Present: Pam Costain, Chris Stewart, Peggy Flanagan, T Williams, Tom Madden, Sharon Henry-Blythe, Lydia Lee, Emma Hixson, Becky Christiansen, Paul Omodt, “Lynn” from PSB, Dan Lowenson, Steve Liss, Pat Pratt-Cook, Steve Liss, Mitch Trockman, Bernadeia Johnson, Bill Green

Emma says “we are planning to focus on communication, and Becky is here with Paul Omodt (www.psbpr.com/page/Paul-Omodt.jsp)”.  Pam invites Paul to introduce himself.

Paul introduces himself with confidence and authority.  Paul says that he “heads up the crisis practice and the issues management practice at Pidilla Spear Beardsly” and has done this for the last eight years. He states that he has worked on many parts and all sides of labor negotiations with nurses, airlines, etc.

Paul says that “we” are late in the game for communications. He says they (Padilla) are working with Becky’s team to make a communications plan.  He says that they started the Minneapolis Communicator the previous day.  He says that they “wanted to have a single source of information that would take everyone in this room out of the need to respond to lots of people”.  He says that “from a strategy standpoint we want to control the flow of information and develop a feedback loop where we capture what people are saying about us and saying to us, so we can see how strong the union is in ‘collective bargaining strength’, how likely they are to strike, or how likely they are to follow leadership”.  Paul says that “we can gage this and we will quantify all the responses each day, so we get a sense of what their strength is, we want to be able to quantify and measure what their strength is, up to a point of a strike or solidarity vote”. 

Paul says we want to see “how many people wear red tomorrow, how many people show up for a board meeting, how engaged are their people are”. Paul says that it is his guess “that they are not as engaged as you think they are”. Paul says that it’s very important that “our information” is as correct as possible. He says that it is his experience that a lot of union communication will discredit itself, sometimes saying stuff that is out of line that won’t bring the membership along.

Paul says that we also need to talk about what topics “we want to put out”.  He says that with each Communicator, we will put out a talking points sheet or an FAQ for the district people who talk.  Paul says that in labor communication word of mouth does have a role.  He says that we will ask other third parties to help us do the “emotional” side or the “persuasive” side, such as letters to the editor, op-eds.  He says that we always want people to be able to come to us on a continuum.  Paul says that they have to build credibility to provide “a safe place for them to come”.  He says that we can’t call them stupid or their leadership stupid.

Paul says that we are working on a more formal plan, but really just got started on it yesterday.  A formal plan is usually 30-40 pages.  It makes sure everybody is on the same page.  Paul says that it is his experience from 20 years in this business that the tension is usually between communicators and negotiators, because the goals aren’t defined. We will have contingency planning for strike or lock-out or whatever ever the aftermath is. And also part of the plans is that the day after the negotiations, you start planning for the next negotiation, because it never really ends. You never want to have to recreate the trust levels.

Paul says that he did some PR work with the previous superintendant’s office and he thinks that the trust level in the district is a lot higher now than it was at that time.  Paul says that he thinks “reform is just starting here, you guys.”

Emma asks if everybody seen Communicator #2 and Pam suggests that they review it.  Emma says Paul’s advice was that the first Communicator should just introduce itself.  Paul says that the second Communicator focused on clearing up misconceptions, without locking us into specifics. Paul says that the challenge of the second Communicator was for the district to describe their proposal of their terms.

Emma describes in detail the points that were covered in the MPS Communicator #2:

Pam asks if they are thinking about Communicators #3 and #4 yet, and Paul confirms that they are.  He says topics would include reform and finances, although the specifics still need to be determined.  Paul says that all pieces need to focus on 5 or 6 key themes, and from recent conversations, he thinks that these themes are:

• Reform
• Respect – that there is respect for teachers
• Realistic finances / good financial stewardship
• Student-centric message
• Everyone is part of the solution – that changes won’t just come on the back of teachers

Paul says that they have already received feedback from the first two Communicators, particularly some people saying that they want to be told other stuff administrators and the superintendant have done to sacrifice for the district’s reform.

