The Meeting Began with Introductions

Teacher Negotiations

Date: 4.16.15 Time: 4:00 pm

The meeting began with introductions:

Trevor Helmers – Attorney – Lead Negotiator
Liz Fischer – Director of HR - Note taker
Jerry Kjergaard - Superintendent
Jared Anez – Board Member
Mike Carlson – Board Member
Mike Reynolds - Board Member
Missy Aaker – SH –Communications - Note taker
Annette Tiffany – MS - Social Worker
Cindi Kroona – 4th grade Roosevelt
Courtney Lee – 5th grade Kennedy
Tammy Knapper – LD at SH, and Time Release President for Union – Lead Negotiator

Trevor - My style is that Iwant to be as fair as possible. I want everyone to have input and that input is taken into account. My style is true negotiations – both sides give something and both sides get something. If we don’t, then we essentially have a hostage situation. My goal is to have respectful dialogue, and to have a settlement as soon as possible. I believe a quick settlement is well within reach. We have a few issues tonight, ground rules included.

Trevor - To explain the district’s side this round, the individual board members will not be here for each of the meetings. Mostly it’ll be Jerry, Liz and myself.

Board Member Reynolds – We want to keep the emotion out of it; so it is issue based. We looked at NLS and other colleagues across the state and find this productive and found that it goes quickly. We want to give it a try this year. We find Trevor even keeled and as amatter of fact we are starting early and our goal is to start July 1 with a new contract. This has never happened since I started in 1992. I’m really looking forward to it. We are staying involved through these people (Trevor, Jerry and Liz) and we have given our wishes and parameters. We will get together as needed. If there’s a time where we’re needed then we will be here.

Trevor - Getting started-

Ground Rules:

