PSRS, 0.5% "Raise", Court Date Thursday

First, welcome back! SNEA wishes all Springfield teachers a great 2009-2010 school year.

Good News - PSRS/Social Security Issue Settled

The hubbub over a Social Security decision that would have required thousands of Missouri teachers to begin paying into SS appears to be resolved. First, there was a postponement of major action until July 2010. Then, a Federal Task Force was convened to study the issue.

Missouri NEA met with the Task Force in April and met with Senator Claire McCaskill, whose office issued the report. According to the report, 97% percent of current PSRS members will not be adversely affected by the regulation. Much of the original confusion centered around a fifty-year-old list of education job descriptions that SS was using to determine who was exempt from SS contributions.

Legislation to repeal the unfair Social Security Offsets for teachers has been reintroduced. The current provision penalizes teachers in fifteen states by denying them earned Social Security benefits from earlier careers and second jobs. Representative Roy Blunt is a co-sponsor, and Missouri NEA is working to gain more support from Senators and House members. The Obama Administration supports the repeal, which now has a good chances of passing - if they ever get to it.

"Salary Steps Frozen, Teachers Receive 1/2 Percent "Raise"

The school board voted to provide teachers a 1/2% raise in order to cover increased contributions to PSRS. Employees earning advanced degrees received their "vertical" increases.

SNEA had proposed several options and urged the board to be creative in finding a way to honor the district's commitment to the salary schedule. We suggested the use of supplanted stimulus funds, dipping into the reserve fund, or even issuing a 1% raise (a step is approximately 2%) - other suggestions died natural deaths after the latest in a series of fruitless Compensation Committee meetings. Veteran teachers who have been through this before know very well that step freezes are never restored. It's an issue that should be an integral part of a binding agreement between employer and employee in a respectful collective bargaining process.

From Classroom to Court House - SNEA Files Suit

SNEA filed a lawsuit against the district on the next-to-last day of school, a week after the school board voted to impose an unprecedented election policy (Policy HH) for teachers, counselors and librarians that is blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional. SNEA had proposed an election modeled after last year's SPS nurses' election - a non-controversial, one-step process.

Board Arguments - and Lack Thereof

Speaking in opposition to the adoption of Policy HH at the May 26 board meeting, Andy Hosmer characterized HH as "muddy" and pointed out that he had not heard one word nor seen one petition signature that supported a multi-tiered election process - and that teachers should be treated no differently than nurses, bus drivers and custodians when it comes to elections for representation. Hosmer stated that creating policies that treat one group of employees differently than others was "Bad CQI". Bruce Renner also spoke against the policy, reiterating that the district could have settled this long ago with a simple election aligned with the state law that covers all other employees. There were no comments from other board members.

Offering no discussion or comment, Kris Callen moved to adopt the policy, and Jean Twitty provided a second. Policy HH was approved by a 5-2 vote.

Basics of Board Policy HH

Policy HH states in its second paragraph that:

"All employees other than teachers must apply for certification of their employees representative with the State Board of Mediation in accordance with the law."

SNEA's assertion, since day one: there is no reason for our school district to create a special election process only for teachers when there is already an established legal precedent for all other employees. SNEA simply requested (backed by 1,140 teacher signatures) that the district follow the same well-established rep election policies that are afforded school nurses, bus drivers and custodians in our own district and throughout the state of Missouri.

Why Are Teachers Treated Differently?

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in May 2007 that teachers are afforded the same rights to representation as all other employees. When the Springfield Board of Education adopted Policy HH, they were stating, in effect, that teachers should not be afforded the same rights to a simple representation election as other employees - thus, the lawsuit. No board member or administrator offered even a hint of an explanation as to why teachers should be treated differently than other employees. Still waiting on that one . . .

Summer Election Shenanigans

Springfield NEA made it no secret when we publicly presented 1,140 teacher signatures to the district in October 2008 - calling for one simple rep election. Almost all of our members signed it, along with approximately 200-300 teachers who were either unaffiliated or members of another group. Those petitions sat on a shelf, completely ignored, for eight months before the district mailed them back to our offices this summer.