Paul says that the goal is to keep everything low key, to keep the fear low. Paul says that we don’t want people to be spooked by the process.  For this reason, Paul says, there is a process element in the Communicators that describes where they are in the process.

Bill notes that as they move into the mediated negotiations, there will be movement on the positions.  He asks Paul how the district communicators can talk about the opening positions that have now been published when they may know that some of the positions have changed.  Paul says that district communicators should stick to the talking points, but offer to seek other answers from the district’s communication nexus.  Paul says that the goal of this is to make sure that everyone is giving the same answers and building credibility. Paul says that it is important that the district be a source of good, clear information, which gives them “strategic advantage”.

Becky says that when Board members are “asked on the street” about negotiations they need to be able to respond.  She says that ideally there is one point person on the Board for communications, typically the Board Chair, who carries the main message.  Becky says that “before we leave today if we could agree on the four or five things that we need to form talking points on, interview and select being one of them”.  Becky says this will give the Board members “something to go on”.  She says that she imagines that Board members feel like they are being very unresponsive to their supporters.  She asks “Am I right on that?” and there are a couple uh-huhs from the Board.  Becky says “That’s an awful place to be”.  She says that if there isn’t time to create the talking points today, they will develop them elsewhere and communicate them to the Board by email.

Emma suggests that they talk about that evening’s Board meeting.  Becky says that she has created a two-minute segment of remarks for the Superintendant.  Becky says that these will have a synopsis of the district’s proposal, fashioned as a reform effort and acknowledging that people are now paying attention to this issue.  Emma says that copies of the Communicator will be available during the meeting.

At Emma’s prompt, Becky describes the all of the people who received the Communicator by email.  Pam reminds the people present that MFT has called for a demonstration during that evening’s meeting, but there is discussion about the poor weather that evening potentially limiting the turnout.  Dan points out that MFT headquarters is a short drive from the administration building.

Pam reiterates that during the time for open comments at the Board meeting, the Board will just listen and not respond to comments, as usual.  Chris points out that the normal Board policy is to correct inaccurate statements made during the public comment period, he asks Pam if she would do this tonight.  Pam says that she will refer people to the printed copies of the district’s proposal that will be available.

Emma says that they spent a lot of time on the wording of the Communicator newsletters about the district’s proposal, so she thinks it would be better not to try to restate these positions.

Peggy asks if the Board is going to cut off public comment at some point, because she thinks that the meeting could go on for quite a while if they let everybody speak who wanted to.  Dan suggests that if there is one specific message that gets repeated many times, the Board could ask speakers to defer their time to others.  He also suggests that if speakers stray from the main topic of the new strategic plan, the Board could redirect the speakers to come back at another time more appropriate to the subject of their interest.

Mitch notes that in the past, when there has been massive demonstrations with hundreds of teachers walking around, the board chair has adjourned the meeting and gone off the air. He asks if the Board considered this possibility.  Dan says that rules allow for that sort of “intermission” if that is deemed necessary by the Board.  Dan says that the rules state that public demonstrations, banners, signs, and such are clearly not allowed in Board meetings.  Dan says that in the past when people have showed up with signs, MPS security has asked them to stay in the hall.

Steve asks Dan if there are any rules about cutting off comments at a particular time.  Dan says that there are no such rules.  Pam notes that so far, the Board has always run out all of the public comments and says that she thinks the Board should do this for that night’s meeting as well.  Emma says that this could be a “terrible problem” for the future.  Pam says that the next week’s meeting is about upcoming Board resolutions and so the topics for public comment are much more narrow, so it will be easier to rule comments out of order.  Pam notes that the Board has the 5:30-6:00 open public comment period next week that is off camera, and she notes that the Board does have the right to cut those off at the end of the comment period. Dan says that in such open public comment periods “we” ask people to indicate what they want to address and “I” hold back on those that are repetitive.

Pam invites Board members to chat about the administration’s “messaging” or to articulate particular questions they might have.

