August 8, 2005 – 5:00 p.m.


Recorder:              Stephanie White

Location:              Boardroom


Darbi Haffner

Cindy Bandow

Paul Breese

Kate Gillow-Wiles

Mary Jo Husiman

Madeline Jorgenson

James Sundell

Mike Bonner

Brian Hungerford

Denise Pratt

Kathryn Hedrick

Judy Croce

Tom Endersby

Kathleen Rodden-Nord

Wanda McClure

Stephanie White

Cal Fagan, Barb Coolman, Janet Dunham, and Galen Carpenter were absent for the association.

James – We were hoping the district would have some proposals for us.  We didn’t bring a packet of proposals. 

Brian – We have a counter proposal on Article 20 – Reduction in Force, as well as the Memorandum of Understanding for Craig Rothenberger.  James – We are waiting on LUBC to review the Memorandum, hopefully we will have it back from them by the end of this week.

Brian handed out the district’s proposal on Article 20 – Reduction in Force.  Brian noted that the date on the top of the page needs to be changed from May 31, 2005 to August 8, 2005.

Brian – B1 – At this point, we have a very similar definition of seniority.  We changed the ‘date of hire’ to the most recent date of actual service with the DistrictJames – I think that is consistent with what we were thinking.  Brian – We agree that seniority shall continue to accrue during paid leave breaks, but not continue to accrue during other authorized leave breaks.  James – Our proposal is consistent with current contract language.  Kathleen – We will look into that.  We were just looking at this being consistent with the salary schedule.  If you take a year leave of absence, you do not advance on the salary schedule for that year.  Brian – We truly don’t have an ulterior motive here, it just seems that we would do it consistently with the salary schedule step advancements.  James – In contracts I have examined, the standard is that seniority continues to accrue during leaves of absence.  Brian – I disagree with that.  When an employee is on unpaid FMLA leave, seniority does not continue to accrue.

Brian – B2 – I believe is the same as your proposal.  Mary Jo – Yours says ‘as a result of RIF’.  Brian – That is just stating the obvious.

Brian – B3 – Our proposal says ‘the District shall determine that the member being retained have more competence than the member with more seniority who is being laid off’.  Your proposal says ‘the District must prove that the member to be retained has significantly more competence than the more senior member’.  Your language places a burden of proof on the district.  Our perspective is that either someone has more competence, or they don’t.  James – It is the association’s interest to place importance on our senior employees.  Yes, the association wants to retain more senior teachers.  Brian – We are proposing what the law provides for.  We can’t agree to something that we can’t define.  James – This is only if the district plans to retain a less senior teacher.  Brian – In any event, we can’t accept the term ‘significantly’.

Brian – 4a – We are continuing to propose the statutory requirement of 5 years.  We are also proposing to say, ‘the District may consider a teacher’s willingness to undergo additional training…’  Your proposal states that the district shall consider a teacher’s willingness to undergo additional training…  James – It’s our interest to give more senior employees the option.  Brian – My understanding of this when reading it eliminates competence as long as the more senior employee is willing to undergo additional training; this trumps using competence.  A teacher may have to undergo additional training while teaching the students the same subject; that is not in the best interest of the students.  James – When would additional training be used then?  Brian – It depends on the totality of the situation.  James – What would just like the district to ask the more senior employee if they would be willing to take additional courses; just that the district would consider it. Brian – We are still going to stick with our language using ‘may’.

Brian – 4b – We are proposing that grade level be defined as any grade that the member who is scheduled for layoff has been assigned to within the past five years, as well as the grade directly above and directly below that grade.  Cindy – What if the teacher teaches 12th grade?  Brian – Then they could teach 11th or 12th.  Kathleen – It says subject or grade level.  If the employee teaches 12th grade math, then they could teach that subject.  Brian – Grade level determination is more for the elementary level.  Paul – Which would be considered first, the grade level or subject?  Brian – There is no priority.  James – 4b doesn’t recognize what the teacher’s license says they can teach.  Brian – That is inconsistent with the law.  Competence means more than what the license says they can teach.  James – We don’t necessarily agree with the law.  Brian – We can’t ignore statute that is binding the district.  There are a lot of laws that we don’t agree with.  We are trying to meet with your needs, but we can’t’ meet all of them.  We already took some statutory rights of the district away by getting rid of merit.  James – I understand that.  The area of competence came back with the expanded number of years.  We would like the district’s ability to consider more than five years; we feel as though we can make some movement on 4b.  Brian – When you have law that states five years, you haven’t given the rationale to increase that other than to give the senior teacher more safety.  James – We are looking for the district to compromise on this.  Denise – We have compromised; we compromised on the merit, we have compromised on the calendar.  James – I understand that, and we thank the district for the language changes.

