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.]
posted by RSmith @ 12:26 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
During this 'belt-tightening' time, why is the board even considering an expensive multistep process for teacher representation? Are they just delaying until budget approval of the salary freeze? I'm curious, are administrative salaries also frozen? Why don't they implement a cut in administrative salaries if we want to assure we'll keep the best teachers in the classrooms?
Dr. Ridder told teachers, in a meeting this afternoon, that administrative steps are also frozen. Nobody mentioned cutting administrative salaries.
I asked Dr. Ridder if steps could be reinstated if federal stabilization funds are finally released by the state legislature. He said yes.
When asked if any of the $21 million in the reserve fund could be used until then, he referred to board policy that holds the reserve at 10%. Using the $2 million it would take for a step increase lower the reserve to approximately 9.5%.
Just want to clear something up: SPS teachers need to know that this convoluted and confusing election proposal comes to us courtesy of MSTA, which represents about 25-30% of SPS teachers. Yes, the Missouri State Teachers Association, ironically enough, remains the only employee association in the state of Missouri that objects to teachers having equal rights as all other employee groups to bargain with their employers - and, of course, administrators love them for it. You can't make this stuff up - a teacher association fighting to squelch teacher employment rights. Only in Missouri.
MSTA should change their name to Missouri State Teachers and Administrators Association. MSTAA. Has a nice ring to it.
Their own legislative bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Last week, Sara Lampe tried to insert an amendment to their bill using language taken direcly from the Missouri Constitution - that teachers have the same rights as other employee groups to bargain - and MSTA led the way in urging legislators to vote down Lampe's amendment - which is exactly what happened.
A teacher asked me last night, "Why are they doing this?" MSTAA embraces exclusive representation in St. Joseph, Waynesville, Columbia, Chillocothe and other districts . . . yet they oppose it vehemently in Springfield. MSTAA happens to be the majority in all those districts, hmm . . . but in Springfield, they fight for a uniquely convoluted election process in order to "not lose". It's like living in a miniature Banana Repulic with a controlling minority party doing everythign they can to cling to power. That is their goal, as far as I can tell . . . to "not lose" a representative election. Meanwhile, the teachers are denied their constitutional rights in Springfield (so far). SNEA will keep battling for equal rights for teachers. It's worth the fight to get it right.
Words cannot express how very lucky SNEA members are to have you as our President. Your hard work, dedication, and diligence are amazing! With that said, I was greatly disappointed that only 50 SNEA members wrote letters to the board regarding exclusive representation. If there were ever a time to become more actively involved in SNEA, now would be that time! I know from personal experience if a member wants to be involved he or she only needs to contact the SNEA office to get plugged in and make a positive difference in our profession. I am writing to encourage ALL SNEA members to take a stand by writing a letter and/or working in other ways to support the work that is being done through our local, state, and national offices. Now is the time to unite and let our voices be heard in a professional, non-apologetic, and insistent manner. The school board needs to know that this issue isn’t going away and that we, the members, are behind the work of SNEA.
Respectfully,
Debe Livermore
There have been about 80 comments sent as of Tuesday morning, April 28.
I am confused as to how there is ANY doubt that 1,100 teachers choose to have ONE group represent them. As an NEA building rep. I had several die hard MSTA members sign the petition, despite being told by MSTA not to sign the petition. Listen to Sara Lampe!
About the step increase; I am tired of the games. SPS will find a way to keep from discussing a step increase before the contracts are printed and sent out. After contracts are rec'd and signed the District will magically find $10 million, or $ 12 million dollars. To save money they will "decide" not to reprint contracts and give us a raise. It will be just like it has the last few years: found money, too late to update contracts, or save money by not reprinting. Pick your excuse. Teachers work hard trying to make the District look good. Prove you appreciate us!!
Curious as to why after promising to work to bring teachers salaries in line with other districts that the board is not being creative in compensating teachers in other ways since the freeze is on. Maybe they should consider reducing the number of contract days since we already go more days than required.
The district did show great creativity when it came to funding the construction of Hickory Hills. The project was not included in the $96 million bond, so they used the reserve fund to get it started . . . and then, for the first time in district history, they borrowed money (lease/purchase) to fund the construction. The loan payments, which I believe are $600,000 annually, come directly from the general fund . . . where teacher salaries are drawn. So, they are quite capable of being creative - if it's a priority.
It is obvious that we are NOT a priority in this district. Our voices are not heard and our opinions do not matter. Working for another district in the past where I WAS appreciated and respected really spoiled me. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of everyone involved for that to be a TOP PRIORITY in OUR district as well? I work with TOP notch teachers/administrators who take their jobs very seriously. Wake up Springfield!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home