On April 19th your negotiations team met with the district. We were anxiously awaiting responses from the district on 5 proposals. We received a partial proposal to one article and the district responded that they had no other responses for us. At that point we knew it did not make sense to bargain against ourselves. Therefore, OEA and the district jointly declared impasse. Your Negotiations Team has put together a status report for the Orcutt Educators' Association. As always please let me know if you have any questions and/or concerns.
OEA Outstanding Bargaining Issues
Article I/XVII (Employment Rights of All Bargaining Unit
Members)
Our position:
(Article I – Designation of Parties and Agreement)All
Bargaining Unit Members should have the same rights regarding discipline,
dismissal, lay-off and recall. The Association is willing to negotiate language
that allows the Charter portion of the District to operate in a way that
preserves the unique nature of the program, and yet it cannot accept a system
in which employees doing the same job next door to each other have drastically
different employment rights.
The District position:
(Article XVII[new] – Discipline/Lay-off for Charter
Teachers) Except for teachers who transfer from the regular district schools,
which the District proposed to allow to have full rights in perpetuity, Charter
teachers would have no discipline, dismissal or lay-off rights as found in the
Education Code. The District, by majority vote of the school board, would be
able to discipline or fire any charter teacher in any year for any reason the
school board finds acceptable. Charter teachers, if they are laid off,
should have no guaranteed right to future employment if it becomes available,
unless the individual was a teacher in a non-charter school previously.
Charter teachers, during their first two years of employment, could be
summarily fired “at any time with or without cause.”
Article V (Transfer and Reassignment)
Our position:
“All transfers and reassignments within the Charter School
shall be at the discretion of the Charter School administration.” We would
allow the District to control positions at the Charter school, the only real
difference between our positions is that the Association proposal would have
allowed K-8 Charter teachers to transfer into open K-8 positions in the
non-Charter schools, with the same rights as other K-8 teachers. Once a
seniority date is established, that date would stay with the member in either a
Charter or non-Charter assignment. The Association has agreed to allow the
District to treat the Charter and non-Charter teachers as if they were on two
seniority lists.
The District position:
None of the current transfer and reassignment language would apply
to Charter teachers.
Article VIII (Class Size)
Our position:
Class size should be limited to 29 students, including
Special Education caseloads. If the District goes above 29, the District has
the option to hire more teachers to reduce class size or to compensate those
teachers who have larger class size. Class size in P.E. classes would be
limited to 50. Speech specialists would have their caseloads limited to SELPA
standards. Teachers of combination classes would receive a stipend. Teachers of
inclusion or special education students in a regular class would receive a
stipend. All K-6 teachers (and all teachers at K-8 schools) including special
education teachers and speech therapists would receive a full-day release for
each grading period and the equivalent of an hour a week of preparation time
(as is provided currently for grade 4-6 teachers).
The District position:
If class size reaches 33, the teacher may choose between two
hours a week of assistance or a stipend. They would eliminate the full-day release
per grading period and the hour-a-week equivalent of preparation time for all teachers.
The also proposed, “It is the goal of the Charter High School to maintain class
sizes which will be conducive to attracting students and which are smaller than
other area public high schools.”
Article IX (Working Days and Hours)
Our position:
Continue the practice of allowing Transitional Kindergarten
and Kindergarten teachers to use two of their work days to interview and place
students before the school year begins. Teachers at the 7-12 levels who
substitute during their planning time would be compensated at $30 per hour and they can be trusted to complete the
planning they missed at their discretion. Any extra duties authorized by
the District would be compensated at $45 per hour.
The District position:
The practice of interviewing Transitional Kindergarten and
Kindergarten students before the year begins would not be guaranteed. If it
were authorized by the District, the teachers would be paid at below their
regular rate. (The Association position – which has been in practice for more
than 20 years -- actually costs less than the District position.) Teachers at
the 7-12 levels who substitute during their planning time would be compensated
at $30 per hour and they would be required to remain on campus for an
additional hour after school. Any extra duties would be compensated at $30 per
hour.
Article X (Compensation)
Our position:
Total Unrestricted Fund Balance (Funds 1 and 17) are funds
that the District can use for any purpose. As you can see in the chart below,
according to the District’s annual year-end reporting to the state, the Orcutt
Union School District has ended each year since 2006-07 with more money in the
bank, despite all of the financial troubles experienced here in California.
That figure of $6.19 million was equal to more than 20 percent of the
District’s total spending in 2010-11. It should also be noted that the District
will see its Base Revenue Limit increased by an additional $144 per student
next year due to the addition of Olga Reed Elementary School to the District.
The Association proposed that the District use some of that
savings to provide teachers with a modest compensation increase, justified by
the increased burden they have suffered due to increasing class sizes and the
burdens placed on them by other cuts, and to continue the practice of splitting
increases in the cost of health and welfare benefits. The Association also
proposed language that would tie future increases in pay to increased funding
from the State of California.
The District position:
No increase in salary and a continuation of the split in
health and welfare cost increases only if the Association agreed to a cap on
future health and welfare costs to the District. At the bargaining table on
April 19th, the District’s attorney said the offer was worth
$400,000, which we believe is a gross overstatement. On its website later that
day, that figure had grown to $900,000. We look forward to hearing the
District’s justification of this number.
Early Retirement Incentive:
Our position:
The Association proposed an early retirement incentive like
those used by many nearby districts to reduce their long-term expenses.
The District position:
The District refused to propose any early retirement incentive.
Mahalo,
Monique
714-9861
No comments:
Post a Comment