Notes from the MPS principals Forum contract negotiation 9-28-07

Emma speaks to me regarding the schedule for upcoming teacher contract negotiations.  Negotiations are scheduled for October 8th, and every remining Tuesday in October from 4:30 – 6:30.  Emma says that they are holding open Fridays 8:00-3:00 also, for possible additional negotiation sessions.  Emma says that there is interest in completing the negotiation by the end of October.  Overhearing this discussion, Roger asks about the push to get the teachers contract done, and if something has changed in the process.  Emma says that they have switched to traditional bargaining. Roger says “Oh, cool.”

Present at this session: Emma Hixson, Dan Lowenson, Steve Liss, Mitch Trockman, Roger Arneson, Tim Codotte, Larry Lucio, a principal I don’t know, and Barbra Muir.
There is discussion about Bernadeia attending, but it is noted that she has been out of town in Pittsburgh, and returned late the previous evening.  Roger asks about the next date, which is confirmed as October 12th.  Roger asks about another date, and it is agreed upon to be Wednesday, October 24th from 9:00 – 11:00

Roger asks “Do you want me to start?”, and Emma nods in agreement.  Roger passes out some printed material and says that it defines some sick-leave pool language, which is “pretty straight-forward”.   He says that it defines a way where a principal may “assign” sick leave to a pool account, and give MPS HR a fourteen day notice that they are doing this.  Also, it would only be possible for a principal to take sick leave from the pool if that principal had exhausted all of his sick leave.

There is a discussion about how the donated/received sick day would be taxed.  Roger suggests that the received donated sick day is not taxable, because the donating principal would have paid the tax.  There is a comment about gift tax, and Roger notes that the threshold where an individual has to pay tax on a gift is now $20k in a year.

An administrator asks if it would be possible for the donating principal to get the sick time back if it is somehow unused by the pool.  Another administrator says that such a return should not happen, that it is essentially a one-way gift to the pool.  This administrator also brings up the point that in the current contract, sick leave can be used for other things besides personal illness, such an illness in immediate family.  He suggests that withdrawal from the sick day pool should only be for personal illness.  Roger seems to generally agree, noting that days acquired from the sick leave pool would not be used for cash-out.  Roger agrees that they could put something in the language about the sick leave pool time being available for personal illness only.

Referring to the issue of limits associated with taking sick leave for a family illness, Emma says that they had an issue like this with a teacher who had a critically ill child.  Roger asks if MPS HR just said “no” to the teacher’s request, adding facetiously that he thinks it must have been a fun conversation.  Emma responds that they resolved that issue by writing an MOA, twice. 

Emma says that there should be a cap on the number of sick days used, in part because after 60 days, the sick person should qualify for long-term disability.  Emma notes that the cap is not just about setting the transfer to long-term disability, but also because sometimes people don’t qualify for long-term disability.  [Emma makes a comment about the district “still paying” when a principal uses up a benefit that allows them to be out of work.  The administration’s motivation here seems to be not to increase their possibilities of paying for principals who are not fully working.]  Roger makes a little joke about this, asking Emma to think back to the sick child previously discussed, and to think how accommodating MPS HR was.  Emma smiles and says “nice try”.

Emma writes out the language and then describes it to the principals.  The principals generally nod in agreement, and Emma then says that “we may be good to go.”  Roger calls the principals out into the hall and they confer for about five minutes.  Roger and the principals return and Roger announces that the specific proposed change sounds good to the principals, assuming the tax issues work out. 

There is discussion about what qualifies as short-term disability and what qualifies as long-term disability, and about how if there are multiple periods of absence for one illness condition, then all of the days in the multiple absence periods count to some particular limit.  Roger says that one of the reasons principals are interested in the sick day pool is for illnesses that produce intermittent periods of absence, with the ability to work in between. 

The discussion turns to the process of accumulating sick days, and Roger reads from the contract that principals earn and accumulate twelve sick days per year.  Emma says that you don’t accumulate sick days if you are not working, and Roger reacts with some surprise asking where that policy is defined.  Emma replies that the policy is based in long-standing practice across all MPS bargaining units and administrative contracts.

Emma further asks for a written notice to be part of the sick-day donation process, and Roger says that is acceptable in general, and that the administrators should propose a mechanism.

There is acknowledgement that the sick-leave donation issue is wrapped up for the moment, and Roger switches topics, reminding the administrators that the principals were asked to put together a proposal about Q-Comp [the alternative-pay plan from the State].  Roger passes out some paper and says that this describes something about the St. Francis district.  Roger says that St. Francis is “real active” with Q-Comp, that they have a total of ten principals, and that they have $40k of Q-Comp compensation in their contract, which means $4k per principal.

