HEA/HPS Bargaining 2/22/23
Bargaining Meeting: February 22, 2023
Roll Call: HPS: Josh McKay, Brian Cummings, Keri Mizell, Janelle Mickelson, Jill Nyman, Winn Randall, Cal Boyle, Brett Zanto. HEA: Jane Shawn, Erika McMillin, Anna Alger, Paul Phillips, Jake Warner, Adam Clinch, Jonna Schwartz, Joanne Didriksen. Absent: HPS: Joslyn Davidson, Nick Radley; HEA: Kelly Elder
8:00: Ice-breaker activity
9:00: Paired up to review norms, edited and added. Discussed and edited with large group.
· Much discussion about the communication strategy for both groups to share out. It was decided by the group that Joanne and Jonna will record minutes and the large group will review minutes when a topic is completed and at the end of bargaining sessions.
· A shared message is a goal of the group but both HEA and HPS reserve the right to change this approach if communication problems with larger group result.
· Final norms developed and agreed upon by larger group.
10:00: CBA Language Presentation (HEA)
**Language proposals from HEA have been suggested and agreed upon by both HEA Bargaining Team and HEA Board of Directors before presentation to HPS.
(HPS will review, discuss, and come back with acceptance or counterif agreement is not immediately reached as noted next to each item discussed)
· Preamble: change to budget decisions/involvement from HEA
· 1.3 Teaching Load:
§ changed language regarding exceeding minimum standards at the k-5 level. Minimum standards assistance will be provided by “certified paraprofessional”. Question posed about what “certified” means. HEA will follow up on the definition of certified and adjust if needed.
§ Added language that “Meetings of any sort shall not be scheduled on a teacher’s prep time.” (Both 9-12 level and 6-8 level) K-5 add statement “Meetings of any sort shall not be …” and line regarding changes in this due to emergencies “It is understood that preparation time may occasionally be interrupted because of emergencies or unusual days” is stricken in K-5 section and placed in the last paragraph of 1.3.
o HEA does not consider indoor recess due to weather or air quality as an emergency; these happen often and should be planned in advance. Discussion included examples such as evacuations, field trips, lockdowns, etc.
· Discussion on these changes including the definition of a prep period at each level K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Language that outlines the prep time at K-5 level needs clarity. HEA will further develop/clarify language here to include more consistency and to consider the largest amount of uninterrupted time protected for prep.
(HPS requested time to consider the implications of these changes on building level needs)
§ Remove PCAP phrase that does not make sense. (Agreed to remove)
§ If COLA is agreed to pay matrix, it will also apply to master'sstipend
(HPS will discuss and accept or counter)
o Discussionregarding the language of COLA: Consider changing to General Wage Increase. The group did not agree to this language change.
· 2.4 Steps and Lanes (S&L) Salary Movement
§ 2.4.D: Change in language regarding movement on the pay matrix: remove “the beginning” and add “any time during” and “not later than January 15”
(HPS will consider and come back with recommendation for language changes)
o HPS: discussion of eliminating retro-active pay and setting the timeline for credit completed in August and submitted by September 1 for ease of budget planning for HPS and align with beginning of the year. Retro-pay is an administrative burden. HPS does not agree to pay retroactively for advancement that has not been earned during some months.
o Response from HEA: if retroactive pay is denied then pay adjustment needs to happen exactly when MA or BC is awarded. This process would require re-issuing contracts throughout the year at different times, depending on when an advanced degree or certification is achieved.
§ 2.4. H: Adding item 9 (agreed and accepted by HPS)
§ 2.4.I and J: HEA does not understand I and the first paragraph of J related to Class 4 license. HPS is also unclear regarding the intent of these sections.
(HEA and HPS will work on language clarity, areas of Class 4 accepted, and process to review and approve pay matrix movement in this area)
o Agreed—this section provides alternative pathways for areas that do not fit into education and licenses most common (i.e., CTE).
o OPI has placed parameters over what counts as “hours” to achieve a Class 4 license. Discussion of whether hours are “industry” hours or “teaching” hours. Which matters most to HPS and HEA?
o Agreed-clean up language that outlines requirements of Class 4 license and select Class 4 areas that are acceptable in HPS from chart of areas from OPI.
o Suggestion from HEA to use a similar approval process that is used to approve MA degree that relates to the content area, which includes an appeals process.
o HEA is not opposed to including a similar process for Class 4, but HEA must have a position on this review committee as it is currently just HR that reviews and approves.
o HPS will come to the next meeting with two plans that consider committee approval process and education/hours award for Class 4 to help reach a decision.
· 2.4 (a)- Salary and Compensation—HEA Proposed New Section
(HPS will review and discuss the HEA proposal and offer a counter proposal)
Teachers who perform teaching duties outside their regular teaching duties specified in their individual contract, will be compensated at the individual teacher’s hourly rate of pay. These teaching duties include, but are not limited to, summer school, home-bound services, covering classes during duty free lunch and prep periods, and tutoring. These hourly rates shall be calculated for every five (5) minutes or part thereof.
