District Subsidies and Teacher Groups
Here's the bottom line for this story, right here at the top of the page:
2011-12 District Subsidy to SNEA = $0.00
2011-12 District Subsidy to MSTA = $20,279
Some basic facts about the district subsidization of teacher associations, a situation that is unique to Springfield R-XII:
- Springfield has, for several years, been the only district (of 530) in the state of Missouri that has subsidized two teacher associations.
- Springfield NEA bargained away their subsidy in the 2010 contract.
- The district continues to subsidize MSTA even after stating publicly to the State Auditor (March 2012) that all subsidies to teacher groups would be discontinued.
- 2011-12 invoice - SNEA pays 100% of president's salary ($0 district subsidy)
- 2011-12 invoice - MSTA pays only 62% of president's salary (district covers 38%)
In 2009-10, teachers in Springfield held two elections to establish both a process and a representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with the school district. The vote was fairly decisive on both counts, as teachers chose to have an exclusive representative and then elected Springfield NEA as that representative. Even after the representation election, Springfield continued to be the only district in Missouri that offered financial subsidies to two associations.
In May 2010, Springfield NEA, on behalf of Springfield teachers, librarians and counselors, bargained an historic first contract with the district. One of the provisions in that agreement eliminated all district subsidies for Springfield NEA.
Why would SNEA bargain away a subsidy? With the advent of collective bargaining, SNEA felt that the subsidy had become obsolete - that bargaining financial provisions with the district while also receiving a subsidy amounted to a conflict of interest and could potentially undermine the bargaining process. The Agreement signed by SNEA and the District in 2010 eliminated the subsidy. (It was agreed that there would be one additional year for budget transition.)
District Tells Auditor No More Subsidies
In March 2012, results of the state audit of SPS were released to the public. When the auditor publicly questioned district subsidies to teacher associations, the District did not cite the 2010 agreement that ended the subsidy to SNEA but instead responded to the auditor with this clearly written statement:
"With the advent of collective bargaining, we notified MSTA and NEA representatives that the school district will discontinue its practice of subsidization effective July 1, 2012."
As unequivocal as that statement may be, the district continues to subsidize MSTA during the 2012-13 school year.
Adjusting Invoices for "Hardships"
Each year, both teacher associations receive invoices from the district that outlines reimbursements due to the district for the president's salary and for any substitute teachers provided for members to attend events like state conferences.
In September 2012, SNEA received the annual invoice from the district and, as expected, there was no subsidy included. This was in line with expectations and consistent with the contract and with the district's statement to the auditor. The SNEA Treasurer promptly issued a check to the district for full payment - and then, things took a strange turn.
Within a week's time, SNEA received a call from the SPS Finance Department, and we were surprised to hear that the district was offering to extend a subsidy to SNEA. They expressed a concern that they did not want SNEA to endure a financial "hardship" without the subsidy. The district then returned the original check and sent a second invoice with approximately $5,900 subtracted from the original amount. The situation was rather puzzling.
SNEA's board had already met and approved a new budget and had never expressed a "hardship" to the district. In fact, we had agreed to end the subsidy two years earlier and had already issued a check to the district for the full amount of the September 2012 invoice.
District Responds to a Request
What would prompt the district to make such an offer during tough financial times? Apparently, the MSTA president approached administration leadership and stated that their association was enduring a financial hardship and required assistance in the form of a continued subsidy. Why they didn't receive help from their own state association is anybody's guess.
Regardless, the administration agreed to grant the request for additional funds for MSTA, which also rents office space in the district (complete with district furniture, phone and utilities) for approximately $215 per month. When asked about this, the superintendent stated the administration was simply "responding to a request". In an effort to be fair, the district then offered SNEA a $5,900 subsidy, as well.
The SNEA Board of Directors chose to turn down the subsidy, since we had already budgeted for and paid the original invoice - and for the reasons stated above about conflict of interest. SNEA also prefers to function as an independent partner in collective bargaining with the district.
Tangled Financial Support
For the 2012-13 school year, Springfield remains unique among all 530 Missouri school districts. It is the only district that is involved in a collective bargaining process yet voluntarily chooses, free of any contract or policy, to subsidize a second, un-elected union.
To make matters even more strange, an apparently cash-strapped MSTA is now taking advantage of the situation by circulating a petition to hold a decertification election for the custodial, maintenance and supply group that has been represented by Missouri NEA since 1986.
Administrative leadership may think that they are merely "responding to a request", but the district now takes the unwitting role as key financial partner with MSTA in a labor action. What a tangled web.
It is extremely disheartening that the district - even after making a concerted effort to approve a fair election/representation policy and after endorsing the collective bargaining process - feels compelled to needlessly insert itself as a player in what would normally be an internal association funding issue.
