Polson teachers union, board to meet with mediator

POLSON — After almost three dozen meetings between the two parties over the past two years, representatives from the Polson teachers union and school board will meet with a mediator next week in an effort to come to terms on a contract that would resolve pay and contract issues for both last year and this year, and the teachers union has formed a crisis committee to explore its options as the two sides continue to work toward a settlement.

Both sides will meet today, Sept. 22, when the board will make a counteroffer to teachers union reps after rejecting a union offer at a Sept. 7 meeting that would have covered the 2004-2005 school year. Because teachers worked without a contract in place last year, negotiations still include what raises, if any, teachers might be owed for last year's school year even as the sides attempt to hash out pay rates for this year, as well.

A mediator is scheduled to meet with both parties separately and together starting next Monday, Sept. 26, in an effort to reduce some of the areas that are still in disagreement. Although the two sides have agreed in principle to many contractual areas, the areas still disputed are some of the most contentious, including retroactive pay raises to cover last year, severance pay and teacher tenure issues.

A retroactive pay raise would apply to last year's teachers and their wages and insurance. As it stands, teachers were paid the same rate last year as the one they received in the 2003-2004 school year — the last year they worked under a signed contract — although they were granted their "steps and lanes." Steps and lanes are pay raises based on a teacher's education level and years of service added to the base pay.

At stake are tens of thousands of dollars in potential back pay which could also impact potential pay increases being negotiated for the 2005-2006 school year.

"The teachers union wants full retroactive pay for all, including retirees. The board has said it is very open to retroactive pay, but the longer we go without settling the less open-minded they will be," said superintendent Sue McCormick. "This is of obvious concern to both the teachers and the board."

"If we had settled (a contract) for 04-05 then we are due money for that raise," said Polson Educators Association president Marlin Lewis. "Without retroactivity we won't be compensated for working in good faith last year, and that's something we haven't agreed on."

The teachers union is asking for a four percent retroactive raise on last year's base pay while the board countered with a three percent offer. According to figures provided by the school district's administrative office, a one percent raise on the 2004-2005 base salaries would cost the school district approximately $44,886, while a three percent raise in the "steps and lanes" would cost about $139,726.

Another area likely to require a lot of negotiation is the issue of job tenure and performance evaluations. Under the board's preference, the Progressive Corrective Evaluation (PCE) process would only apply to tenured teachers, and the board would like teachers to be tenured at the start of their fourth contract year, which is what state law provides.

Under the current contract term, Polson teachers have the same PCE process as tenured teachers have, as soon as they start working, and Lewis said they'd like to keep it that way.

"That's our protection for our new teachers. It also helps them improve early in their career. The board wants to go to state law, which doesn't allow any protection for new teachers. Under state law, you can be fired for no reason," Lewis said.

"The board's position is that only tenured people should receive the protection and privilege of PCE, which is a pretty comprehensive process," McCormick said.

Under PCE, teachers go through a four-step process before being terminated for poor performance. In the first step, a teacher is verbally notified of areas in need of improvement and receives recommendations on corrective actions, but nothing is added to the teacher's personnel file. In step two, the teacher's supervisor provides written recommendations if performance issues identified in step one haven't been corrected, and the teacher is given additional time to make improvement.

In step three, the supervisor and superintendent sit down with a teacher and discuss the situation, and the teacher must acknowledge in writing that they've already been through the first two steps, and that acknowledgment is added to their personnel file.

"It's really serious if they get to step three, but most teachers don't," McCormick said.

In step four, a teacher is advised that their contract will not be renewed, but they can still appeal that decision to the school board.

"This PCE process currently applies to everyone but the board says it should only apply to tenured teachers," McCormick said.

Lewis said tenured and non-tenured teachers would still be held accountable for poor performance under the union's proposed deal.

"It's not protection (for underperforming teachers). We've gotten rid of tenured teachers and first-year teachers under this (PCE) system," Lewis said. " Under this system, you've been given an attempt to correct it. Otherwise, you're just out."

The union and board have come to verbal agreements on sick days, though, agreeing in principle to limit the total amount of accumulated sick days to 125, down from 187. Under the verbal agreement, the district would compensate the 19 teachers who have accumulated 187 sick days by "buy down" in which they'd be compensated for the 62 days of potential sick pay they would be giving up.

However, the two sides disagree on how to compensate teachers for sick days, with the union asking for 0.45 times a teacher's daily pay rate for buy downs and "buy backs," where teachers can receive payment for unused sick days, and "buy outs," when retiring teachers and those leaving the district would receive a half day's pay for each unused sick day. The board has proposed a $90-per-day flat rate buy down payment, a $60-per-day flat rate buy back payment, and a $100-per-day buy out payment, while the union's rate schedule would fluctuate based on how much a teacher earns.

"The two sides have agreed to the concept of buy down, buy back and buy out, but they just can't agree on how it should be paid," McCormick said.

"The district has invested more time and money in someone who has been here for 20 years instead of 10, but the school district just wants to pay a flat rate," Lewis said. "We discussed with the board the idea of being paid a percentage of the base pay instead of a percentage of the daily rate so the pay rate goes up with inflation."

Another issue on the table involves job preference and seniority. Under the current contract, school administrators can take seniority into consideration when two teachers who are already in the district apply for the same job, but can offer a job to a teacher with less seniority if they feel he or she would be a better fit. The union, however, feels that preference should definitely go to someone with more experience.

"If two people are equally qualified, then the most senior person should get the position. Our (proposed contract) language specifically says that if someone is more qualified then they should get the job," Lewis said. "It also says you can ask for a written explanation as to why you didn't get a job."

"The board feels school administrators should be able to select the applicant who is the best fit for the position, not necessarily the most senior person, and that's currently the way the contract reads," McCormick said.

For now, both sides will revisit these issues today and next week with a mediator. Lewis said the crisis committee was formed to discuss issues and work with the community in an attempt to resolve the situation. He said teachers have been very upset at the last couple of PEA meetings, especially after starting their second year without a contract.

"The teachers are in the classrooms and doing their jobs but as far as morale and attitude, people are upset," Lewis said. "They would like to have the contract issues settled so they can focus on the classroom and do the job they love — work with kids. But they also want a fair contract."

As superintendent, McCormick said she tries to see both sides of the story. On the one hand you have teachers starting their second year without a contract and on the other hand you have the board, which has a legal and ethical obligation to keep the district in a financially viable position.

"I'm a teacher advocate but I cannot take sides," she said. "Our teachers are the ones who meet and greet those kids every day, and I want them to love coming to work."