| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Binding Agreements; How they affect LPS, who can break them? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 12 2009, 11:59 PM (394 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Aug 12 2009, 11:59 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Binding Agreements have been brought up numerous times when it comes to LPS contracts. I think it is good for parents to fully understand these contracts and how they affect our children’s educational opportunities. I am no lawyer or expert, which is the basis for this topic. Lets look at this from a strictly parental viewpoint. How do these negotiations affect our children? What are the positives? What are the negatives? What can we, as parents do to have a greater voice? Learning collectively is a great place to start. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 13 2009, 12:02 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
OK, I will get it started... Lindbergh teachers reject board's 'final offer' School board not bargaining in good faith, LNEA contends MIKE ANTHONY Executive Editor April 01, 2009 - Lindbergh National Education Association members last week overwhelmingly rejected the district's "final offer" regarding salaries and working conditions for the 2009-2010 school year. Ninety percent of LNEA teachers voted March 25 to reject the Board of Education's latest proposal, according to Diane O'Leary, LNEA co-president. While the new offer included an increased financial package, she said the proposal was rejected because the board refuses to negotiate terms and conditions of employment. A three-year contract agreement between the LNEA and the Board of Education that was approved in 2006 expires at the end of the current school year. That agreement provided average salary increases of 4.5 percent for both the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years and 4.25 percent for the current school year. While the Board of Education previously had offered a total compensation package increase of 3.08 percent — a 2-percent salary increase plus maintaining current benefits — LNEA representatives want the administration and Board of Education to expand the scope of negotiations to include all four sections of the district's Teacher Handbook. Traditionally, only the first section relating to salaries and benefits has been included in binding contract agreements between the board and the LNEA. However, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that teachers and other public employees have a constitutional right to engage in collective bargaining with their government employers. While governmental entities aren't bound to reach work agreements with labor unions, once they do, they cannot simply back out of the contracts, the Supreme Court ruling stated. Teachers packed the Board of Education's March 10 meeting to voice their concerns about contract negotiations for the coming school year. At that meeting, board President Ken Fey read a statement that said, in part, "Given these dire economic times, we are proud that we can offer the 2-percent salary increase plus maintain the board-paid benefits for a total compensation package increase of 3.08 percent. We understand this is less than prior years, but we now face new troubling and dire economic times. As you know, we have had to trim $1.3 million from this year's budget in order to control our deficit spending. We still will be spending $3 million out of the reserves to cover our costs ..." Asked how the board's latest offer differed from the previous one, Rick Francis, assistant superintendent of personnel services, told the Call, "... Despite a net decrease in property-tax funding for the district, the administrative team extended an offer increasing wages by a net 3.2 (percent), which boiled down to a salary increase of 2.48 (percent), plus insurance ... "So that was an increase from the 2 percent that we had offered before." But O'Leary told the Call that the teachers' vote to reject the offer had little to do with money. Teachers instead want the board to negotiate terms and conditions of employment, including such items as class size, professional development, redistricting transfer policy, evaluation process, grievance and reduction in force, among others. LNEA officials contend the board is denying the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargaining. Referring to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, Francis said, "If you read that, then basically I think there's two points that you can take from that court case. One is public employees have a right to bargain and if the employees and, in this instance, the Board of Education, reach an agreement, then it is binding. That's what that (ruling) says. "It does not say that the Board of Education must accept, must agree. It says that the board can agree, reject, modify ..." Chief Financial Officer Pat Lanane interjected, "... I think I read at least four times in the opinion that the public group is not required to reach an agreement ... That court ruling, it could have just as easily said: Do what Lindbergh has done for the last 20 years. We have always recognized our teacher group as the official group to sit down and discuss and meet and confer with. "And we did reach a binding agreement — Section 1 of our Teacher Handbook. We actually have gone beyond what that ruling calls for. So that piece of it really — I don't know how to characterize that. We just don't see it as being true. We know what they'd like. To say we're — that's kind of a serious charge saying you're denying someone their constitutional rights. We just don't see that anywhere in that (ruling)." Francis noted the school board and administration have had a longtime relationship with the LNEA "founded on the meet-and-confer basis as well as ongoing discussions. We meet with LNEA leadership once a month to get input from the teachers on district operations while at the same time being able to reserve for the Board of Education, the elected officials of this community, allowing them to really look out for what's in the best interest of staff, students and the community ..." Inclusion of Sections 2, 3 and 4 in a binding contract such as the one sought by teachers "would require the Board of Education to seek the permission of the LNEA" on such items as the school calendar, background checks, building assignments, retirement-incentive programs and "on and on you go," Francis said. Of the board's refusal to expand the scope of negotiations to include the entire Teacher Handbook, O'Leary said, "... We don't consider that bargaining in good faith ... What they are required to do is bargain in good faith. That means basically — the way I understand it from the way the attorneys for the MNEA (Missouri National Education Association) have told us — that means that they have to discuss or negotiate these different items. And so that's exactly what we're asking for ..." Asked about the next step, she said, "In all honesty, all we can do is answer them, which is what we did. Now I will tell you we heard from them yesterday (March 27) and they came back to us and said: Tell us basically what you want ... and need to recommend this to your membership. So we are preparing a statement for them to give them an answer to that. The bottom line is simply to get back to the table and to talk." "We made what we considered to be a final offer. We've done the best that we can do in these economic times," Francis said, citing the drop in the district's assessed valuation and $3 million projected in deficit spending this year, next year and the following year. "So we're — I guess I'm not sure. Go back to the table and offer what now?" Lanane said, "We'll be guided simply by what do we think the best thing for kids will be? That means going back and still talking even though we've told them what our final position is ... I'm sure we probably are willing to do that. We want to keep things in a way that kids don't suffer because the adults can't agree. We just can't allow that to happen. So we're going to be here to protect our students and we want whatever's going to be best for them and to make sure our educational achievement continues as it has in the past ... Lindbergh's got a great tradition of excellence and we're committed to making sure that continues. However, we are in some pretty dire economic times and we feel there are boundaries upon which it would not be wise or prudent to go beyond." http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2009-04-01-233290.112112_Lindbergh_teachers_reject_boards_final_offer.html |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 13 2009, 12:34 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
I know this will never happen, but lets not make this an "us against them" topic. What really, really would be best for the kids? And only the kids. Yup! Just daydreaming on that
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |




