June 13, 2005 – 6:00 p.m.


Recorder:              Stephanie White

Location:              Boardroom


Patty Turley

Darbi Haffner

Cindy Bandow

Mary Jo Husiman

Janet Dunham

James Sundell

Mike Brotherton

Brian Hungerford

Denise Pratt

Kathryn Hedrick

Tom Endersby

Kathleen Rodden-Nord

Stephanie White

Cal Fagan, Barb Coolman, Kate Gillow-Wiles, Madeline Jorgenson and Galen Carpenter were absent for the association.  Judy Croce and Wanda McClure were absent from the district.

Janet – We have a proposal on Article 1 – Recognition that we’d like you to take a look at.

James – Last time we bargained, the association gave a proposal to the district on Article 7 – School Work Year.  The board has adopted a calendar with 4 more student contact days than there are currently.  We feel it is an Unfair Labor Practice to increase the number of student contact days.  Brian mentioned that he did not feel that it was, but our legal counsel disagrees with that.  The association would have to consider filing an Unfair Labor Practice against the district if we can’t come to an agreement on this.  We hope we can find a resolution.  Brian – My preference is to keep those kinds of conversations between legal counsels.  I don’t feel that a threat of filing an Unfair Labor Practice is forward progress.  Patty – The board approved a calendar and you need to understand that that makes us feel as though bargaining this issue has been preempted.  Denise – No Patty, I don’t understand.  You have been at most of the board meetings; the board has made it a point to get input from staff throughout this whole calendar process.  Principals have spoken with their staff about the calendar, and the board has made it clear that the calendar may change due to bargaining.  Kathleen – I can assure you that all input from the staff has been discussed at the administrative level and will continue to be discussed at the administrative level.  Brian – I know that this is one of your biggest issues.  My opinion is that it is best to move onto articles that we are closer to an agreement on.  The discussion about Unfair Labor Practice is one that I feel legal counsel should be discussing.  Mike B. – It is ridiculous to be talking about these petty little issues in the contract when you should be more concerned about settling salary and benefits.  There is no guarantee that salary and benefits will be retroactive to July 1.  The longer you take to settle this, the longer you will go without a raise.  The association has an issue with adding more student contact days; that is more time with the students, it is not adding more days to your contract.

Caucus 6:20 – 6:35 p.m.

Janet went over the association’s proposal for Article 1 – Recognition.  Brian – It is my understanding that the association accepted the district’s proposal with the deletion of Article 10 and Article 13 in D3.  Stephanie – I have that in my notes as well.  James – I do have that in my notes; this must have been an oversight on our part.

Caucus 6:45 – 6:55 p.m.

Janet – We will accept the district’s proposal with the deletion of Article 10 & Article 13 in D3.  Brian – Is it your understanding that temporary re-hired retirees go back to probationary employees?  James – If they are re-hired as temporary employees, than that is what they are.    Aren’t temporary contracts just that; temporary?  Brian – I am not sure how that is done in JC; if they non-renew temporary contracts each year.  Kathleen – Yes, we non-renew temporary employees each year.  James – We feel they should have the same rights as regular bargaining members.  Brian – What should their level of protection be?  We feel like administrators should have the ability to terminate temporary employees, substitutes, and re-hired retirees.  James – We don’t anticipate there to be any problems in the future.  The district doesn’t have to re-hire the person if they don’t feel they are a good fit.  Kathleen – My concern is with respect to subs.  Patty – With a sub you can tell them not to come back the next day.  Kathleen – Not with the association’s proposed language.  Brian – A lot of the times this isn’t an issue with retirees.  If they go back to probationary status that might address some of my concerns, but it still wouldn’t address the concern with subs.

Article 31 – Re-Employment of Retirees – Association’s Proposal

Brian – Your proposal mirrors the district’s last proposal with the exception of F.  Does F mean after the signing of this agreement?  James – Yes, after the agreement is ratified.  Brian – Your intent there is that you have one employee who is a retiree and this won’t affect them?  James – Yes, he would be grandfathered in.  Kathleen – When this person was re-hired the board understood that we would not be paying PERS on this person and there would be no insurance payment because he was receiving a stipend.  We had a level one grievance meeting with the employee and was agreed that the district would pay PERS and insurance this year and discuss future years in bargaining.  Patty – One of our concerns is that we didn’t think that one of our own retirees would be treated differently than any other person hired.  Brian – He got it real good for a year.  This just means that he wouldn’t be getting as good of a deal from this point on.  I understand where you are coming from though.  Patty – The stipend is not just intended to pay for insurance but as an early retirement benefit.  Janet – Did the district save any money on this?  Kathleen – No, not at all.  Brian – We appreciate your proposal and that it mirrors ours with the exception of F, but that is a very big issue for us.  Kathleen – We will need to caucus prior to a counter proposal.  James – In A, B, and C, is it your understanding that re-employed members come back as probationary employees?  Kathleen – Yes, that is how we treat new hires.  James – Could we add, including probationary status to B?  Brian – Yes, that would make it more clear.  We still have the concern about how to deal with the current employee.

Article 20 – Reduction in Force

Brian – We can highlight the areas where our proposals differ.  We would prefer to keep current contract language in response to your proposal.  James – 1 – Seniority – Their hire date would be their actual first date of service.  Seniority shall continue to accrue during leaves of absence and leaves shall not be considered a break in service.  Brian – I am curious as to why you would do that.  A person who chooses to take an unpaid leave of absence because of a RIF situation would have the same seniority as someone who worked that year.  That doesn’t make sense to me.  Patty – Doesn’t the board have discretion as to whether or not they approve leaves?  Kathleen – Sometimes.  James – 4a – We made forward progress by changing 10 years to 9 years, but we propose to keep the same language.  4b – We are proposing that grade level means what is on your license.  It is our understanding that TSPC is changing the licensure structure and narrowing the grade level.  C4 – We took your language and added: Teachers who are laid off prior to the conclusion of a school year shall be entitled to insurance benefits through the end of the second month following the month in which they were laid off.  We concur with July, August, and September for all other layoffs.  We prefer to leave D in.  There are some key issues the way seniority is begun.  Brian – We had the most recent first day because if someone leaves the district for a few years, we don’t want them to then have that seniority if they were to come back.  James – Yes, that would be a break in service.  Brian – We would probably continue to use “the most recent” in our proposal.  Patty – Brian, how would you define that?  Brian – The first day of most recent service; most recent hire date.  James – Most recent works for us.  Kathryn – We could go through every scenario in the book; how many people are we talking about here?  Just one.


Brian – Article 1 – Recognition – We agree with the last proposal you made on A1 as I understand it.  It would be our proposal of May 31 with Article 10 & Article 13 stricken.  Article 31, adding in section B and including probationary status.  We will still continue to propose to not include F, but to have a Memorandum of Understanding to not alter the terms and conditions of the one employee’s status; he would pay his own PERS contributions.  James – What would the length of the MOU be?  Brian – As long as he is here.  Patty – Could you get us the terms and conditions of Tier 3?  Kathleen – I don’t have them with me right now, but I am sure we could get them for you.  Patty – Even in E it doesn’t say the employee would pay the employer’s portion.  Kathleen – It was understood that the district would be paying no PERS on this employee and that is what we are proposing.  Brian – Are there any other questions?

Brian – Article 20 – Reduction in Force – We will have a written counter proposal for you at the next meeting.  Seniority will be clarified as the most recent date of hire.  We do not agree with the other components of your proposal and would be content with keeping current contract language.  We believe that our proposed definition of grade level is better than the current contract language.  This is an area that is spelled out in state law and we are not willing to let the contract take away from that.  We appreciate your movement in C4, and we will have a response next time.  James – Speaking of next time, do we have any dates yet?

The association is unable to meet in June or July.  The next tentatively scheduled bargaining session is August 8.   The teams also looked at August 22, 23, 24.  Kathleen will have to check her calendar at home before making a commitment.

Brian – In your proposals, there are a number of areas where you are choosing proposals with economic impacts.  Our proposal on Article 12 will continue to be current contract language.  Your proposal has a cost associated with it.  We can bring a counter proposal on Article 15 to the next meeting.  We have proposed deleting the article, but we will be ok with current contract language.  We would not, however, be ok with adding your proposed language because it has a cost to it.  We will have a counter proposal to your proposed Article  14.  We do see some benefit on increasing that but we don’t know by how much though.  Is the whole $5,000 exhausted?  Cindy – Yes, it has been used for ‘teaching math to lower level achievers’, autism and the school, brain gym, and some others.  Janet – It has been used more recently than in years past.  Brian – We don’t see a problem with adding special ed teachers but we do see a problem in section F.  We are committed to abiding by ESEA as stated in law.  We don’t see a problem with section C.  Patty – Our thought was to try and preempt any issues coming of this.  Brian – Have there been issues with the implementation of ESEA?  Patty – I am not aware of any administrative decision made in accordance with ESEA.  James – How many current staff members are not highly qualified?  Kathleen – Very, very few; mainly at the middle school level.  Brian – Are there any other questions?  Janet – I don’t think so.  Brian – Kathleen will be in touch with Janet about dates.

All meetings are open to the public, and minutes will be posted on the district website at www.junctioncity.k12.or.us.  (Just click on Board Info, and then click on Meeting Minutes Archives; there will be a link for Licensed Negotiation Minutes.)

Adjourn 8:25 p.m.