Designated contacts: The lead spokesperson will handle leading the conversation and outside conversation as well.
EMW - Agreed.
General meeting time/length: Generally he would recommend a goal of 2 hours or less for each meeting.
EMW- Agreed that this seemsreasonable and is willing to stay longer if the group is making progress.
Courtesy and Respect: It’s in everyone’s best interestto have courtesy, respect, and professionalism when giving proposals andexplaining the proposals. There should be no personal threats and no non-verbal gestures. The responsibility will be on the lead spokesperson to keep their team adhering to this courtesy, respect and professionalism expectation.
EMW- Agreed to this.
Caucus: Anyone can call it at any time. The parties will be respectful of the time during caucuses.
EMW - Agreed.
Tentative Agreements: All tentative agreements are contingent upon the settlement of the contract. Wewould propose that it’s an agreement that both parties agree on the specific language of the proposaland do everything they can to turn around and sell it to their party - teachers or school board. It means that everyone in the room is going to do everything they can to pass it, and not to tank the proposals. It means that EMW is comfortable in selling it to their members and the district representatives to the school board. These are very serious and revoking them would be a sign of bad faith and should not be used as a bargaining tactic.
EMW – There is some concern that in the past TA’s were based on verbal information and it would help to have them in writing.
Trevor - The district would make their proposals in writing and would have a document outling the TA’s with the language.
EMW – We may need time after a meeting (we may agree conceptually) outside of just a caucus, to agree to the issues.
Trevor – We agree. We don’t want anyone to feel rushed into a TA. We don’t want a TA until we’ve all read it and thought it through.
EMW – To clarify what we heard, by agreeing to a TA, it’s not legally ratified or truly in effect until voted and ratified by members. Correct?
Trevor - Yes. When we come to final approval, we are just checking off the topics that we’ve agreed to so that we don’t have to be talking about those topics going forward, but none of it goes into effect until the whole document is agreed to in the end.
EMW – Mediation. We’ve had experience with that before, so how do you see TA’s playing out with mediation?
Trevor – I would see the TA’s going to the mediator. We’d share what we have so far and it would be a part of the process.
EMW - This is agreeable by both parties.
Schedule: We should try to make the call at each meeting and set 1-2 meetings ahead based on where things are at. We always want to make sure we all know when our next meeting will be and that will give us the flexibility in having enough time to read it, understand it and come back.
EMW - Agreed.
Negotiations Process: We have our first meeting tonight and at the 2nd meeting I would propose EMW present all proposals and language changes as a total package – something that you are comfortable with for a final deal. Then at the 2nd meeting you’d walk us through it, and talk us through it and we’d all go through any questions. We would talk through proposals, ask questions and go from there. There would be no action at the 2nd meeting. Then at the 3rd meeting the districtwould fully respond to every single issue presented by EMW. This would include providing any counter proposal to EMW’s proposals, give any TA’s and give the District’s proposal. Then we’d walk through each one (EMW proposals and District proposals), explain why we agree or don’t agree and what we would like to change. Then at 4th meeting is your (EMW’s) opportunity to respond to everything we’ve said. Then you can say we agree to this proposal, not this one, etc. The agreement that we’d have would be then at this 4th meeting would be any additional issues that we missed as maybe something changed. So then after that 4th meeting, if it hasn’t been raised then no new issues would be brought up unless something is not foreseen or we didn’t know of the problem. But then after the 4th meeting there would be no new languageproposals. If there would be any new language proposals they likely wouldn’t receive serious consideration. The reason why I am suggesting this is that it gets all the issues on the table right away. There is not sandbagging and holding issues for later when we think we’re to the end. Then we can winnow down issues. So say we start with 20. We keep moving down – 10, then 5, etc. What happens when that (adding more issues at each meeting) comes up is that it really ruins everything you’ve done up to that point. I also think this would allow for a quicker process, so teachers don’t have to wait for retro, and it’s not taking the time of the negotiations team. By 4th meeting we know what we need and where we are going. Then we can move forward in the way that makes the most sense. Maybe it’s spending time on one issue for one meeting, maybe it’s counter proposals going forward. But we make that call at that point after we’ve seen everyone’s total package. That’s my suggestion forthe 2nd to the 4th meetings.
EMW – We have a concern. We are hearing you want to get this going. If we bring forth our package next time, and if we had yours as well, we could take the time to look at it and go from there. Maybe it’s because of the style I’m used to but we have some understanding and talking through issues together. It seems to me to be better to bring yours at the same time rather than waiting.
Trevor – I definitely understand what you’re saying. I think it would be very confusing for you to walk through yours and then we walk through ours. There might be a way in your first offer that we hadn’t thought of, and we’d just agree to it rather than having to go back and forth on both languages. I would rather set it up that the whole meeting is dedicated for all of your issues, explaining them, understanding them, and then we can respond with agreement. We are not trying to do anything underhanded or pull the rug out, but seems to me to make the most sense in giving you the time to discuss and explain and we respond and just give counterproposals versus competing changes or language for the same thing. So you’d get back the track changes with the agreed to counter proposals and then you’d get the same amount of time to go back and do the same with our proposals. This is also traditionally how it’s done as well, but usually you have more language proposals/changes than the district.
EMW – So you would like to see us type uparticle numbers, etc? Like all the nuts and bolts and everything all done? Here’s a thought, if you brought your proposal first we could see what you’re thinking.
Trevor – We’d be willing to see it (the document) however you’re willing to bring it (the document) forward (meaning in Word as a summary with the article numbers etc, or in a track changes version, etc.). I would recommend bringing forward a track changes version of the contract. Then for ease of going through it I’d recommend copying and pulling it out into a separate document for ease of going through the topic. I don’t think it needs to be in absolute final format, but more so showing how it’s written and maybe what it looks like. As far as the district proposing first, I think it makes more sense because I do think you’ll have more issues that will need to be considered. Sometimes it’s as simple as a typo that needs to be changed so to me it makes more sense to me that we do it that way. No one’s getting an upper hand as both sides are getting the exact same amount of time to respond and come back with the proposal. Normally the union has more language issues.
