May 14, 2007 - ANALYSIS

* At one point, Emma proposed that "technology" is maybe not something that needs to be negotiated, that maybe this issue could be sent to the Labor/Management committee for resolution outside of the contract negotiation process.  This was an interesting suggestion from Emma, essentially admitting that one of the five negotiation issues identified by the district wasn’t really a negotiation issue at all, but something that could be resolved in another forum.

* There is no force in the negotiation process that limits the topics of conversation or encourages the negotiators to move more quickly, or meet for frequently.  As the scope of the negotiation broadens and large gaps in the negotiation schedule are established, nothing pushes back in the other direction.  The negotiation process lacks any sense of urgency and it seems to completely deny the crisis that occurring in MPS.  Some third party needs to draw a line about what should be part of these negotiations, and what should not.

* The BMS process, and the mediator guiding its application, gives time to consider every idea and to listen to every objection.  Simply by its structure, the process allows the more cautious party (the teachers) to control the pace and to define more of the topics of conversation.  This seems to be a structural problem with the process, but this must have been apparent as both sides agreed to use the process.  The district must have seen some benefit in agreeing to use the BMS process.

* I don't understand exactly what the district owes the union in this negotiation.  Does the district really just have to hear out every complaint that the union has, or can the district say "Here's what we will talk about, but no more.  Take it or leave it."?

* The negotiation process indicates a fundamental problem with the communication between MFT and the district administration.  It appears that MFT only talks to the district once every two years, and has no trust whatsoever.

* It is really clear that interview and select is the district's number one priority, but also that the teachers oppose that.

* The MFT negotiations are amazingly opaque to most people in the district.  Even the teachers don't understand how these negotiations are run.

* I think that there would be value in opening up the contract negotiations for more people to see.  I believe that human constructs are generally understandable, but that people in positions of power often don't want the mechanisms of power to be fully understood.  I think high-school kids should be able to explain how MPS teacher staffing works.  I wonder about getting a group of high-school kids to make a documentary about what's happening with the contract negotiation process.  I wonder what would happen if a bunch of kids showed up at the negotiation sessions and filmed them, then asked the negotiation team members for individual interviews about how the process was going?

* Observing the contract negotiations, I feel like I have peeled back the curtain to reveal the real wizard of the MPS Oz.  With this impression, I find a fascination with the tedium and amazing inefficiency of the process.  Although tedious, what the process reveals about the intentions and motivations of both sides is interesting, as is the changing tone of the discussion and the points of frustration expressed by each side.