Emma notes that not all MPS schools and teachers participate in the Q-Comp funding mechanism, so the principals would need to propose a specific program for principals and Q-Comp.  Roger says that the principals first need to know if the administration is even interested in such a program.  Roger says that last time the negotiators were at the table, the administration offered a total salary increase package of $250k to settle. (Emma says “yea, are we okay with that?” Roger says “yea, right”) [Roger seems to be implying that the districts base-line offer was so small, that he is wondering if proposing any additional compensation is even worth the time of writing out the proposal.]  Roger reiterates that he sees the first step in a conversation about accessing Q-Comp funds for MPS principals as determining if the administration has any basic interest in this topic. Emma replies that the administration really has to see the specific plan.  Emma says that the administration is leery of defining a compensation mechanism in contract language that is based in a funding stream from the legislature with an indeterminate future.  Roger replies that any such language would expire with the contract, and that it will almost certainly continue as long a Tim Pawlenty is Governor, which is likely two more years, maybe six.

As she reads the paper that Roger passed out, Emma says that St. Francis is viewing the Q-comp funds as compensation for administrative burden.  Roger responds that this is exactly what he and the principals view Q-Comp funds for.  Roger says that principals see that the Q-Comp program takes the best teachers out of the classroom, and one of the principals agrees.  There is general discussion about the value of Q-Comp for teachers, and Emma says that the MPS REA department does have data that there was improved achievement at TAP schools. [TAP is the program that uses Q-Comp funds for teachers].

Roger says that the purpose of the contract that they are negotiating is to define compensation for principals, and so this is his focus in the discussion.  An administrator asks if the principals’ proposed Q-Comp-based compensation is about participation in TAP or is it somehow performance-based.  Emma responds that for the teachers, compensation under Q-Comp is based on outcomes.  She also says that Bernadeia is interested in this issue generally, and so would be interested in a proposal by the principals to have outcome-based compensation.

Roger launches into a bit of a soliloquy about the negotiation process to date.  He says that the negotiation has made some progress in terms of sick leave donation, but that “we are a long ways from getting this done.” (Emma acknowledges this comment saying that the administration does not have a lot of money on the table). Roger goes on to talk about the value of financial and non-financial compensation that people find in their jobs.  Roger says that he understands the financial situation of the MPS district, and says (in a roundabout way) that really the main purpose of this contract negotiation is to define the financial compensation for MPS principals. He says that if the nature of the negotiation discussion is about where money can be found, then maybe that is the direction the conversation should take.  Roger notes that in the costs calculated by the district, there is $1.98 million for reserve principals, which doesn’t entirely seem to make sense. 

Roger says that for principals, MPS is largely on the underside of compensation for all of the principal types, with the exception of elementary assistant principals.  Roger says that other recent contract settlements [it’s not clear if he’s talking about principal contracts only, or teacher contracts as well] are coming in with an average raise of 2.5% for the first year, and 2.5-3% in the second year.  He says that he can’t even tell MPS principals that the district has offered them 1.5%, because that just makes people mad.  Emma asks Roger if the top salary step is his concern [it’s not clear exactly why she says this], and she says that regarding salary, she is waiting for the principals to respond to the administration’s proposal.  Roger asks the principals to confer out in the hall.  They leave, and are gone for 15 minutes.

As the administrators chat in their absence, one quietly says that it is interesting that they are talking about performance-based pay when three of the four principals at the table have had performance “issues” in their past.

Another administrator talks about a recent conversation with Lynn Nordgren of MFT.  He says that Lynn reported the union to be working on a counter-proposal to the district’s placement protocol modifications, and he says that MFT is working with the idea of having seniority exceptions for specialized programs like Montessori and IB.  He also says that he and Lynn talked a little about self-governed schools.  I ask him about news of the self-governed schools work, and he says that nothing in particular is happening, just that it is one of the things being considered as staffing issues are discussed with MFT.  He says that if MFT is so dead-set against anything like interview-and-select, he sees that as an incongruity with their interest in self-governed schools.  He seems to be implying that since self-governed schools is a MFT-led proposal, the administration is not interested in advancing it if the teachers don’t entertain the district’s interest in seniority modifications.