EMW – We don’t necessarily agree. We feel like it exposes us without having any idea of what your issues are. We would like the assurance of what your issues are as well. At the same meeting we would like to know your issues as well. We would like to know before we just give you what your issues are.
Trevor – I’m sensing a little bit of trust issues. This is not any attempt to do anything underhanded. My reason for my suggestion is so we don’t get muddied. So we go through line by line and understand the requests and the changes. I’m concerned about getting muddy. It’s not necessarily going to change the district’s issues, but there might be an issue we both have and we might just be ok with your proposal andjust take it and just be done. I want to emphasize that all the stuff in the past is the past and it’s done. This is a new process and we’re going through it together. I know we need to earn trust and we need multiple meetings to earn trust. It will take time. Do you have any ideas on how to avoid the confusion? Then what happens in the 3rd meeting. And how that would go?
EMW – So if the 2nd meeting is focused on our proposals but by the end the meeting we can see a laundry list of issues from the district so we know what the district may present.
Trevor – Maybe we should all caucus and discuss but I wouldn’t feel comfortable handing a list without explain it and you’re out there wondering what it is and what it means. I want to give youa full opportunity to explain line by line and then we’d like the same.
Caucus – (I did not take notes on who called it or what time it started or ended, but will try to do so going forward.)
EMW – After visiting we would like to propose that at the 2nd or 3rdmeeting giving both proposals at the same meeting would be better and we’re willing to do a longer meeting.
Trevor – But again, if both parties are presenting the proposals it will muddy things because we’re saying ‘how is this different from ours’ and then at the next meeting we’re again just counter-proposing. I understand the concern and understand the trust issues and we will work throughthat and get there. But I do think this might be the first way we work towards that. This is really the cleanest way to do that. If it’s a matter of wanting to know what the issues are that the district has we wouldn’t know until we see what you’re proposing and that we might just agree and it ends the issue rather than putting them side by side and going through opposite language. I’m worried that having a meeting with both proposing it would be counterproductive.
EMW – We don’t think it would be a lot of discussion, but more hearing about it. So in essence taking two meetings and combing them into one.
Trevor – So for the first meeting you’re saying that for the first 2 hours we look at yours and then ours? I think it’ll be confusing.
EMW – I would suggest that at the next meeting that we don’t have any of the discussion, so we’re still doing what you’re proposing but schedule them the same day.
Trevor – But when you giving your proposal that’s our opportunity to ask questions and ask why you are thinking this and not waiting 3 weeks asking why. But it’s at this first meeting we gain understanding and not pushing off the understanding. So we talk it through and go through the full proposal.
EMW – I do understand what you’re saying but I do think we could do that and not be confused.
Trevor – I am not confident I won’t be confused. And then we’re not getting consensus and then at the 3rd meeting we’re not sure who’s giving or taking what. So by the 3rd meeting we might already have some issues settled rather than going back and forth and making things muddy such as not being sure which language you’re looking at or agreeing to. When instead you could be coming back at the 3rd meeting saying we’ll agree to this.
EMW – Is the district willing to present theirs first?
Trevor – We are not going to have that many issues. I think you’re going to have a lot more language issues.
EMW – I don’t necessarily disagree that we don’t have a lot of language issues, but we’re trying to come up with a solution. And if we don’t feel like we can get something from the district then we are not sure.
Trevor – But you also have the 4th meeting to come back with any new issues. And this is sort of the catch all meeting where you can say well since you brought this up we thought of this. So it’s not about this way versus that way. I don’t see it as an advantage other than having the party with more stuff come first so we can see whereit’s at. So at the 3rd meeting we can start agreeing and then the 4th meeting bringing up anything else you can see. I’m not sure it would be the best use of time to have the district’s issues at the 2nd meeting. So that by 3rd meeting we could be done with many of the issues….we could lose that benefit if the district goes first. It doesn’t seem to make sense when you’re going to have a lot more than we are. If the issue is time and not having enough time to pull it together, we can give more time.
EMW – It’s (time) a concern, but not a concern in this decision. So I think we need to figure out the process before we can figure out dates. So when we bring forward our stuffwe present and give rationale. Then the next time you come and you say what you like or don’t like and present what you want as well. So will there be a yes we agree, no we don’t? So then the 4th meeting is when the true negotiations are happening? So it’s presentation then another presentation is happening….when you say give and take from both parties.
Trevor – I think it would start at the 3rd meeting where we say we agree to this this this and this…and then you come back with our proposal with what you agree with and don’t agree with.
EMW – So nothing is set in stone. You can say yes/no but we still have time to work through issues.
Trevor – I could see to us having TA’s to a number of issues by the 3rd meeting. Then we start negotiating on the specific issues after that…on the ones we don’t agree on.
EMW – If we’re not really negotiating can it be done as an exchange instead rather than meeting?
Trevor – The reason for presenting is to ask questions and explain and understand the issues. If it’s a matter to build trust, maybe instead of the full proposal we give you the topic but again I have the same concern that it would muddy the water. You would have the topic but not know what the actual issue is.
EMW – I would say we would be more agreeable to your process if you would give usthat.
Trevor – If that’s the route we went we’d have to have understanding that it’s not a matter of ‘the sky is falling’, so if we say ULA it could mean a simple word change such as “the” or it could mean a huge language change.
EMW – If you put ULA it could be a typo or a full thing.
Trevor – I think that’s something I could agree to as a matter of starting to build trust. So at the 2ndmeeting you’d go through your full proposalsandexplain, we’d give a list of our topics and at the 3rd meeting we’d respond to your issues and then go through our issues.
EMW – I think we can follow your processexactly as outlined if you agreed to sharethe district’s topics at the 2nd meeting.
Trevor–We will have an outline of issues that we will bring forward at the next meeting.
Communication: As far as joint releases we will agree to not do them unless something comes up. We will communicate with ours and you with yours. EMW agreed.

EMW – Getting started – Ground Rules