased, that load be equitably and fairly distributed.
What is impasse? Impasse is a declaration that further discussions between the two teams is probably not going to be productive. In the vast majority of cases, the opposing teams file impasse papers jointly. LNEA’s team feels strongly that collaborative efforts to reach an agreement result in a far more positive climate compared to the polarizing effect of impasse. Some school districts continue to try to reach an agreement, while others simply stop all talks and wait for KDHR to assign a mediator. Several negotiators on your team have solid experience with impasse and mediation.
What is mediation? Once impasse has been filed (usually jointly), a request for the services of a mediator is submitted to Kansas Department of Human Resources. There can be a long waiting period before a mediator becomes available. When mediation begins, it is often in marathon form. The opposing teams are positioned in separate rooms, and the mediator acts as a liaison, literally moving between the two rooms, trying to convince each side to make concessions in order to reach an agreement. Several members of your team have experienced this process and we believe that while sometimes it results in an agreement, it always causes polarization. The backlash of those kinds of hard feelings and resentment – from both sides of the table – seeps into the day-to-day operations of the school district, and makes everyone’s jobs much more difficult than necessary. It is important to note that while a joint declaration of impasse is not necessary, it is certainly necessary for both parties to willingly engage in mediation. If one side or the other believes that the intervention of a mediator is not necessary, mediation will not take place. That being said, good-faith bargaining must occur, or a prohibited practice lawsuit could be filed.
What happens after mediation? If mediation is a success, a new negotiated agreement of course, is presented for ratification. If both parties agree to engage in mediation but the process fails, there are two options: The parties can agree to administer the previous negotiated agreement (by continuing contract law) for the school year, or they can move to the fact-finding stage.
What is fact-finding? This is a long process, and is much like a formal hearing in a court of law. Each team prepares evidence supporting their arguments, a hearing officer is assigned, and the cases are presented. After a period of deliberation, the hearing officer rules, but by law those findings are not binding on a school board. It obviously is a political death knell for school boards to refuse to honor these findings, but there have been school boards in Kansas who have exhibited that arrogance.
What happens if a school board ignores the recommendations of the fact-finder? Current statute allows a school board to issue unilateral contracts only after mediation and fact-finding have failed. If a board so chooses, at this point they are free to issue unilateral contracts – that is, a contract that has been drafted without the collaboration of both parties.
What happens if unilateral contracts are issued? If the board chooses to issue a unilateral contract, each teacher who has previously worked for the district has the right to choose which contract he/she would rather work under – the unilaterally designed conditions set forth by the board, or the previous contract that was negotiated by both parties. In other districts where unilateral contracts have been offered, there is almost always a financial “carrot,” but certain other provisions, usually those that protect teachers’ rights, are removed. The teachers’ association, having not agreed to those terms during formal negotiations, of course will recommend that teachers work under the continuing contract law, without benefit of the financial “carrot” so that the rights are preserved. Teachers new to the district for that particular year would have no choice but to sign the unilateral contract, because they aren’t covered by “continuing contract.” This results in administrators being forced to run the district under two sets of rules – hardly a situation that is conducive to focusing on “what’s best for kids,” and hardly healthy public relations. Obviously nearly always this causes irreparable damage to work relations as well as to the community as a whole. It is clearly not a wise choice for school boards if they have any concern about the well-being of the community.