April 27, 2012 - Negotiations Highlights

GEA - GSD Negotiations

April 27, 2012

 The meeting began around 3:15 PM. Les Nakasaki facilitated the meeting for the Association. Michael Coughlin was the recorder for the District.

The session began with a continued discussion of calendar. The District reported that beginning the calendar in August would present difficulties in regards to payroll and payments to STRS. They proposed calendars beginning (Orientation) on August 24th, August 31st and September 4th. They also discussed pros and cons from the District perspective surrounding these calendars.

After a caucus, the Association stated they could agree to an August 31st start date, with unit members being paid for their one work day in August in a separate check. The remainder of the 182 day calendar would be split among 10 equal payments.

The District caucused and came back with a recommendation to begin the school year with orientation day on September 4th or August 24th. Their preference was to begin on September 4th in order to avoid having to spend the man hours necessary to create new payroll schedules based on teachers working during 11 calendar months. The Association agreed to do informal polling before the next session, but wasn't sure if they could do a formal poll prior to the next session. Discussion of Calendar was then tabled.

The discussion then moved to future bargaining dates. The following dates were agreed to.

• May 7 - 3-5PM
• May 14 - 3-5 PM
• May 21 - 9AM-3PM
• June 1 - 3-5PM

Salary was the next order of business. The Association countered the prior documents from the District with two pages. These pages had been prepared for the prior session on April 16th, but were nor presented at that time due to extended discussion regarding calendar. They can be found at the following links. (Narrative, Spreadsheet)

The Association explained their position that until RIFs are rescinded, they should be included in budget discussions. The Association also stated that since cuts are based on a two year projection, the effects of RIFs must be looked at over two years as well. Prior documents from the District only looked at a one year effect.

There was a discussion regarding the prep periods at the intermediate schools. The District stated they did not want to cut the prep periods, but the $529,000 in savings would have to be found elsewhere. The District mentioned the concept of contingency language in regards to certain RIFs, but did not propose and specific language.

The District also came back with some preliminary amended calculations regarding cuts and salary based on the paperwork presented by the Association. They stated they would present a more formal presentation of the amended numbers at the next session.

Before ending the session, the Association asked whether the District was ready to respond to the staff development questions (found here) from the last session. The District responded that Mary Suzuki would email the response to our questions prior to the next session.

The meeting ended at approximately 7 PM.