Session #12, December 18th, 2013

We met for the twelfth contract bargaining session on Wednesday evening. We began with a discussion clarifying a district proposal to give elementary teachers in dyads and triads a stipend of $200 in acknowledgment of the extra communication time their larger student load generates. The district clarified that this stipend would be consistent for all teachers part of dyads and triads and that the work it recognizes would not be limited to communication, but could include any professional responsibility.

We then asked why the district was not agreeing to our proposal to add additional teacher-directed communication time for elementary teachers like they propose for secondary teachers. Associate Superintendent Mary Wolverton responded that she calculates that elementary teachers already have a number of hours that are not scheduled during our current conference structure that could be used for other forms of communication.  We are checking her math, but at first glance it does not seem that her assessment of extra time is what our teachers are experiencing.

The district next responded to our proposal to add grandchildren to the list of family members for whose care we can use leaves. They agreed they could extend funeral and bereavement leave to grandchildren but did not agree to other areas like using sick leave to care for an ill grandchild.  They also said they are still considering the issue we brought up regarding the inequity of having parental leave only available to fathers.

The last item was the district response to our request for an economic proposal that does not change our health insurance benefits from what we have now.  The district team spent their time asserting that there is no real difference between the Choice Select plan and the Elect/Essential plan. Because they believe that, they don't see why we would be concerned with freezing the district contribution at current levels as it would cover the full cost of the Essential plan for years to come even if premiums rise. We countered that there is a significant difference between the plans and that the ability to go directly to a specialist, without gatekeeping referrals and losing time (including time out of the classroom) and money in extra appointments and copays, is valuable to our members. We also emphasized that changing from a percentage of coverage to a flat dollar amount is a huge shift as it creates uncertainty in what a teacher will pay in the second year of any contract and would lead to significant erosion in the district's contribution over time.

The district concluded by telling us they have no further authority to increase the value of their offer and are not proposing any changes to their last proposal. They suggested that their authority from the school board is up to 2.5 percent increases each year based on their cast-forward style of accounting, which significantly inflates the actual cost of our package (for instance, steps and lanes only, no increase on the salary schedule, is an over 2 percent increase by their calculations).

The AHEM team took about 20 minutes to caucus and came back stating that we were disappointed in the offer and that we would look it over and respond at a later date.

December 4th Session Cancelled Due to Weather

We have a policy at AHEM that if after school activities in our school district are cancelled, so are ours (if it's not safe enough for students to be on the road, we don't want you out there either).

Because after school activities are cancelled today, both the district and AHEM teams have agreed to cancel tonight's bargaining session.  We are looking at rescheduling and will let you know when we have a date.  If it is not possible for us to reschedule, we do have another session on the calendar for Wednesday, December 18th, 4:45 pm at the ESC.

Stay warm and be safe!

Session #11, Thursday, November 22nd

-->

The meeting began with the district updating their responses to open items.

They responded that in general, they are not interested in adding items that are not mandatory subjects of bargaining. These types of items they are saying no to include:

• Defining planning time, like the time we have on the planning days at the end of each trimester, as time teachers control to do independent work.
• Adding three days per year of planning time
• Capping the number of sections an elementary specialist teaches
• Including class size and caseloads limits in our contract

They responded “no” to the following items as well. They assert that they have an economic impact and would rather put any costs toward pay and benefits:

• Elmininating “sub deduct” days (days next to breaks when teachers need to pay sub costs to be absent)
• Increase the number of personal days by one by changing one sick day into a personal day

There were some items they planned to say no to, but after further explanation from us, plan to take another look at. A common theme in the discussion was that they believed the current approaches to these issues were working well. We described concerns and specifics examples where they aren’t to justify why we want the following changes:

• Adding six days of sub relief or pay for special education teachers to complete due process paperwork
• Eliminating duties for traveling teachers
• Adding grandchildren to be part of the immediate family for whom teachers can use sick leave
• Allowing mothers to take parental leave, in the same way fathers can in our contract

Items on which we are still trading language back and forth:

