July 20, 2007 - OBSERVATION This session quickly came to focus on an event that occurred late the previous day. On that day, the following email memo had been issued by the MPS Employee Relations / Human Resource department, and was time stamped 4:19 PM: ********************* At this time, the District is preparing a list of tenured teachers for layoff and realignment. Realignment is required under state statute unless the District reaches an agreement with the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) not to realign. The District has been consistently willing to agree not to realign if the MFT would agree to priority recall from layoff of teachers whose positions in Native Language Literacy (NLL), Language Immersion and Heritage Language programs require a second language. The MFT has now agreed to this priority recall but has not accepted the District’s offer to agree not to realign. Time is running out for 2007-2008 staffing, and Human Resources has to move forward now with tenured teacher layoff and realignment. The names of those teachers who have been identified for layoff will be sent to the Board of Education on Tuesday, July 24. Letters will then be sent to those teachers from Employee Relations. Teachers who are slated for realignment will be sent letters next week identifying their new realignment area and inviting them to Excessed/Realignment Placement. Principals will also be notified of these changes. Human Resources will take those positions being vacated by realignment and layoff to develop the Vacancy Catalog to be used at Placement. Due to the time needed to accomplish all of these tasks, Excessed Placement will be held the week of August 6th. Letters will be sent to excessed teachers inviting them to attend. We regret the necessity of delaying Placement in order to effect realignment. Thank you for your patience with these changes. The negotiation session was scheduled to start at 8:30 AM, and about 8:40 Levai, the State mediator, suggests that the meeting get started. He notes that at the last session it was agreed that the morning part of this meeting would focus in issues 2, 10, and 13 (Professional Learning, Work Environment / Facilities, and Leadership, respectively). Work on these issues will start by forming subcommittees that will break out simultaneously to start the work on these issues. Rob says that the teachers need to caucus to establish recommendations for the subcommittees (Primarily, I believe, to determine who will be on which subcommittee). Rob then abruptly shifts the discussion and says that there is another issue that the negotiation team needs to address. He reads some of the text from the above memo and says that the memo is blatantly wrong. Emma (who for today’s session has found a seat right next to Rob) replies simply by asking Rob to explain what is wrong in the memo. Rob says that the union wanted to work on a no-realignment deal in December, and that a couple months ago he was involved in some discussion about a no-realignment deal that involved special ed, but none of that involved NLL. Emma replies that the administration wanted to protect language programs and NLL, and that a very specific proposal in this regard had been presented to Rob (and maybe the broader union) a few weeks ago. Rob and Emma go back and forth a bit about exactly when things happened in several disjointed conversations regarding no-realignment deals (all of which is a bit hard to follow). However, the temporary conclusion seems to be that Rob recalls a different order of events than Emma does, and this memory discrepancy is framed as the essence of the disagreement about the validity of the statements in the memo. Rob strongly states that the memo issued by the administration is “completely false”, and he stands up and prepares to leave the room for the teacher caucus. (The conversation continues a little longer with Rob standing and away from his chair.) Another teacher speaks and asks if it is possible to talk about this issue a little more and see if all the negotiation team is working in good faith. The teacher continues saying that decisions associated with realignment are all bad decisions, that if a teacher has invested thousands of dollars in obtaining what is necessary for a specific license, it is very difficult to have to choose to drop the license or get realigned. Nobody seems to grab onto this change in conversational tone, and there is some hubbub before Rob speaks again and says that the memo, even regardless of the facts, was inflammatory. Emma responds that she doesn’t think that the memo was inflammatory at all. With this brief impasse reached, Rob finally leads the way out of the negotiating room and all the teacher negotiators follow, as they go off to caucus. The remaining administrators exchange a few comments briefly, before Emma suggests that I take leave while the administration holds their private caucus. I wait in the hall while both teams confer in nearby rooms. I can’t hear the specific conversations, but I can tell that both discussions are lively and animated, and likely focused on the realignment issue more so than picking subcommittee members. After almost a half hour break, the teachers return to the negotiation room and everybody returns to their spots at the table. Levai starts the discussion saying that the teams have agreed to discuss two things this morning: (1) completing the subcommittee assignments for the three issues to be discussed, and (2) discussing about the realignment issue. Everyone quietly agrees with this plan, and then, in less than five minutes, the subcommittee teams are identified, with about 3 or four teachers, and the same number of administrators, on each subcommittee. Levai then says that it has been decided that three members of each team will discuss the realignment memo, but other members of the team will be allowed to ask questions. This process is titled “realignment structured conversation” and is included on the notes as just that title. It is agreed that notes will not be taken of this particular part of the conversation. None of the negotiators really accept the mediator’s plan for the conversation, and they just leap into it. An administrator starts out asking Rob just what