Bargaining/Negotiations with AUSD

 

                                                                                                                                                            Your Bargaining Team

 
Here you can keep track of contract negotiations with the District.  2012 is the next opportunity to improve our ability to serve this District's students, that is, improve salaries and benefits to retain our excellent teachers, councilors, for all of our membership for the next 3+ years.
 
This is a very important time to listen to your members, those great fellow teachers on your Negotiation Team and your Executive Board members who are making as great an effort as possible to keep you informed during this process.
 
Included first is a Bargaining Chronology from 2009 to present (almost.)  It can help you see what is happening and how the process moving along or is stalled.
 
Second, is included the From the Table updates.
 
Finally, (see the file Hyperlinks at the bottom of the page) are the District and association Bargaining Proposals of 03/04/2011 and 03/14/2011.
 

01-20-2013

12-7-2012

11-16-2012

Bargaining Chronology to Accompany YouTube Video

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLDJbRlTFEU&feature=g-upl

 

It all began in 2009 when AEA still thought the District was bargaining in good faith.

·        The MOU: Our 2006-2009 Contact was set to expire which would begin negotiations.  The AUSD began talking with AEA about the District’s need for a parcel tax to keep AUSD from “going under”.  Of course AEA didn’t want AUSD to “go under” so we collaborated to develop a temporary agreement so that we could work together to pass the parcel tax rather than spend energy on bargaining a new contract.  Within a few bargaining sessions, a TEMPORARY agreement was reached (the MOU) with the District using a different lawyer than our in-house general counsel. We outlined things that would happen if the parcel tax passed, and things that would happen if the parcel tax did not pass.  November 30, 2010, was written into the agreement as the date of parcel tax decision.  The November parcel tax failed (Measure E) which “triggered” each party’s ability to reopen three articles of the contract.  However, the District then floated another parcel tax (Measure A) which successfully passed March 8, 2011.  Therefore, if we had followed the intent of the MOU, (to get a parcel tax passed and then bargain in January of 2012) we would not be bargaining at all right now. 

 

2010:

·        April, 2010 The Executive Cabinet for AUSD lengthens their work year to 261 days. Prior to that the cabinet were on either a 221 or a 225 day work year.  The 261 day work year means that they get paid holidays -- it appears they already had vacations time included in previous contracts.  It means that their per diem dropped which meant less of a hit for the 8 furlough days. 

·        August 2010, AUSD begins school with K-3 classes staffed at 25:1 rather than 20:1 because they “have no money” and a calendar that includes 8 furlough days for employees.  (AEA later learns that AUSD ended that 2010-2011 school year with an unrestricted ending balance of $17.5 Million.)

 

The first proposals:

·        January of 2011, the District insisted on beginning negotiations due to the trigger date of November 30 in the MOU.  AUSD opened Article 9 (class size) and Article 10 (transfer), but did not actually present their proposal until April 29, 2011.  When AUSD’s proposal did get presented, it was clear that it only involved take-aways (larger classes and less seniority transfer rights) that they wanted to make PERMANENT contract language and no intent to include any increase to compensation nor reduction to an already overburdening work-load.  In addition, AUSD’s public presentation of their offer at January’s School Board meeting, did not include any mention of class size.  AEA proposed following the original intent of the MOU (change the November 30 date to March 8 to reflect the passage of Measure A) and commence negotiations in January 2012 as we had already agreed.  AUSD asserted that this was “not a real proposal”.

 

Many months of meetings without any real bargaining or talk about the issues: 

·        February 3, 2011, each team discussed the concepts behind theoretical proposals.

·        March 2011 MEASURE A passes.

·        April 2011, AEA and AUSD submit the first proposals as described above

·        June 2, 2011, conversation centered on the District placing extensive bargaining information on their website, breaching confidentiality, trust and the contract.

·        June, 2011 Employees are furloughed to keep AUSD from “going under” even though Measure A has passed.  This saves the District approximately $2.5 Million.

·        June 10, 2011, the District insists on meeting the day after school ended.  The parties do not have a history of meeting in the summer, but AEA was willing to meet as the result could mean an agreement.   During the course of the meeting, it became clear that the District only wanted to meet to present their last best and final offers on Article’s 9 and 10.   The District had the offer already typed and ready to submit.  The offer was identical to its initial proposal on April 29, 2011.

·        AUSD leads AEA to believe that AUSD has legal reason to not be able to respond to AEA’s original proposal of changing the dates in the MOU.  AUSD tells AEA repeatedly that “if AEA puts in a proposal that has to do with only Article 9 and 10” that actual bargaining of issues can begin.  AEA pulls together the new Executive Board and Bargaining Team over the summer to come up with a proposal on Article 9 and 10 in an attempt to get AUSD to negotiate.

