12.00 KPEA Update from Bargaining

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The team met yesterday at the conference room in the 4-D building.

We appreciate the support of the members attending: Lauri Weaver, Lennie Yoter, Katie Carmody, Debbie Harris, Richard and Kellie Kelso and the several others who dropped by during the extended caucus to lend their support.

The food and goodies from Cathy Carrow, Emily Nicholson, Lennie Yoter, and Sue Biggs, was also appreciated. * My apologies if I left anyone out.

Bargaining began at 3:00 pm with the district.

Joe began with giving Sean the “cost” of our proposal. The cost increase in salary of 5% each year with an adjustment for inflation, and the cost of the first year of our health care proposal where the district pays 90% of the total cost per employee and the employee pays 10%. The numbers are not exact as they were based on the average teachers’ salary.

Joe stated, “I don’t want these numbers to come back at me as the teachers are being unreasonable in the press.” We know the process-you come in low, we come in high, and we meet in the middle.

In case you think our proposal is wildly unreasonable; consider this: In 1987/88 the final column, final step would have been equivalent to our current C+90/ M column, step Q. If you took that amount in 1988 and only adjusted it for inflation over the next 24 years, that salary step would today be $91,591.00. That’s ONLY adjusting for inflation without any percentage increase added. Under our current contract 2011/12 step Q is $77,517.00. That’s a $14,074.00 loss on that cell! Our proposal for the C+90/M column, step Q in 2012/13 is $81,393.00, ten thousand less than if the salary had been adjusted for inflation. * See the attached chart adjusted for inflation based on the 1987/88 salary schedule.

This proves teachers’ salaries have not kept pace with inflation. No doubt the district will try to portray our proposal as outrageous. The above information should be helpful in explaining that it truly is not.

Joe then handed the district 7 specific questions all related to health care costs and the current KPBSD audit. This is information the team needs to be able to go forward in an informed manner on issues related to health care costs and the budget. Joe stated it would be great if we could have the answers when we meet again on Wednesday.

We presented the district with counter proposals to 343 Sick Leave Donation and 480 Notification of Non-Retention. With respect to sick leave donation, one of the concerns the district expressed was teachers using all of their leave (including personal) and then having sick leave donated. A provision of a teacher receiving donated leave is that indeed have they exhausted all of their leave. “These teachers” are then asking for leave w/out pay to attend personal events such as basketball games. To eliminate this concern, our counter proposal struck “personal leave” thereby eliminating this concern.

In regards to 480 Notification of Non Retention, we are asking the district to include in letters of non-retention the information regarding an employee’s right to request a hearing of the school board. They have generally done this in the past but not in all cases. They suggested that this was our responsibility. First, I don’t think it is and second, KPEA doesn’t always know in a timely manner who is being non-retained. Our counter was the district would email KPEA a list of non-retention w/in 12 hours. Their counter last night was they would only notify KPEA for those non-retained with cause. The vast majority of non-retentions are not for cause. The state statute allows for non-tenured teacher to be non-retained for virtually any reason at all and allows ALL non-retained, non-tenured teachers the due process right to a school board hearing and not just those non-retained for cause.

The district then gives Joe their counter proposals to Sections 110 and 115 Salary Conditions and Salary Placement as a “package”, 120 Extracurricular Programs, 345 Unpaid Leave of Absence, 505 Information, and 630 Agreement Print up and Dissemination. The district agreed to return to status quo (current language) for Section 425 School Closures.

At 3:15 Terri Tidwell the KPESA spokesperson asks clarifying questions regarding Articles 12 D, 16, 18, 20 G, and 27. Terri gives the district counter proposals to Articles 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, and 23.

The district calls a caucus at 3:30 to review counter proposals and asks to return at 6:45.

After caucus, Sean gives Joe the counter proposal for 480 (mentioned above) and Terri several counters for KPESA to consider.

Joe begins by asking Sean some questions regarding their counter proposals. A lengthy conversation ensues regarding their “package” on 110 and 115. The district’s concern about accepting CEU credits for salary advancement awarded by KPBSD is the teachers would be “double dipping”. If the workshops are held during the day, then a teacher shouldn’t be allowed to use these for salary advancement credit. Or if held on weekends then teachers are usually offered a stipend to attend.

Joe then gave Sean the language from the state website DEED regarding their new requirements for recertification. This is the language/process we are basing our proposal on (it’s a more narrow focus for the state, but would be broader than what we currently accept). Also, it would put the decision in the hands of the state and not solely in the hands of our HR department.

Joe asked if the district had concerns about the new state criteria. Sean’s answer was “we prefer the quality control” of our department.

We have also included Type C and Type M certificates in our language to be able to use CEU credits for salary advancement. The district’s response was the counselors attending the state conference get a grant to attend and again would be “double dipping” if they were to receive salary advancement credits for these CEU’s.

The conversation then centered around a teacher endorsed in multiple areas. Under current language, a teacher is only credited with hours in the area they are immediately assigned to teach.

A lengthy discussion regarding the district proposing to move the date transcripts are received from Nov 1 to Oct 1. Their rationale was in order to prepare for the budgeting process. Joe asked several questions regarding the budget process and the revisions made throughout the year.

Caucus called at 7:25. Back from caucus at 7:40.

The conversation regarding the Oct 1 date is discussed. Joe explains that teachers usually finish coursework in the summer and are then at the mercy of the institutions to post grades in a timely manner. Oct 1^st would be problematic for this reason. Joe also asks what rubric is used by HR to decide which credits do count toward salary advancement.

The discussion now turned to Section 120 Extracurricular Programs

The association is proposing the following language (paragraphs A-G current language)

H. A sponsor of an extracurricular program that has not been notified that they will not be rehired the subsequent year will be notified in writing of any change to a range/or range reassignment in an extracurricular program for the subsequent year that would result in a reduction in the stipend before the last day of school. (Our point is that if sponsors, coaches know their range and salary prior to leaving for summer, they will be better able to make a decision if they want to accept the contract for the next year and will then be able to decide if they want to participate in camps and fund raising events held during the summer).

J. As positions become vacant, certificated teachers within their respective buildings who are qualified shall be given first opportunity to sponsor/coach extracurricular activities. If no certificated teacher within the building is hired as a sponsor/coach, the position will be advertised. (the district proposed this change eliminating one step in the current process teachers w/in the district).

J. The schedule of activities and the corresponding ranges shall be published on the District’s website as an Appendix to the Negotiated Agreement. (The district has agreed to publish this).

Sean states that the end of the year might be problematic to have staff issue these contracts when school is closing out. He also states that the data collecting process currently in place for hours supervising should be useful going forward for decision making.

Some Q & A related to 354, 505, 630 and we TA 425 School Closures.

Caucus is called at 8:12. Back from caucus at 8:20.

Terri states that on Wednesday KPEA will come back with counters on 110, 115, and will look at 480.

The district will be prepared to look at 130, 140, and 210 for KPEA and Articles 2 and 13 for KPESA.

We will caucus on Wednesday from 9:00 to 1:00 and begin at 1:00 in the conference room.

01-30-12 KPEA Bargaining Update