• Family Communication Time: Instead of our proposal to give elementary teachers working in dyad or triads ay for extra days or substitute relief, they offered to give each of those teachers a flat $200 stipend each trimester for the extra time they put in for parent communication.
• Substitute Leave: They did not agree to our proposal to go to a capped hourly rate to compensate those who sub during their prep time, but may look at changing their hourly amount. In their description we heard that they intend to include the idea of “trade time” (teachers who work out coverage of each other’s classes so they do not have to use personal leave on an hourly basis) from a past memorandum of understanding in the contract. We need to review that and respond.
• Extra Service Agreements and Leadership Pay: We are waiting to hear back on their response to adding Continuing Education Committee representatives and technology coordinators at non K-12 sites. Also, we asked to move Comp Ed building leaders to Level E for pay.
• Leadership Pay / Extra Service Agreements / Appendix B Task Force: The district side said they don’t think they will be opposed to this task force, but were not ready to say yes or offer specific parameters on the task force.

Our response to their latest economic offer was that until we can agree to maintain current health insurance benefits, we don’t see the value of changing our proposal.  The district is proposing freezing current contribution rates. That would effectively end the current practice of 100% single coverage and increasing district contributions to family coverage by the same amount as the increase in single premiums.  Teachers would then pick up all premium increases from here on out.  Protecting our health insurance benefits is one of our members’ top priorities and we cannot agree to going backward.

Our next meeting will be at the Educational Service Center (ESC) on Wednesday, December 4th, at 4:45 pm.

Session #10, November 6th, 2013

The tenth bargaining session opened with a discussion of the Step Ahead Online High School.  The district proposed a $500 stipend to "monitor" a class and AHEM had a number of questions regarding what a "monitor" would do compared to what a teacher does.  Jess Lipa, principal at STEP, described the position as taking between one and one and a half hours per week and involves monitoring and responding to issues with attendance, assignment completion, and understanding the coursework itself.  It seemed that the major difference between a "monitor" (who would be paid $500) and a teacher (who would be paid their regular rate) in the program is the number of students in the class. The district wasn't able to define a tipping point in the number of students that would warrant going to our regular model for paying teachers.  

AHEM updated language proposals next.  We updated our family/parent communication proposal to include provisions for elementary teachers working in diads and triads.  The idea was laid out as follows:

"Elementary teachers who teach in a diad shall be granted their choice of either an additional half-day of conference time with substitute relief or half-day pay for conference time outside the duty day for each set of conference sessions. Elementary teachers who teach in a triad shall be granted their choice of either an additional full-day of conference time with substitute relief or full-day pay for conference time outside the duty day for each set of conference sessions. The scheduling of sub release days shall be mutually agreed upon between the teacher and building administration.

During fall conferences elementary buildings will continue with conferences as decided at the sites. During the second set of conferences teachers will have open times for conferencing and but not be required to set specific conference times with each student’s family, similar to conferences at the secondary level. Teachers may also use this time for phone, email, tele-conference, or other form(s) of communication mutually agreed upon with the parent/guardian."

Next, AHEM updated our substitute leave language proposal to agree to the district's proposal to use 360 minutes as the threshold for earning a day of leave for occasional substituting. We also agreed to the idea that this leave could not be carried over from year to year. We proposed that those seeking to be paid for substituting during their prep time would earn the capped hourly rate, which is an increase over the current amounts.

 
We wrapped up our language proposals by writing out what we believe both sides have proposed as additions and changes to leadership pay, extra services agreements, and coaching positions in Article X and Appendix B of our contract. We have come to a number of tentative agreements here, but did discover a few minor places where we are not yet on the same page.

AHEM asked the district if they have responses on our proposal to drop sub deduct days, give mothers the same parental leave options as fathers, and including grandchildren in leave language.  The district said they would check on their responses to all open items.

We next went to a discussion of economic proposals. AHEM did not bring a new proposal as we asserted that the district's tactic of moving money from one part of the total package to another was not the kind of movement we need to come to a settlement. 

The district then brought forward a new proposal. They said that due to a projected increase in enrollment of about 200 students, they had the authority to increase their proposal by $334,000. 

