The Springfield Plan

Before the school board held their budget session last Thursday (when the administration proposed a step freeze), they discussed the teacher election process. During previous sessions, the board appeared to have a majority consensus for a confusing, multiple-election process that flew in the face of 1,100 teacher signatures and was contrary to existing state employment law. Only Andy Hosmer and Bruce Renner have spoken in favor of recognizing the petition and moving forward with one representative election.

Ray Smith, SNEA President, addressed the board regarding their refusal to recognize 1,100 teacher signatures that asked for a single election to choose one representative (as the nurses, custodians and bus drivers have done) - and the board's incredible request, at the April 21 session, to use the original petition as a show of interest for a mulitple-election process.

[Again, these comments were given prior to the "step freeze" proposal from the administration. More on that later.]

Comments on "The Springfield Plan" for teacher representation elections.

About petitions . . . I've always read petitions carefully and talked to the person taking signatures. The language is usually carefully worded, whether the intent is to mislead or to clarify. The "show of interest" process in this election is like no other because it begins by asking organizations to petition for a process instead of a representative. That's for the first election. There is one more, possibly two more elections to come.

The board revised this confusing plan on Tuesday in order to "streamline" the process, by removing the option "No Representative" from the first ballot on the multi-election plan. They were trying to avoid a third, runoff election that would occur if the first election yielded no majority - and there may be still another way to get to three elections, not sure.

So now, with "No Representative" removed from the first ballot, those who would choose that option are disenfranchised. They can, however, choose "No Representative" in the second election - but if they happened to be the majority, we wouldn't know it until we were two elections into the process. At that point, we would be able to confirm with certainty that the first election had been held for nothing.

This election process isn't being done FOR or WITH teachers. It's being done TO teachers, and we have yet to see one petition signature to support it.

This is truly the high maintenance approach to holding a representative election. We'll call it "The Springfield Plan". And before its over, teachers may start to feel as though they are caught up in another round of MAP testing rather than the simple and satisfying experience of voting.

The board, near the end of Tuesday night's session, made a proposal to accept the SNEA petition with its 1,100 signatures that asked for a single representative election . . . to be used as a show of interest for a multi-election process. It's ironic that after ignoring the signatures of 1,100 teachers for six months, a proposal would be made to use them as a show of interest for an election process they don't want . . . in order to "speed up the process".

Changing the meaning of a petition from single rep to multi-rep cannot be done without changing the language. So, is it okay to cut and paste petition language after the signatures are gathered? No need to seek legal counsel on that one.

Springfield NEA does not authorize the use of our petition under the HH multiple election policy.

And we say we are implementing a systems approach at SPS? This multiple election system will make Springfield a front runner for the Rube Goldberg Award, not the Baldrige Award.

As students of history, we all should know where the most complicated elections are usually held and why leaders impose them. With this decision, the Springfield Board of Education sets in motion a process that will subject teachers to a confusing ordeal rather than a simple election. I am sorry to see this very good board make this very poor decision.

Ray Smith, President
Springfield NEA

[After a meandering discussion that clearly exemplified the confusing nature of the multiple-election process, the board voted to undo all revisions and go back to the original plan. They are scheduled to discuss the issue further at their May study session. In the meantime, they have a step freeze to consider . . . more later.]

Teacher Statements to School Board 4/21

Here are some excerpts from teacher emails to the Springfield Board of Education regarding the board's choice of a multiple-election process for teacher representation:

"I have been a teacher in this district for 19 years and am dismayed by your reasons for denying a simple election . . . are teachers not intelligent enough to understand petition language?"

From a 32-year veteran teacher: "The two group representation plan will serve only one purpose . . . to keep the status quo . . . I really don't even care which group ends up representing us. I just want it to be one elected group."

"I'm glad that I'm a school nurse. Even though I have never felt greatly valued and respected by the administration or school board, it seems teachers have it worse."

"The teachers are on the front lines . . . At least give us the voice that the Constitution ensures and affords us."

24 years with SPS: "Last fall, over 1,100 teachers signed a petition asking for an election . . . The request was simple. The idea is simple. I would expect this district to respect teachers by honoring a simple request. Teachers support children. Are you willing to support teachers?"

16 years with SPS: "I would appreciate the board treating teachers the same as custodians, nurses and bus drivers with a representative election. This continuous mishandling and "putting off" is absurd. We are professionals and should be treated as such. With over 1,000 signatures, I believe we have expressed ourselves clearly . . . we need not go over it again and again."

"You are blatantly ignoring a petition that 1,100 of my colleagues signed asking for one representative election. Teachers knew what they were signing. We are intelligent people!"

"Your own association, The Missouri School Board Association, is lobbying to have teachers covered under the same law and election procedures as nurses, custodians and bus drivers. This is exactly what teachers are asking for."