Brian – C4 – The association clarified for us that the three months of insurance would be July, August, and September.  James – Yes, we agreed to that.  You have that employees who are riffed prior to the end of school would get one month insurance, we are proposing two months.  You are also proposing to strike D out?  Brian – That goes along with being consistent throughout the contract.  We would agree to leave the language in if the association agrees to add, ‘except as otherwise mentioned in this agreement’.  We don’t want to confuse the members.  We are in agreement on the change in F. 

Brian and Wanda went over the payroll draws letter.  Wanda discussed the reasons.  This is not something that is covered by contract, but is past practice.  The district will no longer be able to offer draws.  The district was informed by the IRS that our current way of issuing draws (takes five minutes) is not legal.  It would now take 2.5 hours to issue one draw paycheck as well as cost the district approximately $55.00 per draw for employees who have direct deposit.  This is the association’s notice that the district will no longer be allowing draws.  Darbi – How many people utilize this?  Wanda – We do about 24 draws per year.  Kathleen – The same few people utilize this most frequently.  James – Is it both classified and licensed?  Wanda – I’m not aware of a classified employee asking for a draw since I have been here, but I also sent this letter to the classified union.

Caucus 6:15 p.m. – 7:10 p.m.

James – Thank you for allowing us to caucus.  Could you please clarify 4b please?  Brian – If a teacher teaches 4th grade, the grade level they would be allowed to teach would be 3rd, 4th, and 5th.  If a teacher teaches 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades within the past five years, then they would be able to teach those three grades as well as 1st and 5th grade.  James – In your definition used the last time, grade level was K-5, 6-8, and 9-12; how would that work under this definition of grade level?  Kathleen – We would not use that to determine grade level anymore.  James – A 9th grade teacher would be able to teach 8th grade?  Kathleen – If they have the licensure.  James – The association would like to be able to TA this article tonight.

B1 would be acceptable to us.  That language is currently in the appendix and I think our language in B1 is consistently aligned with that.  We will use the district’s proposal in B2 and B3.  Because we have Appendix D, we are proposing to strike 4a.  Because there is a slight change in grade level, we will use the district’s 4b grade level definition.  C4, It is my understanding that we currently provide three months after a teacher is laid off at the end of the school year.  The association proposes that remain the same, and then two months if the employee is laid off prior to the end of the school year.  Kathleen – If it is understood that the three months are July, August, and September.  James – Yes, we are willing to clarify that.  Brian – Would you please talk about B1?  James – We read what we had in the Appendix, and we feel this would reduce our member’s rights.  Brian – The first actual date of service; a teacher may leave the district for a few years and then come back to teach.  Does this mean that they keep the seniority they had before they left?  Cindy – That is a good point.  We could say, ‘most recent first date of service’.  Brian – Ok.

Caucus 7:22 p.m. – 7:53 p.m.

Brian – Article 20.  We are in agreement with the last proposal the association made.  B1 – the association’s proposed definition from June 13, and using most recent first date of service?  James – Yes.  Brian – We went with the district’s B2 and B3.  B4 would just be 4, with no a and b with the clarification that, ‘so long as the employee is licensed and endorsed to fill the position’.  C – we will use the association’s proposal with two months insurance for employees laid off prior to the end of the school year and three months for those laid off at the end of the school year.  The months will be July, August, and September.  James – Yes.  Brian – We will keep D and add the language, ‘except as otherwise provided in this agreement’.  James – Yes.

Brian will draft this article and both parties will sign off on it at the next meeting.

James – Can we try to find another date before the 23rd to meet?  The teams looked at calendars; it was decided that the 23rd would be the best time to meet next.

Cindy – Can we talk about Article 12a?  You were fine with the current contract language.  We would be ok with that if we could accrue personal days.  Kathleen – Do you have a maximum number of days you can bank?  Cindy – Up to five.  Wanda – So the most you could carry forward is 3?  Cindy – Correct.  Cindy – Article 7.  Do we have a calendar?  Kathleen – As you know, the board adopted a calendar.  We have stipulated that while the calendar has been adopted by the board, the dates are subject to change pending labor negotiations.  Mary Jo – I picked up a calendar a week ago, and it is different from the one I picked up today.  Stephanie – The calendar you picked up today is the wrong one.  Stephanie made copies of the correct calendar and handed them out.  Kathleen – We will include the information about staff draws in the staff mailing that will go out this month.  Kathleen notified everyone of Ramona Kelley’s husband and her new work schedule for the time being (5:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.)  Darbi – Are the late start and early release days district-wide?  Kathleen – Yes, late starts will start one hour later and early releases will release one hour earlier. Kathryn – This does not include sports practices, those times will not change.

Items for the next meeting

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 8:20 p.m.