They now propose changing their offer by changing percentage increases on career steps to 1.25% the first year and 1.55% the second. They did not offer to change their proposal to freeze health insurance contribution rates at the current level or any changes to ABE/ECFE compensation from their last offer.

One surprise was that they also included a 1% increase on the pre-career steps in the contract in the second year that they said was also included in their previous two offers. The district said we were in error for saying increases were only proposed on the career steps. Those at the table on the AHEM side (and the audience members who have attended previous meetings as well) had not heard the 1% increase in the discussion. It is good to hear that the offer is more than we previous thought. However, that doesn't change our basic concern, which the district does not dispute, that those first three offers shifted it from one group of members to another instead of increasing the value of the package.

In response to our action at the last school board meeting where we invited school board members to the table, the district proposed holding a Meet & Confer with school board members where we all could discuss the budget. The AHEM team had concerns that as Meet & Confer does not have the same level of accountability as bargaining, that it may not help us make real progress.
 
We concluded by setting three new dates for bargaining, requesting that they all be held at the ESC in the Ehrling Johnson rooms as the turnout is out-sizing our original meeting places. The district will check on the locations and we chose November 21st, December 4th, and December 18th as the next session dates.

AHEM Negotiations Team Statement to the School Board, 10.28.13

Chair Heidemann, Members of the Board, Superintendent Carlson, and all those who have gathered to observe.

My name is Paul Goupil and I am the lead negotiator for Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, our district’s teachers union.

I am here with an invitation to the next contract bargaining session between our district and our teachers.

As you know, this round we have decided to open school employee contract bargaining in a new way. 

Instead of keeping our work private, we have opened up the process.  Our proposals and agendas are shared publically on our website and we have invited our members and neighbors to attend the meetings in person.

Over the past nine bargaining sessions attendance has increased steadily, to the point that we have needed to move to larger rooms.  Interest is high, and growing.

We are reaching a crucial point in bargaining. Virtually everything is now on the table. We have come to some small agreements on language items. Both sides have made economic offers, and the teachers have made some economic movement.

However, the district side has now made three economic offers, none of which have changed in value. Any increases to one kind of compensation have come with equal decreases in another compensation area.  In total, the district offers have the same effect on teachers as our last settlement of a soft freeze. All of this despite an improvement in district finances.

We don’t want to get bogged down in simply rearranging offers. Bargaining needs to be more than just pushing veggies around the plate to make it look like you’ve eaten your broccoli.

So what’s missing? We have increased transparency, teacher involvement, and communication.

The one thing missing is you. We invite you to attend our sessions. In the past, when we’ve had difficult problems, we’ve solved them by all coming together and working toward a solution.

It’s time for that now.  We hope to see you at our office, 4:45 pm, November 6th. Thank you.

Session #9, October 23rd, 2013

We began our session with a description of the funding structure of Adult Basic Education and Early Childhood Family Education programs from district Community Education Director Steve Kerr.  We asked a number of questions about their intentions regarding putting ABE/ECFE teachers, who are on a significantly lower pay schedule than the rest of our unit, onto the regular salary schedule. Kerr responded that the state funding has not kept pace with increases in costs.  We also asked if the school board had any intention to subsidize these programs like they do other underfunded priorities. They do not seem to be planning to use general fund dollars to bolster these programs, despite the high returns on investment for this kind of education. 

Next, the district team made an “alternate economic offer”. They proposed adding an additional step between Step 11 and Career 1 that would split the increase a member normally gets as they go into the career steps.  The money saved from lengthening the contract this way would be used to fund an increase on the career steps of 1.25% the first year and 1.55% the second (they still propose no salary schedule improvement on the earlier steps).   

The district confirmed that this proposal includes no real improvement over their last offer, it simply rearranges where the money is placed around the schedule. That was the same situation in their last offer, so though this is their third proposal, there is effectively no change from their first offer. You may remember that the first offer only had money added onto the career steps that was taken from a reduction in district contributions to our health care premiums. 

In summary, we have had three economic offers from the district that are effectively the same value as our last settlement, despite an improvement in district finances.

