MFT Contract Negotiation April 30, 2007 - ANALYSIS

* In conversations with negotiators at a break, they told me that the whole negotiation process was new this year, and that they were using a format from the BMS, which had not been used in this negotiation process before.  Levai, the mediator, told me that one purpose of the format was to have the communication occur between a larger group of people, and not have all the communication funneled through the chief negotiators.  Levai mentioned that all of the people at the table had been through some type of training process for this negotiation.  Over the course of the meeting, Rob and Emma probably spoke more than any other individuals, but their comments may not have constituted a majority of the conversation.

* In another side conversation, a negotiator suggested to me that in past negotiations, multiple new issues were raised by subcommittees away from the main negotiating table, and that this was a challenge for the negotiation process that the new BMS negotiation process was hoped to improve.

* Because most of the meeting was devoted to defining the ground rules of the negotiations, it was clear nothing substantive had been discussed prior to today's meeting. 

* Throughout the discussion of the meeting, it was my impression that the district was more focused and seeking limits, and the union was expressing a wider range of opinion and advocating for broader options.  However, both sides showed a strong deference to the mediator and to the process being used.

* In this discussion, the district seemed to be pushing for limited subcommittees with limited input, and MFT seemed to want to keep open the options for the role of subcommittees.

* None of the "issues" identified by MFT seem to include anything about making consideration for job qualifications not based in state licensure, such as Montessori and IB qualifications.  I assume that the district issue of "teacher transfer and lay-off" includes the district's concerns about Montessori- and IB-trained teachers.

* It was interesting that "salary and benefits" was not one of the MFT issues.

* It is silly that MFT identified "K-5 report cards" as an issue that needs to be addressed in contract negotiations.

* The identified topics for discussion in the negotiation sessions appear to include a plethora of trivial issues, and no acknowledgement of major staffing-related challenges facing MPS.  I wish either the district or MFT would have identified an issue of "staffing new school models like self-governed schools" or "figuring out how to deal with KIPP and/or competing charter schools" or "using student-performance data to make decisions about schools, programs, and staffing", or maybe just "working together to save this district".