Roger and the principals return, and Roger focuses on the district’s cost analysis of the two proposals on the table. Roger says that the district’s analysis of the principal’s proposal shows a cost increase of $1.3 million in year one, and $707k in year two.  Roger asks what the reason for this difference between the two years is.  He notes that the base year principal cost is $11.6 million, which increases to $12.3 million in the first year of the proposed contract (including the proposed two extra days) [vacation days?], and $12.9 million in year two [the increases and the total costs don’t match].  Emma notes that the cost included a 30% increase in “health” for year one, and that the corresponding increase is much smaller in year two.

Roger points to the cost of reserve principals, saying that the base-year cost is $2 million, then $2.21 million in year one.  He says that if that cost was in half, it would totally fund the principals’ proposal. Roger notes that one of the principals at the table is a POSA (Principal on Special Assignment) and is currently filling in for an absent principal, thus costing the district no reserve-principal dollars.  Roger asks if they can get the breakdown of just where the reserve-principal costs are spent by the next meeting. Emma calls Alan Giles on her cell phone and asks him about this, concluding that he will bring the analysis down to the meeting shortly.

Roger then asks “do you have something for us, Emma? Something I was going to say no to?”  Emma says that she does have a proposal, but that it is in her office.  She goes to get it and after five or ten minutes, returns and the discussion resumes.

Emma passes out a set of papers, and as she does this another administrator notes that Illinois has recently eliminated seniority for all principals.  Emma says that her written proposal is a serious proposal.  Roger and the principals look through it for a minute, then Roger replies.  He suggests that the way the poropsal is laid out, the district would designate every other principal as essential, except Codotte (the principal he is sitting next to), and then lay off Mr. Codotte.  Roger says that this proposal is “mischief”.  A principal notes that the administration has said something about having high-demand programs in every school, so how, in that case, would the administration differentiate principals.

The discussion brings up Montessori and IB schools as having unique qualifications.  A principal notes that training was offered to some teachers who wanted to access those jobs, and he wonders if that sort of training would be available to principals.  Emma notes that the administration is “trying to get away from that sort of language with the teachers”.

Roger argues that the proposed change to seniority layoff would not achieve foe the district what it wants to achieve.  He notes that if the administration needed to lay off three principals right now, they couldn’t lay off the three most junior, because they are all in new programs.

Emma says that it was her impression that the principals are supportive of such seniority layoff modifications for teachers.  Roger says “well, that’s different.  This is our people”.  A principal clarifies, saying that they are not asking for a change to seniority layoff, only for interview and select in teacher hiring.  Emma says that his was not clear to her, and that she would appreciate the principals clarifying exactly what it is they are interested in.  The principal responds that they accept seniority layoff (according to his perspective on principal conversations, and not as an official statement of the principal’s position).  Another principal argues that principals are different than teachers in this regard, that principals can be moved by the district at any time.

A couple of administrators try to point out that modifications of seniority layoff are part what is needed to achieve the staffing stability generally sought by principals.  They point out that if principals select qualified low-seniority teachers for their schools, these teachers are at risk of being laid off and replaced under a pure-seniority layoff process.  The principals generally acknowledge the administrations intent, but resist the specific suggestion that seniority-layoff modifications to the teacher contract would be advantageous.  Roger asks if the modification to seniority layoff is being proffered at the teacher negotiations, and Emma confirms that it is.  A principal asks for a break, so all the principals and Roger leave the negotiation room for about five minutes.

Upon their return, Roger says that he hasn’t looked at the law that allows for alternate layoff, so he feels that this needs to be done to insure that the proposal is even legal.  The administrators state their general belief that the proposal is in accordance with the law, but they offer no conclusive proof.

Roger says that the principals understand that there might be special qualifications for being principal of a French immersion or an IB school, and so maybe the principals would be willing to talk about alternate seniority lists for such specialty programs.

An administrator says that if the specialty programs get unique principal staffing protection, then that inherently means that the community programs would have more “churn” in leadership.  Roger acknowledges this.  The administrator further says that there is obvious value in a ensuring stability for a principal who has invested much in building a strong community program, implying that strong community programs need protection form seniority-driven shuffling as well.

Emma notes that if a principal has been around long enough to build a strong community at a school, that likely means that principal has been with the district long enough that seniority layoff is not a concern for that principal.  Emma says that perhaps this means that the negotiators cold focus on protecting low-seniority principals in special programs.  Roger responds with a general tone of agreement, noting that as the principals’ contract is structured, there are effectively five seniority lists already [with high school, elementary, assistant principal differences].  Roger says that the principals would be willing to talk about defining additional seniority lists, which could include things like Montessori or IB schools.

Whit this, the meeting breaks up, slightly past the scheduled 11:00 end time.  Alan Giles never appears with the data about the reserve principal expenses.