The district team also presented a couple of language items. The first was a response to our communication time idea. They shared a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding regarding six hours of communication time at the secondary level for addition to the contract. One of the AHEM team’s concerns was that those hours were used with varying levels of success. We would like to see any communication time be at the discretion of the teacher so it can be tailored to each educator’s specific assignment. Both sides acknowledged that there needs to be more work on a solution at the elementary level.

The district also introduced an item that would provide exceptions to current seniority rules. They would like to see those with training in International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement, AVID, Reading Recovery, Project Lead the Way, College Concurrent Enrollment, Music Teacher area of specialty focus (winds, strings, choral), and/or other mutually agreed upon programs be able to be retained in the case of layoffs over teachers with more seniority. Though the categories are new, the district has introduced similar language for the past several rounds.

After a short caucus, the AHEM team confirmed that we agreed to the new positions the district proposes adding to the contract in Appendix B.  We decided that we will respond to the economic proposal at our next meeting November 6th, 4:45 pm at the AHEM office.

Session #8, October 2nd, 2013

On Wednesday, October 2nd, we met for our eighth bargaining session this round at the AHEM office.  The AHEM team began by presenting language on class size and caseloads.  Basically, we worked from numbers set in state statute, professional organizations, and our current stated class sizes. Based on that, we proposed codifying specific caseload limits in our contract. For class size, we proposed paying teachers who have class sizes over district stated averages and/or have a total of 150 students all together, an additional 20% of their salary.  The district was seeing the proposal for the first time, so they did not have a response.  The did indicate they were not interested in bargaining items like class size size, caseload, or caps on the number of sections for elementary specialists. Those are each permissible, but not required, subjects of bargaining. We responded that if there were items in that list that the district was not willing to agree to, particularly the state mandated caseload limits, those are areas where we have a problem.

We then discussed open items to check on the status of the district response. You can see a list of each open item below.

Regarding our economic offer, it was our turn to respond. Because we were so far apart on health insurance, we decided to offer to drop our request to increase district contributions to family coverage if they would rescind their decrease in funding single coverage and freeze on future contribution increases. Essentially, we would be at our original goal of protecting current health insurance benefits and keeping current contribution levels and language.  The district team responded with another explanation of their offer, but not a formal response.

We concluded by setting tentative agenda items for the next meeting of district reponses to open items, an explanation of why the school board does not want to add ABE/ECFE teachers to the regular salary schedule, and our response to their substitute leave changes.

The next sessions will be Wednesday, October 23rd,  4:45 – 6:45 pm, at the ESC; and Wednesday, November 6th, 4:45 – 6:45 pm, AHEM Office. Hope to see you there!

Here is the current side by side of open proposals:

Topic	AHEM Proposal	District Proposal
Salary Schedule	·       Step and lane movement both years ·       2.5% increase on all cells both years ·       Place ABE/ECFE teachers on the salary schedule with a 2.5% raise	·       Step and lane movement both years ·       1% increase on career steps the first year, 1.5% increase the second year ·       For ABE/ECFE teachers, first year increase the top step only by 1.5%; second year increase all steps by 1%, except for the top step which would increase by 1.5%
Health Insurance	·       Maintain current health insurance contribution amounts and current language regarding how increases to premiums are handled	·       Freeze current district contribution rates at this year’s amounts. If there are future increases in premiums, members would pick up entire increase
Leadership Pay	·       Create a Leadership Pay Task Force to review ESA/Coaching/Leadership pay systems and make proposals we can use in the next round of bargaining ·       Increase pay for all ESA, Coaching, and Leadership positions by 2.5% ·       Eliminate pay levels E and F, and move all those positions to level D ·       Addition of some new positions	·       Addition of some new positions ·       No increase to ESA, Leadership, or Coaching positions ·       Eliminate Level F and move those positions to Level E, and increase the pay for Level D.
Workload	·       Define Planning Time in the contract as unstructured, continuous time during Work Shop Week and at the end of trimesters ·       Add three planning days ·       Designate ten hours of conference time as Family Communication time to be used at teachers’ discretion ·       Offer six days of work time for special education teachers to complete due process paperwork during the year, with substitutes relief if needed ·       Eliminate all extra duties for traveling teachers ·       Cap the number of elementary specialist sections at 42 half hour blocks (or 21 hour blocks) per week ·       Include caseload caps spelled in state law to our contract (using Minnesota rule 3525.2340. ·       Cap caseloads not defined in state statute at 25 students ·       Cap caseloads for Speech/Language Pathologists and Occupational/Physical Therapists at 40. ·       For those teachers who class sizes exceed 24 students in elementary, 25 students in middle school, 29 students in high school, or 150 students total, include an compensation equal to 20% of their current FTE.	·
Other Language Items	·       Eliminate Sub Deduct Days ·       Increase the number of personal days from three to four ·       Create Substitute Leave where time off can be earned by subbing for colleagues during prep time ·       Include grandchildren as family members for whose care leaves can be used ·       Extend parental leave to mothers ·       Add tech specialists at program sites as we do at elementary schools ·       Add pay for members of the Staff Development Committee at Level C ·       Change the name of the Math Club to the more accurate Math Team.	·       Create a “monitor” position with a stipend of $500 for online classes at the new StepAhead virtual school ·       Responded to our Substitute Leave idea with some modifications ·       Editorial changes regarding buy back language and site names ·       Editorial changes to bring us into compliance with the new marriage equality law ·       Change how we label union correspondence put in members’ boxes and how we use Association Leave.

