Biggest Little District in Missouri - Springfield R-XII

To: SNEA Members

One of these things is not like the other . . . You may recall that Dr. Ridder, in attempting to move the board along before their vote on the teacher representation election process, alluded to ten districts that had already adopted this "muddled" multiple election policy. Ridder, when asked by a board member to identify the ten districts, said the information was confidential and that it would be "disingenuine" to release the names of the districts - even though it is public policy for public employees.

To view board discussion from May 26 meeting - begins at minute 18:50:

http://springfieldpublicschoolsmo.org/board/VideoArchives/2008-2009/May26-2009.html

The News-Leader was able to get the information from the Missouri School Board Association (MSBA), which complied by offering the requested public information under Missouri's Sunshine Law.

Here are the ten districts (now eleven) that have adopted what Kris Callen (who moved to adopt the policy) calls "The Springfield Plan" - along with their annual expenditures (07-08) from DESE database.

- Ava R-1 $13.1 million
- Cassville R-IV $18.8 million
- Fair Grove R-X $16.4 million
- Maries Co. R-II $7.4 million
- Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III $10.8 million
- Pierce City R-VI $7.4 million
- Southwest R-V $7.0 million
- Schulyer Co. R-I $8.3 million
- Thayer R-II $8.4 million
- Richmond R-XVI $15.1 million

- Springfield R-XII $273.4 million

Total certified staff all ten: 1,263 total, 126 average
Total certified staff Springfield: 1,901

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

Ray Smith's response to News-Leader piece:

And how many of these "blended" teacher councils have bargained a binding agreement for teachers?

Zero. And they probably never will.

How many of these districts have a bargained agreement in place that holds the district accountable for honoring such basic commitments as teacher salary schedules?

None.

Why? Because blended representation - pushed by MSTA - presents a contrived, tortuous path to bargained agreements, which is why superintendents and small town school boards like it so much. For that matter, in all its illustrious history, in the hundreds of school districts where it holds the majority . . . how many agreements has MSTA bargained for teachers?

If it's not zero, I'd love to see evidence.

Do you suppose the teachers in Fair Grove, Cassville, Ava and the others put together a grassroots petition drive asking for this weird election plan, or was it passed in a perfunctory manner by rubber stamp school boards at the behest of the superintendent? Easy question.

The News-Leader failed to state whether any of the ten small districts that have adopted this convoluted election policy have attempted to implemented it.

Again: Zero, nada, zilch.

Collective bargaining is all about agreements between employer and employees. This policy - this gift from MSBA to MSTA and all those who oppose collective bargaining for teachers - makes it possible for them to mouth the words without actually bargaining anything.

SNEA Files Lawsuit

Springfield NEA sues Springfield school district after board denies teachers' right to elect a bargaining representative

That was the headline of yesterday's SNEA news release sent to all media outlets - the News-Leader offered up a completely inaccurate headline and several misleading segments on the issue. Here are some clarifications:

The lawsuit challenges the Springfield Public School's new policy for teacher collective bargaining because it violates the Missouri Constitution and ignores the kind of election requested by a majority of teachers. SNEA believes that teachers should be allowed to hold the same kind of representative election that SPS nurses and bus drivers held in March 2009 - and that custodians and maintenance held way back in the mid-1980's. Those elections were sanctioned by state law and were constitutionally sound. None of these elections were controversial or divisive.

The policy was adopted after a split board vote on May 26. Policy HH imposes an unprecedented system for choosing a collective bargaining representative different than the one requested by 1,140 (approximately 63%) district teachers in petitions presented to the board last fall. The petition asked for one representative election to choose one representative.

Policy HH, instead, imposes on teachers an unprecedented threshold election on the options of exclusive, multiple or no representation. The option of "multiple representation" by more than one union would deny teachers their right to an exclusive bargaining representative protected by Article I, Section 29 of Missouri's Constitution.

Imagine going to the polls for an election, but before voting for a representative you must first choose to establish a political system - parliamentary, democratic, or no representation. Would this not undermine the representative process and cause complete chaos regarding representation? Imagine this process imposed on just one segment of society, while all the rest of the population votes within a democratic framework - this is the equivalent to what the board has imposed on teachers in Springfield with election policy HH.

We know of no public or private section collective bargaining process that incorporates such features. Collective bargaining is a system where employees democratically elect a single organization to serve as a unified voice. An exclusive representative has a duty of fair representation to all they represent, regardless of their affiliation - just as any democratically elected representative has a duty to represent all the people - not just those who are members of their particular party.

SNEA has been addressing this issue in good faith with the school district for over two years. We first requested - and were denied - a representative election in September 2007. It is disheartening that Springfield Public Schools has adopted a policy that deliberately undermines teacher bargaining rights - while spinning it as "empowering teachers to choose", as a recent email states. It is more than disheartening. The policy is unconstitutional - and that's why the lawsuit was filed.

Here is a link to the SPS website that contains policy HH - the link to policy HH is on the far right side of the page:

http://www.boarddocs.com/mo/sps/Board.nsf/Public?OpenFrameSet

Besides offering up confusing choices, there is virtually nothing in the policy that offers guidelines on how a multiple representative system would function. Something similar was installed by the district in the early 1990's (Teacher Administration Meet and Confer - TAMAC). The two teacher organizations were at constant impasse (much like they were in deciding this election process). The system proved ineffective and totally disintegrated within two years.

I hope this helps clear up a few questions and offers up sound reasons for the lawsuit filed yesterday. SNEA will continue to work hard to advocate for teachers, students and public education in Springfield.

Your support is greatly appreciated.