the union is really talking about. Rob replies that "we" have two problems with the memo; one, we disagree with the details and two, we have a problem with the timing of the realignment announcement in relation to the contract negotiation process. There is again discussion back and forth between Rob and Emma about the exact details of what happened when, and Rob says that it is important to get the actual information out there, that this memo can't stand as it is. Rob says that he feels that the memo places blame on the union for realignment. Emma asks Rob if it isn't true that he had the opportunity to sign a no-realignment deal two weeks ago, and Rob replies generally saying that really isn't even the issue. An administrator asks if this is really the right forum for this conversation, to which Rob replies that he feels that the realignment memo, and the falsehoods within, affect the general tone of the negotiation process. Emma follows up saying that that she was happy when Rob and the union agreed in principle with the ELL document, but the decision not to sigh the no-realignment deal was the union's decision. Rob replies that the union tried to have an agreement in November or December, that the union initiated the no-realignment discussion at that time and it was never about NLL. Emma and another administrator recall that earlier discussions with Rob and the union might have used some different terminology, talking about "placement" rather than realignment, but Rob replies that the end-of-the-year no-realignment discussion had the administration talking about Phase 2 and 3 schools, and never about NLL. A teacher speaks up and talks about how a realignment plan actually hurts people. He admits to not understanding all of the details about the no-realignment discussion over the past eight or nine months, but he says what is needed right now is clarification and openness regarding the background on this issue, so that the negotiation team can build trust. At this point, Emma says that she doesn't want to talk about this issue anymore today, that the details about the accuracy of the memo can be discussed in a meeting with the union and MPS contract administration. An administrator looks at Rob and asks point blank, "What do you want?" Rob says that what he really wants is an email retraction to clarify the facts. The administrator asks him if he would be willing to stop realignment right at this instant, implying that this is a possibility if he would now sign the proposal to stop realignment in exchange for union considerations related to NLL programs. Emma confirms this possibility, waving a piece of paper and saying that they could complete the no-realignment agreement right then. Rob again asks Emma how she could have drafted the memo and not seen it as inflammatory, and Emma again relies that it is not inflammatory; that it just states the facts. Emma says that when presented with a no-realignment deal from the district, the union chose not to sign. Another administrator states his observation of facts, that as of today, the district is willing to waive realignment, but the union is not. Rob counters that to talk just about whatever the administration is offering today, is to deny what has happened over the past nine months, and that as reported in the memo, it sets the union up as the obstacle. Rob says that there is no reason for the memo, other than to beat up on the union. He says that the memo is not about facts, it is about blame. Emma disagrees and, talking over Rob, restates her opinion that the memo is about facts. Rob says that it is insulting to pretend that the memo is not a PR stunt. An administrator says to Rob that the whole December deadline was a union-created deadline, and that this deadline was never shared by the administration. Negotiators on both sides have heated up by this point, with slightly raised voices, quick come-backs, and overlapping comments. Levai tries to interrupt and re-direct things, suggesting that the whole team take a ten-minute break. An administrator speaks and says that she thinks that the current atmosphere in the negotiating room is not the atmosphere in which the conversation can continue, and a couple teachers voice their agreement. Levai again proposes that the negotiators take a ten-minute break, but the negotiators seem to agree that the really need to get the issue of the memo resolved first. It now seems agreed by all that the Emma and Rob and their teams need to go back and recheck their facts about the history of the recent discussions related to a no-realignment deal. At this point it is 9:45 and the negotiators agree that they will adjourn the whole negotiation process until Noon, which will give everybody a chance to go back and check their records. The meeting breaks up, I leave, return to my work and don't observe the afternoon negotiation. However, later in the afternoon the following email is sent from MPS HR, with the time stamp of 1:28 PM. ********************* REVISED MESSAGE We sent an email yesterday to update you on the status of realignment and excessed placement. The MFT has taken issue with the content of that email insofar as it is perceived to blame MFT for the realignment process. The date of December 31, 2006 was very significant to MFT because teachers with multiple licenses had to make a decision by that date whether or not to drop a license to avoid the possibility of realignment. MFT President Rob Panning-Miller consistently said that the union could not sign the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) after December 31st as it would be unfair to teachers who felt forced to surrender a license. No agreement was reached and the December date came and went. The District brought up the subject of realignment again in the late Spring, but MFT maintained its position that this would not be fair to teachers who had at that point surrendered their licenses the previous December 31st. Realignment has been a difficult issue for all involved but especially the teachers and school that are affected. At this time, the District and MFT will work together to support those teachers and schools in a smooth transition and continue to discuss the issue of realignment at the negotiation table.
|