·        August 17, 2011, the AEA presented new proposals on Article’s 9 and 10.  The proposals were in response to AUSD’s stated desire to “tell us what teachers want”.  The proposals would make temporary changes for the 11-12 school year.  This proposal included classes smaller than 25:1 for K-3 and for 9th grade (a great benefit to students)  The proposal did not include any teacher compensation request.  AUSD responded that this proposal was “regressive bargaining” and threatened to file an unfair labor practice against the AEA.

·        August, 2011 the School Board decides to give Superintendent Vital a new 4 year contract at an untelevised meeting prior to school starting.

·        September 23, 2011, the Association requested reconsideration of its proposal on Article 9.  The District refused to discuss the proposal.  The parties discussed Article 10 and mutually agreed to withdraw proposals on Article 10.

·        October 11, 2011 it is revealed at the School Board meeting that AUSD has $1.2 Million dollars left over from last year.  This is a fact they have known since July, 2011.

 

Public Employment Relations Board (PERB):

·        October 18, 2011 AUSD files for Impasse against the AEA stating that they have no money to negotiate smaller classes or anything else.

·        October 30, 2011 AEA realizes that AUSD is no longer bargaining in good faith and sends the AUSD budget to CTA for analysis.  AUSD ended the 2009-2010 school year with $14.4 Million as an unrestricted ending balance, and ended the 2010-2011 school year with $17.5 Million as an unrestricted ending balance.  This is in addition to the $1.2 Million that was left over from last year.

·        November 1, 2011 AEA receives a call from PERB.  It is PERB’s feeling that an impasse may exist unless the AEA is willing to give yet another offer to AUSD.  The AEA Executive Board decides to follow PERB’s suggestion of submitting another offer in the hope that we can reach agreement in negotiations.

·        November 7, 2011 AEA made another offer to AUSD.  The offer included agreeing to AUSD’s insistence on extending large class size, and to return Open House to the calendar (since the MOU says it is cancelled) in return for less than what the Superintendent requested, and was granted, in August.  A 3% raise and full health care for all members was presented to again attempt to get the District to commence negotiating with the AEA.  AUSD rejected AEA’s offer and made a slight modification on its initial proposal to include a “reopener” if class size reduction were ever restored by the state.  The “reopener” is unnecessary as the law would require the District to bargain any changes to class size.  The modification of AUSD’s initial proposal is not a “counter” to AEA’s proposal and does not show any movement by the District toward reaching an agreement.  During this bargaining session, the District admitted that the budget documents it had provided to AEA were inaccurate.  The District’s official budget documents show that the District has amassed over $17.5 Million in unrestricted money.  The $17.5 million is 21.08% of the District’s budget when there is only a 3% requirement by the state of $2.5 million.  In addition, the District’s adopted budget fails to include an additional $5 Million from Measure A.  Given recent events and finding of facts, the District’s surprise that that the AEA would propose an increase in compensation for an increase in work load is disingenuous at best.

·        November 17, PERB declares Impasse.

 

Mediation and Fact Finding

 

·        Mediation is confidential.  The teams met December 9th, 2011 and January 30, 2012 but no agreement was reached.  The mediator released the issue to Fact Finding.

o       Fact Finding happens when the mediator no longer feels that mediation is productive.  A three member panel will be selected.  AEA will choose one person, AUSD will choose one person and a “neutral” person will be appointed.  Each side will present the facts as if at trial and the panel will make a non-binding recommendation.  Agreement can be reached via the recommendation, or AUSD can choose to reject the recommendation and impose their last, best offer.  If AUSD chooses to impose, teachers may be forced to go on strike.

o       Although we are still in the Fact Finding stage, we have agreed to return to mediation with a different mediator.  AEA and AUSD met Wednesday March 7 and plan to meet again on Thursday March 15.

o       Another mediation session has been scheduled for March 21.

 

Successor bargaining of a new 3 year agreement

 

·        January 10th 2012, is the date specified in the MOU when the parties would sunshine proposals for the new three year contract.  This is separate from the bargaining and Impasse on the MOU.

·        February 2, 2012, AEA came to bargaining with a proposal on Article 8, teaching hours, which includes calendar.  AUSD refused to read the proposal and insisted on only discussing calendar.

·        February 27th, 2012, AEA again brought the proposal on Article 8 and also a proposal on Article 9.  AUSD did not offer any proposals on Articles of the contract.

