School Board: Teacher Salaries and Representation Issues

To: SNEA Members and Leaders

Last night, the Springfield Board of Education dealt with two issues that are of great importance to teachers - the Budget (the possible freezing of salary steps) and a final vote on a Teacher Representation election policy (HH).

Budget

After meeting with officials from DESE regarding supplanting some federal stimulus money, the administration presented a proposal that would include a 1/2% salary increase (would cover increase in retirement contributions) as well as fully funding the "vertical" salary increase for teachers that have achieved higher academic degrees. The total for these two proposals would be around $1 million.

Bruce Renner suggested that the district could provide a 1% salary increase and the "vertical" increases by cutting back on "early hires" next year and eliminating positions by attrition. All of this year's "early hires" have yet to be placed - and their hiring has made it more difficult for current teachers to transfer. Had the board started budget talks earlier, they may have concluded that hiring new employees during a recession was ill-advised.

Jean Twitty wondered if it might be more prudent to put whatever supplantable stimulus money directly into the reserve fund instead of offering pay increases for teachers. There was general talk about class size. It appears that several board members are more concerned with maintaining a healthy reserve fund than even a partial step increase for teachers.

The board is leaning toward favoring the 1/2% increase and providing full increases for teachers making "vertical" moves.

Teacher Representation Election Policy (HH)

(Ray Smith asked, during public comments, that the board consider further discussion on Policy HH before voting.)

Bruce Renner asked for this policy item to be removed from the "consent agenda" for further discussion. Renner stated that his position was unchanged - that he opposed the multiple election process and believed teachers should have the same kind of representative election as other employees in the district.

Andy Hosmer asked if anybody knew how many districts had adopted the multi-election policy. Dr. Ridder responded by saying there were ten districts "as of today". (SNEA knows of only one - Cassville). When Hosmer asked which districts had adopted this policy, Dr. Ridder replied that this (public) information was confidential.

Hosmer stated his agreement with Renner in opposing policy HH, stating that singling out one group of employees and treating them differently from other employees was unfair. He observed that the previous elections held by nurses and other groups had not rendered one complaint - and that he had not seen one signature or heard from any teachers asking for this election policy to be adopted, while 1,100 teachers had signed a petition asked for one election to choose one representative.

Hosmer described the proposed election policy as "muddy" with unnecessary hoops to jump through . . . that it was "not good CQI" to have different policies for different employee groups. He strongly opposed the proposed multi-election policy and encouraged the board to treat all employees the same regarding representation.

Board President, Gerry Lee, asked for additional comments, and the rest of the board was characteristically silent. Kris Callen made the motion to adopt the policy, and Jean Twitty provided a second. The board voted 5-2 to adopt policy HH multi-election process. Renner and Hosmer voted "No".

So . . . there you have it. The headline from the News-Leader reads: "School board vote favors MSTA" . . . and that's exactly what it does - despite zero signatures of support, no board members speaking on behalf of their plan, and half as many members as Springfield NEA, which collected 1,143 teacher signatures asking for a single election to choose a single representative. You can draw your own conclusions.

What's Next?

SNEA will have a news release either later this week or early next week regarding future actions. SNEA members should be assured that we will not rest until teachers are afforded equal rights with other employee groups in our district. This blatant display of arrogance by the majority of the school board, and the administration's fecklessness in addressing this important matter is in direct contrast to the lofty rhetoric teachers have heard for years. Whether the issue is teacher salaries or teacher representation, we have learned that district leadership has its priorities well established, regardless of the words contained in their SP5 binders.

Anyone who has attended board meetings has clearly seen for themselves the discomfort this issue has caused among school board members and district leadership. With the passing of policy HH (multi-election), the administration and board believe the issue is behind them. In reality, that is not the case. Springfield NEA is proud of our strong advocacy for teachers and public education in our district, and we will continue to fight the good fight regarding teacher representation. Member support and solidarity has never been more important than it is at this time.

We will be sending more updates on this issue and next year's budget in coming days.

Thanks so much for your continuing support,

Ray

Ray Smith, President
Springfield NEA

Springfield Schools Need to Allow Teachers to Vote for Representation

Springfield News-Leader Editorial Board, May 1, 2009, "Our Voice":

Right to a unified voice should be respected and an election held.

The foot-dragging has gone far enough in the Springfield school district.

The tortuous back-and-forth over who gets to represent teachers in collective bargaining talks is now stretching into Year 2.

And there's no real end in sight. It's embarrassing and unnecessary. As school board member Andy Hosmer put it at a recent meeting: "The damage we've done, the trust we've lost -- it's incalculable."

The crux of the problem is that the district continues to try to address it by not really addressing it. Board members bandy about whether to let teachers vote for representation, how to specifically do it, how many elections will be held.

There's been talk of holding as many as three elections now, with no concrete plans for any.

The dispute has its roots in the existence of two teacher associations in Springfield: the 900-plus member Missouri National Education Association or the 500-or-so member Missouri State Teachers Association.

Administrators and the majority of the school board members profess that they are just trying to be fair to both associations, but failure to decide in this case is really not fair.

It succeeds only in angering the majority of the district's teachers at a time when they're already dealing with other aggravation -- like no raises.

Teachers have just been told the recession will likely kill any chance for a raise, even for movement up the experience ladder. This has happened despite the district's repeated vow that improving teacher pay is a high-priority, long-term goal.

The teachers should at least be given the opportunity to have a unified voice in discussing school issues, policies and conditions that affect them.

Most teachers simply want an election to determine exclusive representation. They're not after the right to strike or binding arbitration, neither of which is permitted in Missouri.

The NEA, led by Ray Smith, presented a petition to the board months ago with 1,140 names of teachers advocating an election. The district, however, has danced around allowing one, claiming officials first must figure out if the teachers really want exclusive representation, or if they want both NEA and MSTA.

Answering that, Smith turns to a pretty authoritative source.

A May 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision said, "... employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing."

Having two associations in talks allows the district to play one against the other, NEA contends.
As might be expected, the administration, led by Superintendent Norm Ridder, seems more than happy to hold on to that card.

We urged the district in the fall to get this issue behind it. It's now long past time for that to happen.

This is an unfortunate, significant distraction at a time when energy could be so much more fruitfully spent.

This editorial is the view of the News-Leader Editorial Board.