"Although I can appreciate that you do not want to act in haste regarding teacher representation, I think sitting on the issue for close to two years now constitutes a more than adequate waiting time."

"I know that I am not alone when I say that the current system pits one organization against the other . . . and is ineffective in resolving important issues. The current issue is a case in point."

"I believe we deserve a straightforward election in which teachers vote in a direct manner. Why would I need an intermediary election, except for political control or gain on the part of another group?"

"Why waste more time asking teachers (who already signed a petition asking for one election) if they want to have a democratic election or a choice for a system that we already know won't work and probably isn't even legal?"

"When anyone runs for office, including the school board, they run to be the chosen representative of a group. We don't have offices where a Democrat, Republican and Libertarian sit in the same seat and have to come to a consensus before casting a vote."

"I do not understand why teachers in Springfield do not get the same rights to choose representation as do other staff in the SPS district (nurses, etc.). With over 1,100 signatures on a petition, with the Missouri Supreme Court ruling in our favor, with the Missouri School Board Association backing teachers having those rights . . . why the run around?"

"Please just stop this nonsense! Allow us to have a simple vote and put the politics behind us."

"I have read the school board's "explanations" for the delay and find them insulting to my intelligence."

"Please consider doing the right thing and address our concerns at this time. I'm puzzled why we are viewed with so little regard."

"Considerably more than a majority of teachers have spoken on the issue (1,100 signatures) to choose a specific representative."

"Please lets move into the 21st century. Let's make teachers partners at the table . . . rather than this boss/employee, adversarial relationship."

"I am writing to express my disappointment in your disregard for 1,100 signatures sent to you last October asking for an exclusive representative election . . . I am urging you to quit stalling . . . The majority of teachers have already spoken and want action this spring."

"When I hear that the school board doesn't believe the teachers have the ability to understand petition language and cannot understand the depth of an issue like collective bargaining, my heart is sad for those of you who underestimate us."

"This issue has dragged on for almost two years now. Now, we are being "put off" again until September, and then for a 2-part election? Seems rather silly."

"I urge you to reconsider this issue by recognizing 1,100 signatures from teachers who actually did understand what they were signing. We should hold one election for a representative. It would be nice to move past this and let all of us get to work on some very serious issues that this district will face in the future."

"Last fall, the teachers presented you with a petition with over 1,100 signatures asking for a single election for representation so that we can participate in good faith bargaining. Please listen to your teachers and allow this to happen."

"A two-part election is messy and unnecessarily complex . . . Why are we reinventing the wheel? I urge you to please choose the current policy set for public employees and let the election proceed."

"Earlier this year, nurses and bus drivers held a single election that was quick, clean and efficient. They now have a place at the bargaining table. Shouldn't teachers be given the same right? Trying to invent a two or three-prong election would cause confusion and be very time consuming."

"I hold multiple advanced degrees . . . I believe I am quite capable of reading, understanding and signing a petition."

"I am writing to express my complete frustration with the manner in which the School Board has handled the request of 1,100 R-XII teachers . . . It is disheartening and demeaning to professional educators to have our request so blatantly ignored. Now, at the end of the school year, you are examining a complex proposal to hold a two part election, which could include a multiple team approach to representation. This proposal not only denies the request for a simple exclusive representative election, but it also effectively delays the selection of a bargaining representative until next fall."

"You, of course, know that simple exclusive representative elections were handled successfully by R-XII nurses and bus drivers . . . and yet our board has denied this right to teachers. The double standard is obvious to the 1,100 teachers who signed the petition."

"I am very, very disappointed that the R-XII administration and school board continue to balk about the election for teacher representation. Both the nurses and bus drivers have been allowed to have such an election . . . why not teachers? . . . I've decided that this hesitation is the result of fear. My question to administrators and board members is simply this: What are you afraid of?"

"Thank you for your commitment to and support of our district. As an elected official, your name was on the ballot, and you ran for office as yourself. You were not asked to find another associate to run with you and then, if elected, proceed to come to consensus and vote as one board member. In our democratic society, the very idea is ludicrous."

"This is not a good example for Springfield students . . . ignoring the petition shows a disrespect for teachers. Please move forward with a one step election as petitioned and bring this "gaming" to an end."

"Postponing this election is a mistake. Don't we have equal rights as nurses, custodians and bus drivers? I want one election by teachers to choose one organization to represent us. This is very simple, not rocket science . . . I do not approve of a two-part election."

"Because over 1,000 teachers asked for an election last October, not moving forward in a timely manner continues to show each teacher under your employ that we do not matter, that our judgement is not to be trusted, and that we are not treated as the professionals we have proven to be year after year."