By contrast, MSTA gathered a petition with 500 or so signatures - collected while school was in session - and held them for presentation to the district until June 29. Within 24 hours, the district posted an official notice on the wall outside the assembly room. The notice included a quick deadline (August 3) for other unions to respond - presenting "other interested unions" with the daunting task of gathering petition signatures while teachers, counselors and librarians were scattered far and wide during the summer.

If no other group were to turn in signatures by August 3, MSTA would be the only organization on the ballot for exclusive representation in the fall. SNEA filed an injunction in Greene County Circuit Court to prevent these election shenanigans from playing out.

July 14 Injunction Hearing - Show of Interest Date Change

The hearing took place on July 14 with Judge Michael Cordonnier presiding. Board members Kris Callen, Gerry Lee, Tom Prater and superintendent Dr. Ridder attended the hearing. It was learned just minutes before the court session began that MSTA had "intervened" in the the hearing and lawsuit on the side of the district. This means that MSTA lawyers have teamed up with the school district in opposing the SNEA position.

After more than two hours of legal arguments and questions from Judge Cordonnier, a settlement was reached. SNEA's request for an injunction was withdrawn, and in turn, the date for a second union show of interest was extended from August 3 to September 14. Judge Cordonnier set the date to hear the lawsuit for August 27. The district amended the posting to reflect the new deadline for second union show of interest.

How Many Elections?

At this time, with Board Policy HH in effect, there is a fair possibility that R-XII teachers, counselors and librarians will be voting sometime this fall in at least two elections.

Under HH, the first election must be held to determine whether teachers want multiple representation, exclusive representation or no representation (status quo). Depending on the outcome of the first election, the second election would be to determine either:

• 1) the make-up of multiple representation committee [Policy HH offers no guidelines to determine how multiple representation is implemented, how impasse between representatives is resolved, or how an agreement with employer would be ratified by teachers] or . . .
• 2) the exclusive representative. [If no group receives more than 50%, a third runoff election would be held between the top two.]

Confused? Join the club. Maybe the following timeline will help. The lawsuit comes to court on Thursday, August 27, and we'll update you on the outcome and what it means moving forward.

If you have any questions, please call Ray at 869-5090 or send an email to snea@aol.com.

Timeline of Events

• May 26 - BOE adopts Policy HH by 5-2 vote. Hosmer and Renner oppose.
  
• June 2 - Springfield NEA filed a lawsuit in Greene County Circuit Court against the School
  District of Springfield for imposing an unfair and divisive election policy (Policy HH) that deprived Springfield teachers of the same representation elections afforded other employee groups.
  
• June 29 - MSTA - operating under the guidelines of newly adopted Policy HH - submits a petition (approximately 500 signatures) to the superintendent for a representative election. [Note: the vast majority of signatures were collected by MSTA state staff while visiting SPS during April and May - the petitions were held for submission until the middle of summer break.]
  
• June 30 - The school district posts notice of receiving MSTA petition and imposes an August 3 deadline for "other interested unions" to submit petitions in order to be added to the ballot.
  
• June 30 - The district formally responds - for the first time - to the 1,140-signature petition submitted by SNEA in October . . . by mailing it back to the SNEA office.
  
• July 14 - SNEA files an injunction with Greene County Circuit Court to halt unfair election policy and proceedings.
  
• July 23 - Injunction request withdrawn, lawsuit set for August 27, deadline for "other interested unions" pushed back to September 14.
  
• July 29 - District posts amended deadline for other interested unions, from August 3 to
  September 14
  
• August 7 - After twenty-plus years of seamless operation, something new. Payroll notifies SNEA that, in order to "be in compliance", SNEA must submit signed membership forms from all 900+ members to verify automatic deductions for dues.
  
• August 20 - First Contract Day
  
• August 25 - First Day for Students
  
• August 27 - SNEA lawsuit in Greene County Circuit Court, Judge Cordonnier.
  
• September 14 - Deadline for petitions from "other interested unions".