|
BOE gives $142K in raises before new law on unions
by Gregory R. Norfleet · News · February 23, 2017
Just two weeks after making their initial proposal, West Branch teachers approved a new contract with more than $142,000 in additional salaries and benefits for the coming school year.
And three days after the teachers, on Feb. 13, the West Branch Board of Education unanimously approved the two-year contract as well.
Both sides cite the recent collective bargaining passed by the Iowa legislature, led by a Republican majority, stating that they wanted to come to an agreement before the bill became law to avoid the risk of seeing their work set back or undone.
“We’re very happy to get a two-year contract,” Board President Mike Colbert said just before the unanimous vote to accept. “It reduces a lot of risk to teachers.”
The new West Branch Education Association contract amounts to a 3.1-percent total increase to salaries and benefits for both years. Business Manager Angie Klinkkammer said she would not know the 2018-19 figure until significant factors, like the cost of health insurance, is known.
WBEA President Mary Buol thanked the board for coming to an agreement so quickly.
“I think we have a fantastic board,” she said. “They were willing to sit down and work with us.”
She said the board wanted teachers to know that they appreciated the teachers’ work, especially with new initiatives like the newly created, two-week term between first and second semesters.
“We’re more than pleased,” she said. “We’re thrilled with the new two-year contract.”
Board member Mike Owen thanked the WBEA and the board’s negotiating team — Superintendent Kevin Hatfield, Keith Schultes and Colbert — “for getting this done quickly.”
He said legislators “don’t have a clue” about the impact of the legislation they were “pushing” through. Asked later if he meant state funding for education — a 1.1-percent increase that amounted to about $40 million — or the collective bargaining law, Owen stated that both could apply, but he meant collective bargaining. At the time, the collective bargaining bill had been debated, but not yet passed.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Iowa Council 61 on Monday filed a lawsuit, according to the Des Moines Register, to block implementation of the new collective bargaining law.
The new law, signed by Gov. Terry Branstad on Friday, says governing bodies — like school boards, city councils, county boards, etc. — may, but are no longer required to, negotiate health insurance, staff reductions, evaluation procedures and leaves of absence for political purposes. The bill only affects unions working for public bodies, not private companies.
State Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, in his Feb. 16 column, stated that school superintendents tell him that they will likely continue to negotiate all of those areas that are no longer mandatory.
Four other key points of the bill raising the most opposition are:
• That it allows an arbitrator to choose middle ground between the two opposing sides, rather than choose one side’s offer or the other’s;
• That it requires union members to vote every year whether to continue the union;
• That unions will be barred from collecting dues through paycheck deducations;
• And that governing bodies must still negotiate with police and firefighter unions the areas excluded from other unions.
It is this difference given to police and firefighters unions upon which AFSCME argues that law is unconstitutional and, thus, filed suit.
“That was a rush job of a very complex and sweeping bill with implications there is no way they can foresee,” Owen said in a response to an e-mail question. “It was unnecessary because Chapter 20 (collective bargaining) works exceptionally well, but even if they believed changes were needed, they should have done this in a deliberative, open and transparent process. This is driven by ideology and (it is) rare that legislation motivated that way produced good results. It’s bad for us as a school district and bad for our employees, whom we value. A sad chapter in Iowa history.”
Buol and Colbert said the collective bargaining bill “absolutely” prompted faster negotiations.
Colbert said he was at work when he had the thought, “We should go ahead and get ours done,” and said Buol had the same thought and called him later that day, while he was walking to his car.
“Negotiations were in process, so we knew the important issues for each side and we’d had time to think through some of the topics independently,” Colbert said. “The board members I talked to and Mr. Hatfield were in support of trying to get it done Thursday night.”
Colbert said he interpreted the bill to mean that “if the law had passed without us being settled, it would have required us to throw out our work and start over under the new rules — with outcomes that are ideological and not well-thought-out.”
“This was a very scary place for us to be,” he said. “In the end, it’s a contract we’re all happy with.”
Buol said the new law “hurts public education and the future of all our children in West Branch.”
“The teachers and the Board of Education knew we had to work collaboratively to ensure that our students would continue to receive the very best education that will prepare them to be global citizens and 21st century learners,” she said responding to an e-mail from the Times. “This new law hurts all that public schools do for children, families, communities, and our future!”
Colbert said “it was very important” to tell the WBEA that the school board “did not support the bill AND MORE IMPORTANTLY the way it was handled in the legislature.”
“When legislators were stating that ‘superintendents and school boards want this,’ they were hearing exactly the opposite from our board in both our communications with legislators and in our actions,” Colbert wrote in an e-mail response to the Times.
Setting a two-year contract helps reduce risks for teachers, Colbert said.
“No one knows what the other side of this looks like and given the very short amount of time we were given to understand it and the lack of practically focused conversation about the bills, neither do the legislators,” the board president said. “Which is a scary place to be when you are looking out for (about) 60 teachers and (about) 750 kids. This will give us time to see how things shake out and to learn how progressive districts that support teachers and learning implement contracts under the new laws.”
Colbert said the new law will produce “both great examples and poor examples.”
“We can learn from these examples and take our time to ensure our new contracts reflect what is best for educating students in West Branch,” he said.
State Sen. Bob Dvorksy, in his Feb. 16 column, opposed changing the law, saying the 1974 collective bargaining law it replaces was passed as a way to reduce striking by unions.
The teachers in late January opened by asking for $232,000 in salary and benefit increases — about 5.04 percent — and the school board countered with $103,000 in increases — about 2.25 percent. The final contract equals about $142,000 in increases, or about 3.1 percent.
Some other highlights of the WBEA contract include:
• Providing teachers with one class period per day for preparation, and $25 for each prep period lost should the teacher be called to cover as a substitute teacher;
• Teachers must notify the principal before leaving the building during normal school hours;
• Sick days may be used for personal or family illnesses or injuries;
• In the case where the school district loses significant state funding due to a drop in enrollment, the WBEA and school leaders “will partner to further reduce costs.”
• The school district will create a head soccer coach position;
• The district and WBEA agreed to remove a provision regarding collecting union dues “since all members now use electronic transfer of funds.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