"When the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that teachers possess the same bargaining rights as all other employees, I was thrilled. Never did I think that Springfield Public Schools would attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling . . . We don't need a two-part election, we need an election to choose the teacher group we think would best represent teachers. 1,100 teachers signed a petition that was easy to understand, asking for one election . . . Working together can only benefit our district. Please allow an election."

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

Remarks to School Board by Ray Smith, President SNEA, April 21:

(Opening with an abbreviated reading of teacher statements listed above)

These teacher statements seem to raise three main questions for the school board that have still not been addressed or answered in any meaningful way.

1) Why is the Board of Education ignoring the 1,100-signature petition calling for one representative election?

2) Why is the Board of Education opposing a position that its own association, The Missouri School Board Association, has supported - the simple removal of the exclusion clause in existing law, so that teachers can have the same legal rights as nurses, bus drivers and custodians? What is your justification for opposing this locally?

3) Why should Springfield teachers - and only teachers - be subjected to a clumsy, multi-layered election process? No one on this board has issued a coherent statement explaining why teachers must be the exception to existing law.

Only One Group Opposed SB 486

When Senate Bill 486 was in hearing, several groups spoke in favor of "removing the brackets" so that teachers and other groups would be covered under the same law as nurses, bus drivers, custodians and all other employee groups. A broad coalition, including both employee and employer associations, spoke in favor of this simple solution - the solution that is most likely to become law, whether this year or next. The American Federation of Teachers, Missouri National Education Association, AFL-CIO, Missouri Municipal League (City of Springfield a member), Missouri School Board Association (this board is a member) . . . all spoke in favor of this bill.

Only one group spoke against changing the existing statute to provide teachers the same representation rights as all other employees . . . and strangely enough, it was the Missouri State Teachers Association, who represent somewhere between 25-30% of SPS teachers . . . and whose proposal the majority of this board seeks to adopt tonight.

SNEA Remarks to School Board April 14

Remarks to Springfield Board of Education by Ray Smith, President SNEA

First, let me say that Springfield NEA has no objection to any of the election guidelines listed in file HH under "Exclusive Representation". It appears that they closely follow established State Board of Mediation rules and procedures.

Keep It Simple

Springfield NEA urges the school board to "keep it simple" and timely as you consider a framework for teacher rep elections. Nurses, custodians and bus drivers have exercised their constitutional right to choose representation within existing state guidelines, and we have yet to hear a rational explanation from anyone to justify why teachers should be treated as a segregated class of employees not subject to equal treatment.

Can We Not Be Consistent?

I would remind the board that Springfield Public School nurses presented signatures to the State Board of Mediation in mid-January and held a single, certified election in mid-March. Like teachers, nurses in Springfield hold memberships in two associations - and under the guidelines listed in policy HH, after the initial "show of interest" petition, any other association had ample opportunity to place their name on the ballot with a 10% showing. It would have taken only six signatures for MSTA to have been on the ballot as a choice for nurses. This is a well-established, fair process that is open and simple. Again, why subject teachers to an unprecedented two-part election scenario that treats them differently than nurses, custodians and bus drivers in our own district. Can we not be consistent?

Missouri School Board Association Supports

The Missouri Supreme Court has established that teachers and police have equal bargaining rights under the Missouri Constitution. The Missouri Senate recently held hearings on SB 486 - a bill that would simply remove the exclusion of these employee groups in the existing law. The bill had broad support among employee groups (MNEA, AFT, AFL-CIO) as well as public employer associations. It should be noted that the Missouri Municipal League (City of Springfield is a member) and Missouri School Board Association (Springfield School Board is a member) spoke in favor of the bill. Only one group opposed the bill, the Missouri State Teacher Association. Your own association testified in favor of legislation that would simply "remove the brackets" and allow teachers equal bargaining rights under the law - which is exactly what 1,100 teachers have asked you to do.

There is simply no need for the Springfield Board of Education to "reinvent the wheel" for representation elections by installing a time-consuming and clumsy two-part election process for Springfield teachers only. No other employee group in the state of Missouri has ever been subjected to such a process.

Two Years Have Passed

Two years have passed since the Supreme Court ruling on this matter, and we submit that time is of the essence in the election process - and that the petition submitted in October, with over 1,100 teacher signatures would easily pass State Board of Mediation standards as a show of interest for a teacher rep election.

Springfield NEA believes that teachers possess equal rights with every other employee group in the state and that simply following the existing employment law is in line with the Missouri Constitution. It is the correct path forward to provide teachers their constitutional right to choose representation.

Springfield NEA urges the school board to treat teachers fairly and equitably - and be consistent with existing law by directing the administration to conduct an election based on well-established legal precedent. We urge the board to approve section HH (Exclusive Representation) so that teachers can vote in one election, just as school nurses and bus drivers did only four weeks ago, to choose their representation.


Thank you.