Remarks to School Board 3/25

The March 25 school board meeting was held before a packed house at KAC assembly room. Most of the early seats were taken by bus drivers who were there in support of a proposed pay increase. My turn at the podium came first, and my full remarks are included below.
But first . . .

Compensation Misrepresentation

One agenda item that was especially noteworthy to the teachers who attended was the discussion of the proposed 2.5% salary increase for next year. The board discussion took an interesting turn when one member inquired about teacher involvement in the process. As your representative on the Compensation Committee, I paid special attention to the reply from a cabinet member.

It was stated that teachers reps were members of the Compensation Committee (CC) and it was strongly implied, if not said outright, that teachers were involved in discussions that led to the decision to provide a 2.5% COLA. This was misleading at best.

During the introductory CC meeting, we were told that we would not discuss teacher salaries because they were directly linked to cost of living indicators that had yet to be determined. Teacher reps later attended a short meeting that centered on Springfield's salary standing in comparison to other districts. Both teacher reps challenged the district to live up to the goals of SP5, which clearly state that R-12 should be the highest paid district in the region.

I first learned of the 2.5% budget proposal when a reporter from the News-Leader called for SNEA's reaction. Sure, the amount was much lower than we'd hoped - but the process, the dysfunctional system that led to this decision - that's the enormous elephant in the room. As it stands now, it appears that neither the school board nor the compensation committee itself has a clear understanding of how compensation issues are decided in this district.

With all this as background, it was especially gratifying to finally hear a board member - at the end of last night's meeting - respond to my earlier comments (below) with a request that the school board finally begin some public discussion about collective bargaining. Several board members spoke to the issue, and it looks as though more discussions and perhaps a June or July agenda item are in the future.

[Final note on last night's meeting: the board agreed to revisit the 2.5% COLA issue during their April meeting.]

----------------------------------------------

Remarks to the school board by Ray Smith, SNEA President:

Board members, Dr. Ridder and cabinet,

Last May, the Missouri Supreme Court restored collective bargaining rights to public employees, enabling Missouri teachers to enjoy the same opportunities that are afforded teachers in 34 states and 13 of 16 Springfields across the nation. Collective bargaining has long been a “best practice” for school districts, as they seek a fair and equitable way to negotiate with teachers regarding their compensation, benefits and working conditions.

Since the Supreme Court decision, Springfield NEA, representing over 900 education professionals in our district, has twice asked for recognition so that a bargaining framework could be established in Springfield. In June, the district denied our request for voluntary recognition, and in September, the district denied our request for an election to determine an exclusive representative.

The Missouri School Board Association has advised school districts across the state to avoid entering into bargaining agreements with teacher organizations, citing the lack of guiding legislation. This is an interesting approach, since several states, including Colorado, have successfully implemented collective bargaining for teachers without a legislative framework.

Indeed, the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, in speaking for the majority, stated:

“ . . . this court’s reading of the statute recognizes the role of the general assembly, or in this case, the school district - in the absence of a statute covering teachers - to set the framework for these public employees to bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing.”

So, teachers have been given a right that is clearly stated in the Missouri Constitution and upheld by the state’s highest court, and yet our school district has twice denied that right. It begs the question, what exactly is a right?

It should be noted that the school district of Rockwood, a high-performing system that our own district looks to as a benchmark, ratified on March 13 of this year, a collective bargaining agreement with the local NEA affiliate. Several teacher groups across the state are asking for recognition, and at least one district has already held a representative election. Not all school districts in the state are choosing to ignore or stall the issue.

I’ve distributed three sample documents for you to look through. The cover sheet is a sample preamble to an agreement that clearly states the collaborative nature of collective bargaining in the public sector. The teachers, counselors, librarians, nurses and other represented groups share a common commitment with the board and administration - to work together to create an atmosphere of continuous improvement that will provide the highest quality of education for the children of this community.

The second page is a sample ballot for exclusive representation, which also contains the bargaining unit and proposed election rules.

Page three is a sample Action Item for your perusal, containing pertinent facts, fiscal notes and a sample recommendation.

SNEA strongly urges the school board to use these suggestions as a framework for an election to determine an exclusive representative for teachers in Springfield - and will choose to work with our organization to create a healthy, collaborative, mutually respectful negotiating environment for professional educators in our district.