Paul steps in and points out that the Board might want to “do communications judo” by turning a potential teachers demonstration into something positive, by doing something such as thanking the teachers for showing up and for their dedication. Emma suggests that they could provide cookies and cider to the demonstrating teachers and Bill says they did that once before when they were expecting a demonstration, but nobody showed up.  Pam points out that when Tony Bouza was police chief of Minneapolis, he always served demonstrators doughnuts and coffee.  Mitch Trockman says that during the last strike [in 1970], some principals put out coffee for the striking teachers.

Sharon asks for a clarification about the terms “interview and select” and “seniority”.  Pat explains how the current system functions, where teachers interview for a position and the most senior interviewing teacher is placed.  Sharon asks if it is then correct to say that the district’s proposal is eliminating the use seniority.  Pat clarifies that this is true for the interviewing process and that there is also an exception to seniority-order layoff in the district’s proposal.

Emma says that seniority isn’t a model that is used in “the professional world” outside of education.

T enters the room and there is some joking by the other Board members about his late arrival.  Pam invites Paul and Lynn to introduce themselves again, particularly to T and Tom who arrived after the first introduction.  Lynn introduces herself, saying that T and Tom knows her, then she introduces Paul as the head of “our” critical issues team and an expert in union negotiations of all types.  Lynn says that “we” were asked to help with the communication surrounding he negotiations and that part of the thinking was that some of the work they have done on the strategic plan could "carry forward on this one.”  Lynn says that Paul and Padilla Spear Beardsly have never done a public school contract negotiation before, so they are learning a lot as they go.  Lynn also acknowledges Dan and Mitch’s historical perspecticves as important to the process.

Sharon asks to continue with her question.  Sharon suggests that it is the district’s intention to move the community away from seeing seniority as an issue of fairness.  Emma says that this is sort of true, but pay would remain highly related to seniority.  Steve asks how seniority would factor in to an English teacher being eliminated at a high school.  Emma says that she will have to check on this, but she believes that the current proposal does not change the process for deciding which teacher at a school is the first to go if a position is eliminated. Mitch suggests that what the district is proposing is a “modified seniority system”. 

Sharon says that she finds it helpful to think about how to move people away from thinking that “we” are targeting teachers.  Sharon says that “it is a shift in the community to move people away from thinking that teachers have a right based on length of service.” Chris says that some of the teachers he has talked to view a seniority-based right to teach where they want as something that you earn as a professional.  Chris says that this is a “controlling idea” is fundamentally different than his perspective and it makes it really hard for him to understand how teachers deal with seniority.

Mitch says that this is perspective is a focus on the benefit to adults versus a focus on the kids, the customers.  Emma says that because teachers really do care about the kids, they “find it very hard to see that some of the things that they have negotiated are not in the best interest of kids” because they believe that there is just no way they want something that is not good for kids.

Bill says that part of the issue is also that some of the contract provisions have been in place for thirty years. Bill also says that “we live a very cloistered world in Minneapolis” with respect to some of these placement issues, where other districts including St. Paul have moved on “in the direction we want to go”.  Bill says that there is “birthright, legacy on one hand and insularity on the other hand that underscores this sense of ownership of that provision”.

Chris says that some of the email he is getting form teachers is accusing the district of cutting their pay and sharply increasing their benefit costs, which he says is easy to respond to because those aren’t really true.  However, he says, it is true that the district is proposing to change something that has been seen as a professional right for several decades.  Emma agrees and says that it’s being taken personally, that a criticism of teachers is seen as implicit in the district’s proposal.

Chris says that when he “opens up his empathy gland” and tries to understand what could change the teacher’s perspective, he just can’t get anywhere.  Bill suggests that economic realities are something that could change such a perspective.  Emma says that this is where the message of overall district reform comes in, to define that the change that is being proposed for teacher staffing rules as part of broader changes in the district.  Emma says that “most of the other unions who didn’t have this have come on board with us, including their own union, the education paraprofessionals.”

Peggy describes being at a health-care rally earlier that day and says that the Superintendant of the West St. Paul schools spoke there about the competing needs of school employees and what children need for a good education.  Peggy says that this was the first time she had heard this message articulated publicly.  Peggy says that the Superintendant said that it was time for the State and companies to live up to their obligations. 

