|
Notes from the 10-12-07 Negotiations between Minneapolis Principals Forum and the MPS Administration. Present: Roger Arenson, Emma Hixson, Mitch Throckman, Bernadeia Johnson, Steve Liss, Dan Lowenson, Tim Codotte, Joan Franks, Alan Cavell, two principals I don't know Roger discusses the new cost estimate and asks some questions about the changed costs that are described on the "reserve principals" line. Emma says that the district pulled a couple costs out of that line, including some costs for retired principals and some other things that didn't belong there in the previous estimates. There is also some discussion of the insurance cost line item. Roger says that he wants to get a summary of the main costs. He says he wants an estimate of the "base salary" that the contract is negotiating from. He says that he wants to look at what the total cost of a 3% salary change [presumably two annual 3% increases of the salary scale] would be, and then he wants to figure the cost of insurance. He says that once they have the costs for salary [with increases] and [the new costs for] insurance, then all the other costs are secondary. There is a discussion about the cost of insurance for principals, a bunch of numbers are thrown out and the details are difficult to follow. The discussion focuses on sheets that everyone is looking at which apparently define the current costs and the costs with the principals' proposal. There is some amount of confusion about what the numbers mean and how they were calculated, but the discussion apparently come to a temporary understanding of what current insurance costs are. Roger states that the principals' current "total package" is $11.652 million, so that 3% of this the first year is an additional $349,500, and then a second year with 3% would be an additional $360,178. There is a question about whether the salary number on the referenced sheets includes FICA and retirement contributions, and two of the administrators state that it does not. Roger blasts out a bunch of numbers trying to make some simplifying assumptions with numbers to get ballpark cost estimates. Emma asks Roger where he is going with the cost estimates and Roger says that he is trying to get a big-picture look at the financial positions of the principals and of the administration. Roger says that if the principals are proposing a total increase of one to two million and the administration is proposing $250,000, then they need a mediator. Emma responds that the cost of the principal's original proposal was $1.48 million over two years and that the MPS proposal was "five hundred thousand over both years", which included $885 in salary increases and $160k in health cost increases. Emma tells Roger that if he can give her a counter-proposal closer to $1 million, then they can talk. Roger then calls the principals at the table to have a discussion outside of the negotiation room. After five minutes or so, Roger and the principals return. Roger quickly goes through a list of negotiation items. He says that the principals propose sequential 3% salary scale increases, and the "same health proposal". He says that they still want the sick leave buy-out, that they will deal with TAP later, and that they want the sick leave pool, the staff development changes, and the vacation buy-out. He says that they drop "moving two days to salary", and he says something about "claims". He says that they withdraw the vacation-day increase (saying that they need to talk about "economic matters" first), and that they still have questions about a "duty-free July". Emma acknowledges the gauntlet that Roger has thrown down, but says there are a few further questions that need to be answered, including "mandatory vacation" and "people on call". Roger says that fourteen years ago principals were "behind" and they had a "fourty-something" week-long year. Then, when the district had more money, the principals moved to a 52-week year contract with a "teens" increase. However, now the principals want to have a duty-free July defined in the contract, rather than just "working the system" to achieve the same thing. Emma asks if the proposed duty-fee July is "vacation" or not, and if it is for assistant principals also. Roger says that if you read the contract, you would think that "principals and APs are sitting in the building all summer", but that's not actually the case. An administrator starts working through the math about vacation days and wonders how a duty-free July would affect the 30 days of vacation that the principals receive. Emma notes that the district annually designates five "non-duty" days, so principals actually have 35 days of vacation annually. [Roger later asks if the administration would agree to make 35 actual vacation days, and drop the five non-duty days. The administration responds with a flat "no".] A principal responds that principals never actually take all of their vacation time, in large part because the hiring cycle of the district runs so late into the summer. He further says that the whole construct of a duty-free July bothers him. [This is confusing. Who is proposing the duty-free July?] Roger has counted up something about vacation days and says that the principals actually have 20 "mandatory", and that principals clip their summer vacation time to ensure that the staffing at their schools is taken care of. Emma chimes in and there is a clear statement from the administrators that nobody wants the principals to waste their vacation time. Emma says that the administration will make a specific proposal to which the principals can respond. Roger announces that this "brings us to the end of our list", and he asks about the vacation-day donation issue. Emma has something written prepared on this topic, so she passes it out and everybody reads it. The group then has several technical questions about the wording of the donation proposal, but ultimately, all informally agree with what was written. Emma then asks the principals if they have anything for the administration about layoff. Roger responds that the principals would agree to create a memorandum of agreement to implement the administration's proposal on a case-by-case basis. Roger says that the principals don't want to give the administration unilateral authority [regarding layoff]. An administrator asks if most of what affects principal layoff is not defined in the contract [but in state law]. Roger sort of acknowledges that, noting that there are some things you can't negotiate away. Emma tells Roger that she appreciates him opening the door about seniority layoff, but, she says, what the principals are offering is essentially what already exists. The offer doesn't move this conversation forward in any way. Emma says to the principals ans Roger "As a highly professional organization, I can't understand why you would cling to seniority". Roger responds with a good-natured laugh, and says "I hate shame, are you trying to shame me?" Emma says "I am asking you to step up here, we need your leadership saying that this [seniority] shouldn't be a factor [in layoff]". Roger says that he needs to think about ths and that he needs some of "which positions should be exempt", in order to sell this proposal. A principal asks, "Are you saying you need this to return to the teachers [contract negotiation]?" Emma says "Yes, that is part of it. The flip side of this is putting it on the accountability." [This apparently means that if the principals can't agree to drop seniority layoff, layoff will have to be related to "accountability", which apparently means performance evaluation]. Roger says "That doesn't work, we have fired one principal in the past 26 years". A principal asks if the administration could just designate one principal as uniquely qualified to head one particular school. Emma says that the administration has the ability to do that now. She says that the district is proposing that the superintendent places principals based on his/her discretion, then any principal who didn't get placed would get laid off. Roger asserts that elementary principals are not the issue, so the administration's proposal is more about high schools. A principal speak up and says that he thinks an accountability system seems better than random choice. Roger says that what the administration is proposing is "bad behavior". Roger: then tha's bad behavior. He asks a clarifying question, wondering if the administration is proposing this superintendent's discretion for the "lowest in the bunch". Emma clarifies, saying that the proposal would allow the administration to designate all principals as subject to the superintendent's discretion. A principal says that the administration can place principals wherever the administration wants, and implies that should be enough control. Two administrators take turns talking about how "we" need to look at how the who system functions, not just how individual schools function. An administrator encourages the principals to understand the analogy of teacher staffing, where whatever could be gained through interview-and-select hiring could be lost through seniority layoff. Another administrator states that senior leadership should work at the will of the superintendent. There is a pause, then someone notes that the meeting time has concluded. There is a discussion concluding that the next session wil be on October 24 from 9:00 to 11:00, and will focus on "costing". [needing to leave, I exit the negotiation room before anyone else.] |