What Now?
SNEA is appealing to the district - as it has for the past several years - to end this messy and inequitable subsidization process once and for all. We won't offer conjecture about what actually motivates the district to fund one association more than another - or why they would subsidize two associations - or any teacher association, for that matter.
Regardless of the motive, the result is what it is . . . or to quote a folk philosopher, "Sometimes things are exactly as they seem."
posted by RSmith @ 3:57 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
SNEA choose the higher ground in this matter and I agree wholeheartedly agree with the approach our leadership took.
I am disappointed, however, that
MSTA's leadership chose to take the opposite approach and continue to be subsidized by the district, especially after the state auditor questioned this practice. The MSTA membership deserves better.
jbs
How on earth can I tell my friends and neighbors that SPS can be trusted with taxpayer dollars when they pull stunts like this?!
As a member of SNEA, I am requesting that the district cease to subsidize MSTA as an unelected teacher representative.
This amount could help pay for the salary of another teacher and should not be given to a group that lost the election. I consider this a direct slap in the face to the teachers of this district and the bargaining process.
I am not an attorney, however, I am sure it is unlawful according to the Labor Relations Board. Please stop this practice immediately.
I would say the $6,000 is a pittance compared to the $20,000 they are providing MSTA, so you’re, right. It is a bribe. The District's support of MSTA is completely unethical, and although I am not an attorney, I would suspect it would be in violation of labor laws, and should be reported to the National Labor Relations Board. This is a direct slap in the face to collective bargaining and to our organization as the exclusive rep for this district.
I , personally, would like to see this stopped... immediately, and not wait until the new “fiscal year” on July 1.
2011-12 District Subsidy to MSTA = $20,279
This is another example of how MSTA rolls. The group has been controlled since its beginning by administrators from all over the state and continues to support the agendas of administrators, not teachers in the trenches.
This is a huge amount of money. The bigger issue is that this is ILLEGAL.
The state auditor should be notified and perhaps the labor board.
This should be given to the media!
I don't know how to label this issue...Unethical? Bribery? Theft from taxpayers and students? extortion? Scandalous? Just plain dirty?
I just wonder what the State Treasurer or the Federal Election Commission would think of this?
But wait! Springfield Public Schools again raises the bar on this unusual situation.
When will our district stand up and earn the trust of the public? There are so many shady deals going on, how many have we missed? And where is our media?
With the upcoming tax and bond issue, putting this out to the media may not be the wisest course. However, using it as leverage to get the district to discontinue this funding might be worth looking into. The board used this tactic when they increased graduation requirements. They didn't want a messy debate in the papers so those opposed remained silent.
It's true that media coverage of the misspending of tax dollars may not be the best course just prior to a bond/levy election. But this is not a "gotcha" situation. SNEA has been appealing to the district literally for years to remedy these inequities and has worked hard to try and resolve this issue quietly with top admin at KAC. We only recently became aware of the amounts of the discrepancies. In fact, some of the more egregious disprepancies aren't even mentioned in this article - that information will come later. The ideal solution would be for the district to stop dabbling in internal teacher association business. SNEA doesn't relish being in the position of learning of gross inequities like this . . . and then trying to decide when would be the best time to tell people about it. We shouldn't even be in that situation. If we don't speak up, sooner or later we become part of the problem.
I think MSTA needs to be supported by its members and not recieve special treatment.
Since it is apparent that the district leadership is aware of these gross inequities and chooses to ignore or look the other way--perhaps it is time to look for new leaders with higher ethics and standards (?) Maybe even ones less concerned with district/board politics and more concerned about educating the students of Springfield.
Can we say:
"Conflict of interest"
"Pork barrel politics"
"... cannot serve two masters"
"power (and cash?) corrupts"
Typical SPS move. Yes, it is hard to get people to pass levy and bond issues when we never know how the money will REALLY get spent. We teachers are subject to such scrutiny...why not the administrators? Retirement is near...sad...has little to do with kids... my choice to retire ASAP and more to do with stuff like this.
I see this morning that the proposed levy increase of 20 cents now contains no mention of salary increases for current SPS teachers. Big surprise. District budgets have been mismanaged and teacher salaries ignored for so many years that it would take a massive levy increase to raise SPS teacher salaries to a competitive level. Never going to happen here.
The most important thing for SNEA to do is to make sure that MSTA is no longer being subsidized by the district. NOW! They are NOT the bargaining unit and should not be recognized in any way. The fact that the MSTA president is involved in stirring up another election via maintenance and custodial staff is another example of inappropriate behavior.
Post a Comment
<< Home