Peggy also agrees with Emma that other unions have “bit the bullet and have gotten on board with us”.  Peggy says that she has had conversations with “other union members” have indicated that “it’s time for this to be dispersed equally”.  Peggy says that the community does not see seniority as “the be-all-and-end-all.”  Peggy says that the community wants teachers who are supposed to speak Spanish to actually speak Spanish.  Peggy says that when you put it in these terms, “folks get it.”

Peggy supports what Paul had been saying about bringing in “the campaign on the outside” of letters-to-the-editor and such.  Peggy says that she feels really clear after reading the district’s written summaries and having this conversation.  She says that in the bulk on the emails that she is receiving, seniority is an issue, but this is something that she is “willing to fall on our sword for and go down fighting for”.  Peggy says that the bulk of the other issues, about pay freezes and benefit cuts, is solved with the district’s communication plan.

Paul responds to Chris’ comments about seniority and he describes this as about talking about “a religious item”.  Speaking to the Board, Paul says that “our job” should not be to convince teachers about seniority, but he says that “we need to give them a place to go”.  Paul says that the messages they are crafting will allow the Board a place to go that is “comfortable and safe”.  He says “we are not going to get everybody to agree with us” and he likens the seniority discussion to talking about chocolate ice cream, where people either like it or they don’t.  He says that they need to be able to say “I want you to try it” or “Other people like it”, which “give them a place to go” and “puts them on a continuum that moves someplace”. Paul says he doesn’t want people arguing that there are other points of view. Paul says that if the district and the union were arguing about the proposal.  He says that it would be possible to argue the facts behind a proposal (5% vs. 0%), but seniority is about “belief” not “facts”.

Bernadeia says the principals in school buildings are facing communication challenges related to the negotiations.  She says that she is very interested in “that group” and how to support them, because she thinks that how principals communicate around this issue is key and principals probably get hit with questions about the negotiations from parents at least as much as Board members do.

Emma says that “we” should work with “you” to “get a message out to them tomorrow”.  She says that the message is to refer people to The Communicator.  Emma says that they need to talk about is “dangers inherent in the meetings with teachers” in other forums for communication, such as discussions around the strategic planning process, because she does not want to “go to unfair labor practices land”, by being accused of bypassing the official representation of the teachers.

Pam says that “last week” they had two meetings with teacher audiences about the strategic planning process and that in these meetings they were “walking this really fine line” because every time you talk about strategic planning it “begs the question about contract flexibility”.  Pam says that when questions came up in these meetings they answered them “as much as they could without answering them in the negotiations sense”.  Pam says that there has been another idea about going out into school buildings and talking with smaller groups of teachers about “strategic planning”, “the vision of the district”, and “the reform agenda”.  Pam says that the question is (1) should we have these sorts of meetings, and (2) if so, what are the parameters that would need to be followed in these discussions.

Sharon asks for clarity about this idea.  Pam says that the idea was “to try to find a way to have a conversation with teachers that was not about the contract, but would give them something to believe in”. Sharon asks who would have this conversation.  Pam says that would need to be decided. Chris and Sharon ask where the idea came from.  Pam says that she thinks it “just emerged in the course of communication”, but Lynn says that she thinks it was her idea. 

Lynn says that although the mediator wants to keep things separate she thinks that having conversations with teachers about the strategic plan “would be a fabulous opportunity.”  She says that because the contract negotiations and the strategic plan do fit together, talking about the strategic plan is an opportunity “to weave in some of those messages in a non-threatening way, and begin again with The Communicator to be able to control our message”.  She says that after the Board “takes action” next week [on the strategic plan], the idea would be for Pam and maybe one other Board member to have these meetings with as may schools as possible in the next couple weeks.  Becky says that such an approach “brings the message directly to them in a place where they are very comfortable and it shows that we go the extra mile”

T says “That’s a challenge.” T says that as long as negotiations are occurring it will be a challenge to talk with teachers exclusively “about non-negotiations stuff”.  T says that until “we have a contract”, it will be difficult to move forward with all that the district is talking about in the strategic plan.  T says that if there are two conversations going on it will be extremely difficult to “avoid the question of the what if” regardless of how well the conversations are managed.  T says that he appreciates the need to have more direct communication with teachers, but he says that “we are going to be able to catch up in two or three weeks” after the contract negotiation is completed and get to where “we should have been” in the relationship with the teachers.  T says that if he “were on the other side” he might become a little suspect if “they” were trying to pack everything in a short period of time.