Side by Side of Current Proposals

Here is an update on where we are in bargaining so far. Below is a summary of what is currently on the table from each side. For more details, you can browse previous posts. Hope to see you at our next bargaining session Wednesday, October 2nd, 4:45 pm, at the AHEM Office!

Topic	AHEM Proposal	District Proposal
Salary Schedule	·       Step and lane movement both years ·       2.5% increase on all cells both years ·       Place ABE/ECFE teachers on the salary schedule with a 2.5% raise	·       Step and lane movement both years ·       1% increase on career steps the first year, 1.5% increase the second year ·       For ABE/ECFE teachers, first year increase the top step only by 1.5%; second year increase all steps by 1%, except for the top step which would increase by 1.5%
Health Insurance	·       100% district contribution to Medica Choice Single plan (same as current) ·       Increase district contribution amount to the equivalent of 70% of the Elect/Essential Family plan	·       Freeze current district contribution rates at this year’s amounts. If there are future increases in premiums, members would pick up entire increase
Leadership Pay	·       Create a Leadership Pay Task Force to review ESA/Coaching/Leadership pay systems and make proposals we can use in the next round of bargaining ·       Increase pay for all ESA, Coaching, and Leadership positions by 2.5% ·       Eliminate pay levels E and F, and move all those positions to level D ·       Addition of some new positions	·       Addition of some new positions ·       No increase to ESA, Leadership, or Coaching positions ·       Eliminate Level F and move those positions to Level E, and increase the pay for Level D.
Workload	·       Define Planning Time in the contract as unstructured, continuous time during Work Shop Week and at the end of trimesters ·       Add three planning days ·       Designate ten hours of conference time as Family Communication time to be used at teachers’ discretion ·       Offer six days of work time for special education teachers to complete due process paperwork during the year, with substitutes relief if needed ·       Eliminate all extra duties for traveling teachers ·       Cap the number of elementary specialist sections at 42 half hour blocks (or 21 hour blocks) per week	·
Other Language Items	·       Eliminate Sub Deduct Days ·       Increase the number of personal days from three to four ·       Create Substitute Leave where time off can be earned by subbing for colleagues during prep time ·       Include grandchildren as family members for whose care leaves can be used ·       Extend parental leave to mothers ·       Add tech specialists at program sites as we do at elementary schools ·       Add pay for members of the Staff Development Committee at Level C ·       Change the name of the Math Club to the more accurate Math Team.	·       Create a “monitor” position with a stipend of $500 for online classes at the new StepAhead virtual school ·       Responded to our Substitute Leave idea with some modifications ·       Editorial changes regarding buy back language and site names ·       Editorial changes to bring us into compliance with the new marriage equality law