Teachers who perform other duties during the school day (during duty free lunch or prep periods) which are only supervisory positions, will be compensated at the Lane 1, Step 0 rate of pay. These duties include, but are not limited to, lunch duty and recess duty. This should not be construed to override a sixth assignment made by an administrator as defined in Section 1.9. Nor should this be construed to override the payments outlined in the Supplementary Contracts section.
o Discussion on how this may impact the 4.5 hours weekly for K-5 teachers. There may be situations where the weekly hours are met but time is needed for other supervision. HPS: there is flexibility at the K-5 level with prep time and there may be a need for us to define “primary prep-time” at the K-5 level.
1:00 Budget Presentation from Rex
**Documents provided: “Methodology Behind Recap”
o Began with presentation on ANB considering trends over the past 10 years. Projections made based on these trends which showlittle change or balanced change in ANB long-term.
o 2.7% increase offered by Montana State Legislature impacts budget differently
o Assume 0% increase to teacher’s salary to begin negotiations
o Early retirement incentive has resulted in a forecasted savings for the district
o There has been increased flexibility in how/from where District pays certain salaries (EX. Transportation) in order to subsidize the general fund. Janelle has calculated this movement of salaries in projected budget.
o No increase in health benefits have been added
o Optimistic about HB332: may providea savings for the district and more flexibility for coverage for employees. Still waiting to see the impact of this bill. If passed will not be enacted until 2025.
o Utilities increase has made a large impact (electricity, gas, custodial equipment and supplies).
o Eliminated Assistant Superintendent contingency, reduced Superintendent to 1%
o Still do not know all of our variables, so like Bozeman we will make cuts now, add interlocal funding to help with transition to next year (next 18 months)—both methods will allow for smaller impact as we transition.
**High School and Elementary School Budget Projections
o Reviewed projected budget for High School (no operational levies available)
o Reviewed project budget for Elementary School District PreK-8 (operational levies)
o Interlocal will have to be used again next year (2 years total)
o These projections will change for sure. Currently projections consider all variables that are before us right now.
o The next 4 years look different depending on what we do now and so these projections will definitely change
o Interlocal was up to 9, 000,000 has been reduced tech currr
o General Reserve Savings account must be 6% of general fund as set by the Board of Trustees—there is set law regulating what this money can be spent on.
2:00: Budget /Compensation Conversation
o HPS: How do we put parameters around salary advancement? We want to recognize growth but need to clarify and consider the language surroundlane movement.
o HEA provides the history around move to new matrix: Three years ago, we started a very long-drawn-out budget process to redesign salary matrix. Union didn’t want to do it. District and board said that PCAP is not sustainable. The District and Board said we needed traditional steps and lanes, like everyone else. HEA argued that those districts didn’t rely on professional growth and commitments, but just education. Board said, yes, that’s what we value. So, we moved to this scale because it’s what the board and district required us to do.
o HEA the history around move to new matrix: Our pay scale was created by taking averages from other districts. Those scales have been used in a sustainable fashion in other districts.
o HPS: District wants to talk about transition language from lane to lane. We knew what we wanted the ranges to be, but we knew we needed to maintain the language around it.
o HEA: District goal was to phase out PCAP.
2:20 Moving Forward: What are our goals and expectations for future meetings?
o HEA: How will we approach future meetings? Will we meet as a group, provide changes and proposals and then bring them to largegroup and make decisions?
o HPS: We would like to share the priorities on each side and then the other group has time to think about it and discuss it within their group, then come back together and work through it as a large group.
o HPS: We need to continue our focus and collaboration as we had with language this morning. This method lets us know where each group is at and work through understanding.
o Summary: Both groups come with their individual proposals, share, discuss then have time to think, discuss and decide with their groups. Bring back decisions/counter proposals to larger group and sit side by side and discuss and make final decisions.
o HPS: There is value in sharing our proposals ahead of time, talking about it together, and reconvening with our individual groups then come back to make decisions.
o HEA: When sharing ahead of time, it may be unclear to each group what the intent behind the proposal changes. That said, HEA has made our decisions based on the careful review of both the Bargaining team and the Board of Directors. We feel comfortable sharing what priorities we have established.
o HPS: Can we chunk it in a way that we can understand through preview what we will be deciding when we come together as a large group, discuss, and make a decision.
o HPS: We have to talk about compensation before the end. We cannot wait until the end in order to plan for the incoming year.
o HEA: If we do what we did today, it will take too much time. If we share our “1st read” across both groups before our next meeting, committing to not making preconceived notions, then come back ready to make the decisions that are necessary to move on for the sake of time efficiency.
o HEA: Clarification: are we sharing language changes and rationale behind the changes or just the changes? Group—both changes and rationale for both sides will be shared across groups in order to prepare for the next meeting.
Next Meeting: Final Thoughts
· Share our language proposals with each other by March 1st
· Meet 12:30-3:30 on March 8th – Jane and Keri will establish our agenda and our plan
**I will work on a more consistent bulleting format for future meetings.