T says that “we” need to concentrate our efforts on building the kind of trust that we need to negotiate a contract.  T says that after the negotiations are complete, there will be “people on both sides feeling not as well as we would like to feel” and then the district needs to start from that point to build the relationship that is needed to move forward from there.

Pam asks T to elaborate on what he sees as the trust-building that will be necessary.  T says that right now “we” need to focus on completing the contract.  T says that he thinks it is important that the administration not be seen as trying to drive a wedge between teachers and their leadership.  He says that they can’t have a conversation about trust that separates itself from the negotiations, somehow implying that “those people in the negotiations, you can’t quite trust” but “we want you to relate to us and you can trust us”.

T says that “we” can’t control how people might take what “we might perceive as a legitimate action” and that we still have an adversarial model in the negotiations.  T says that the MFT membership is saying that “we are going to hold out for as much as we can” although he does think they realize “it is a different day”.  T says that it’s tough to admit that it’s a different day because that means giving something up.  T concludes that the proposal for small-group conversations with teachers outside of the negotiations is “a bothersome approach for me.”

Tom says he agrees with T.  Tom says that he was at the teacher meeting and he heard people saying that they wished that they had heard more about the strategic plan. However, Tom says, he has a hard time feeling pity for teachers, principals, or highly active parents who would object that they have not been told enough over the last six months.  Tom says that we are not talking about to the Latino community where there might be some language barrier, but rather district employees who have had multiple opportunities to learn about the strategic planning process. Because of this, and because of the concern the T articulated, Tom says he has “a hard time feeling like they need to do anything in the short term.”

Tom says that with regard to generating respect, “we will earn respect through this process” and by not deviating from the communications strategy that they agreed upon.  Tom says that he is happy about The Communicator and that he has no intention of responding to the “hate email” that he is getting.  Tom says that “if we start to address little things off the main messages” this will create distrust.  He says that “we” will earn trust by operating through this process with integrity.

Lydia says something about her being a seen as a “bitch”, which surprises Bill and then makes everybody laugh.  Lydia then says that “Everyone sees me as the teacher and how can I allow this happen”.  She says that “this whole seniority thing is historic” and “they went on strike for this, years ago and they got it”.  Lydia says that “this is that one thing that they have left to hang on to”.  She says that “their jobs are so hard and we are trying to layer more onto their jobs and the kinds of kids they are dealing with are more and more challenging.  And you are going to take seniority away from them and they see this as a slap in the face.  So if we are going to show respect, we have to say alright, this is what you are going to get as a result, there’s going to be a trade-off, so it’s not going to be that bad. They are not hearing that. You are taking the last thing that they have, so what is there left for them to really want to be here for?  They are underpaid as is, alright they really are, even though they’re paid pretty well in the average, but how many of us could step in and do that job, for that pay. It’s easy to say that it’s for the benefit of the kids. But you know it’s going to get personal for everybody.  Their job situation bottom line is what I am I going to get out of this for me and my family.”

Lydia says that “if every teacher were high quality, we wouldn’t be worrying about seniority.  If we were weeding those teachers out who weren’t a good fit for our kids and our schools, we wouldn’t be talking about this.  That’s where we also need to be also concentrating much of our effort. So, just realize that these are human beings with real needs and real feelings.”

Chris says “that was not bitchy”. Lydia clarifies that “they” are calling her bitchy.