From The Table:
October 2012
February 2012

 

    From

The Table              February 27, 2012

 

AEA

Bargaining

Team

 

Connie Turner, Spokesperson

Edison Elementary

 

Stephen Ramos

Lincoln Middle

 

Debby Meyer

Washington Elementary

 

 Lynn Kinsey

Franklin Elementary

 

 Tharon Bunger

AHS

 

Richard Bunker

AHS

 

Becky Flanigan, CTA

 

        We met today with the AUSD negotiating team and introduced the first two of several articles we intend to open during this bargaining session.  We came with proposals, for a second time.  AUSD had no proposal for any article of our contract.  The district team doggedly argued that they wished to talk about the calendar only, just as they had done on the previous session, in spite of the fact that AEA told them that we have a proposal on Article 8 and 9. We informed them again today, as we had during our last meeting, that we are ready to talk about Article 8, which includes the calendar.

        We are ready to settle on a calendar just as the district says they are.  However, we are not scheduled to return to the table until the 19th of March.  It does not seem that the calendar is quite as important as AUSD represents.

        Additionally we opened Article 9 (class size) to discuss changes in the number of students in K -3 classrooms, setting a limit on the number of days that may pass before final attendance roles are set, and compensation at a fair rate for hours worked beyond the determined limits.  We were able to discuss the entire article 9 and answer the questions the district had about our proposal.

 

November 2011
 

 

    From

 The Table              November 7, 2011

 

AEA

Bargaining

Team

Connie Turner, Spokesperson

Edison Elementary

 

Stephen Ramos

Lincoln Middle

 

Patty Osborne

Washington Elementary

 

Richard Bunker

AHS

 

Debby Meyer

Washington Elementary

 

Becky Flanigan, CTA

 

 

 

Thank you for wearing green today in support of your Bargaining Team. They have been supporting you in turn. Today we made an offer to the district and we wanted you to be the first to know. The District has repeatedly claimed that they require a 25:1 class size in grades K through 3. While we disagree, as higher classroom numbers do not benefit students, AEA has proposed to accept this number for the next three years only. At the end of this time period class size numbers will revert to 20:1 for K through 3. We also understand the importance of Open House to our parents so we have agreed to return Open House to the calendar if the District accepts our offer.

 

We have proposed in return a 3% salary increase for all unit members for the year 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. We also proposed that the district provide full health care benefits for all unit members for the same three-year period. Because we are asking for less than the package the Superintendent received in August we feel this is fair and reasonable offer that does no harm to the financial health of the District.

 

 

October 2011
 

 

    From

 The Table              October 12, 2011

 

 

 

While your negotiation team and the district have been bargaining since Spring 2010, we have made little progress. We have now come to a point where they refuse to go forward.  AUSD has made one proposal which demanded take backs from teachers and offered nothing in return.

 

At Tuesdays’ board meeting AUSD revealed they held over $1 million unrestricted funds as carryover from last year. This is in addition to the over $9 million they have in reserve. (A healthy 3% reserve for AUSD is $3 million. The legal requirement is currently 1%.)

 

The board can spend that $1 million any way they want. Teachers, in a generous effort to help the school district during difficult financial times, accepted furlough days. Eight days of work and pay were taken from us last year. This $1 million surplus could go toward compensating us for this loss to our incomes. Member Spencer brought up the possibility of using the $1 million for teacher compensation since the School Board voted in August to increase the Superintendent’s salary by 3%, pay full medical benefits with no cap, and offer up to $15,000 in bonus pay. The other 4 board members voted to add the $1 million to the $1½ million they already have budgeted for textbooks.

 

Do you agree that we need $2.5 million for books and supplies and $0 for teachers? Speak up! Contact your school board members. Inform your neighbors. It’s time to get organized!

 

AUSD Board Members

2200 Central Avenue, Alameda

Ron Mooney – rmooney@alameda.k12.ca.us

Margie Sherratt – msherratt@alameda.k12.ca.us

Mike McMahon – mmcmahon@alameda.k12.ca.us

Trish Herrera Spencer – tspencer@alameda.k12.ca.us

Niel Tam – ntam@alameda.k12.ca.us

 

First AEA Organizing Team meeting (CAT)

October 19th, 3:30

Ruby Bridges Elementary

 

 

Below - District & AEA Bargaining Proposals:

Č
Ċ
ď
Scott Mathieson,
Oct 2, 2011, 1:55 PM
Ċ
ď
Scott Mathieson,
Oct 2, 2011, 1:55 PM
Comments