Sharon asks for clarification about some of the acronyms being used in negotiations discussions.  She says that she has received notes accusing the district of planning to cut ATPPS, which she doesn’t think is true, but she would like some clarity about, because “that seems to be a big thing in the emails that we are getting”.  Sharon also says that she agrees with T and Tom that conversations with teachers outside of the negotiations would not be a good idea.  She says that at a meeting last night, people were saying that it was unclear how the district was going to achieve the goals of the strategic plan without changing the teachers’ contract.  Sharon says that Tom is right that teachers have not been left out of the loop.

Sharon says that she respects what Lydia is saying, but she thinks that in the last contract there were some teachers in Seward and some special ed or IB teachers who pushed to get around some seniority provisions in the contract.  Sharon says that teachers have “done this before” when it meets their own self-interest.

Pam summarizes that it is clear that the Board will not hold other meetings with teachers.  She then invites Board members to tell Paul what they need. 

Chris says that for a long time the thought it was problematic that the Board was treating the strategic planning process as separate form the negotiations.  Chris says that he thinks it is a concern that the Board could be perceived as “plotting a grand scheme” in the strategic planning process, but not necessarily following that same course in the contract negotiations.  Chris says that he was at a community meeting the previous evening where community members said to the Board “you know for a fact that you can’t do any of this stuff [in the strategic plan] without major concessions in the contract and you are not going to get it”.  Chris says that the strategic planning and the negotiations need to be reconciled.

Chris says that he sort of understands the reluctance of teachers to be inspired about “getting on the reform train”.  He says that “liberal inner-city Minneapolis teachers” think that the “reform train” is driven by right-wingers, NCLB, McKinsey and other interests that are “business-minded and not education-minded” and are “just one more threat” to the profession of teaching.

Lydia chimes in and says that teachers perceive that reform is being done to teachers by people who don’t know.  Chris says that if he were a teacher with this perspective, he wouldn’t be inspired by “the reform train”.

Chris says that Minneapolis also does not do a good job of saying how well paid our teachers are compared to national benchmarks.  Chris says that “our teachers are nationally very well treated and respected and paid, people do want to teach in this district.” Chris says that the threat of “I’m martyred and underpaid and you will make me go teach in another district” is a bluff.  Chris says that “we never step out in from and say how well our teachers have been treated for years”.  Emma says “that we can definitely do that, we have the data”.

Alan says that there is a “corporate fiduciary responsibility” for the management of the district that rests with the Board.  Alan implies that the Board should articulate this as part of the communications strategy around negotiations.

Paul says that as negotiations continue over the next six weeks, there will be all sorts of conspiracy theories that come up, which is very common in negotiations.  Paul says that this is part of the reason for having a communications strategy that is focused on very clear and accurate information.  Paul says that the district needs to “stay in our communications game” and pick out the conspiracy theories from what we know to be true.

Pam says that “we” have to “remind our selves that we have been bargaining in good faith since the beginning, we have made every attempt to be conciliatory, to listen, to come to agreement” and that “we have to really know that in our hearts” so that when they are accused of terrible things, they will “feel clear that the people at the negotiating table have been operating out of integrity in this process”.

Dan says that Mitch has details about contingency planning “that we want to take more than three minutes on”, but he wants the Board to know that “there’s a fully develop contingency scenario and emergency planning and so on that’s well-developed”.  Dan proposes to bring this discussion back next week.  Pam says that the following week will be busy, but perhaps they could discuss it if it were the only topic.  Dan says that there are a couple negotiation sessions before then, including one on that Friday.  Pat and Emma remind Dan that Friday’s session is an “informal, off-the-record” session.

Emma says that she knows that the email of board members is public, but she wonders if there is a way to get more input from the Board in the development of the communications strategy.  Emma says that she has found the current conversation with the Board to be helpful, and that it might be useful for the Board to continue to pass along what they are hearing.  Pam says that such conversations can be done by email.

Peggy repeats the caution that Emma just offered, that everything the Board sends out on email is public.  Dan says that this means keeping the “opinions and conclusions out of the emails”.  Dan says that if there is additional information, this could be discussed over the phone.  Pam says that Board members should just say they are concerned about particular issues, rather than offering opinions and conclusions.