top of page

Teacher Bargaining April 27, 2023

Roll Call: HPS: Josh McKay, Brian Cummings, Keri Mizell, Janelle Mickelson, Jill Nyman, Nick Radley, Cal Boyle, Brett Zanto, Wynn Randall. HEA: Jane Shawn, Erika McMillin, Anna Alger, Paul Phillips, Adam Clinch, Jonna Schwartz, Joanne Didriksen, Jake Warner.

8:00 Reviewed Norms

2.2 Salary Placement—Move language from 2.4 to here

HPS: Regarding the Class 4 license. Group met and we decided to move this language to separate from other lane movement language. This is the language we decided on:

2.2 Salary placement—move the following language here (from 2.4):

I. Reserved for personnel who do not hold a B.A. degree with appropriate teaching endorsements but who are eligible to hold a Class 4 license and have five (5) years occupational experience of which three (3) must be continuous. Continuous experience shall be defined as a minimum of 2,080 hours per year for three (3) consecutive years in an occupation directly related to the teaching assignment.

HEA: 2.4 (a) This is moving to an introduction to this article—a preamble. We would like to change the language from “step-up” to lane movement. In addition, we would like to remove the sentence “particularly if the teacher already has a minor or if the District feels there is a specific need to encourage the teacher to develop an alternative endorsement.” and add “The District also encourages the development of administrative candidates among the teaching staff.

HPS: We are in agreement with striking this language and adding the addition. This is preamble language so it is appropriate here.

HEA: We would like to include the option of also pursuing an administrative license.

TA: All in agreement for the language change.

2.4 (A) College Credit-language changes

HEA: Add language here to include: Only credits from accredited colleges and universities will be accepted for lane movement. For college course credits, only courses taken after graduation receiving a teaching degree or license

HPS: in agreement with this change.

TA: All in agreement for the language change.

2.4 (F) Move to E

HPS: Can we change the placement of this paragraph closer to C. This paragraph is related to lane movement but is sitting farther away from the paragraph that describes education units.

HEA: This is a paragraph that was added to the CBA by HPS Attorney.

HPS: Not sure how to outline this language. Include in C but separate from current paragraph. So C (1) and C (2)

HEA/HPS: Discussion of flow and placement in this section. The renumbering of paragraphs and the movement of language to make it easily readable.

HEA: Take out the following language in Lane Movement section.

“a lane at any time during the beginning of the next school year.” in paragraph 1. Changes in language in paragraph 2.

HPS: We need to clarify the language and the process for applying for movement with credits earned after January 15 in order for budgeting purposes and management of lane movement.

HEA: For employees there is a lot of stress around this timeline. We are worried that employees have completed the work and may not know when to complete the form or whether or not the form is submitted. The form is not working for either employees or management.

HEA: Moving away from discussion of paragraph 1 and on to paragraph 2. How credits earned and presented to HR for movement during the school year, previous to January 15.

For credits to be recognized for movement, credits an official transcript must be completed and presented to the Human Resources Director Office no later than January 15 in the school year in which such movement would take place, or else such Credits may be used the following year if the notification date is met later that year. Payment adjustments will not be made until official transcripts are received in the Human Resources Office.

HPS: Just to clarify we are talking about completed credits not necessarily official transcripts. We are giving time for the employees to gather official transcripts, then lane movement and pay will occur once transcripts are received.

HEA: We suggest moving paragraphs from F and G (in 2022-2023 CBA) to A College Credits and number 2 and 3.

HPS: We need to hold movement on these sections until we can look at the proper placement above or below the Lane Movement section. (resolved).

HEA: Back to conversation about submitting P1 and P2 in C Lane Movement. Are the forms actually helping the district in budget planning for next year?

HPS: There was more movement this year than was accounted for in the forms.

HEA: How is this possible? The forms should have presented a “worse case” scenario in the movement. Not all that submitted the form should have moved.

HPS: We have to do a budget forecast in the middle of the year due to the January 15 deadline of movement and retroactive pay. The system is clunky but it does give us data. We use it for projection numbers but there is a gray area when we project in March for next year.

HEA: Is it your preference that anyone intending to move in the coming year submit a form each year?

HPS: Yes. The number of forms submitted is inflated from what is actually going to happen, is not working for our projections and thus not working for employee group because thus our projections are inflated.

HEA: does the following language change satisfy the district:

Teachers must notify the Human Resources Director Office between January 1 and April 15 of the current school year of their intent to move a lanefor the following school year. The form would need to be submitted every year. at any time during the beginning of the next school year.

If we make this change, we need to be assured that our employees can receive a read-receipt of some sort to guarantee that the form has been received.

HPS: We cannot commit to this guarantee. We must speak with our team to assure that this is possible within our workload and systems. We understand the importance of employees’ need to receive this receipt but need to check on the process.

NonTA: No agreement in section C paragraph 1: due to submission process. HPS will consult team and come back with a process. (resolved later in notes)

TA: Agreement on Section C Paragraph. Agree to move F and G to A paragraph 2 and 3.

Article 4: Professional Growth

HPS: HEA asked if Title funds are used for this section or can be used for this section. According to Federal Law, Title money cannot be used.

HPS: Original proposal to remove 4.1- 4.5

HEA: We are concerned that the money left over in these areas is used for funding Frontline which is not the proper use according to the CBA

HPS: In recent years the money is completely used for 4.1-4.5, but we will check on this to be sure.

HEA: In 4.3, paragraph 4 we recommend that PCAP language is removed. We also would like clarification regarding the language “If substitute costs exceed the above amount, the District will cover the additional amount.” Does this come from the Professional Growth funds?

HPS: Our understanding is that it comes from General Fund. If we are going to pay for a base salary

HEA/HPS: Discussion of funding formulas and checking each section for the total possible amount available in this section.

HEA: How much is being used for 4.5?

HPS: This has shifted now that many employees are pursuing other areas of Professional Growth. We have seen a decline in use of 4.5.

HPS: It seems to me that if we are trying to tighten our belts, we should be talking about Sabbatical Leave which benefits fewer employees and is a large amount. We have to make tough decisions given our deficit.

HEA: Is the original proposal to remove based on the district believing that there will be a budget crisis forever?

HPS: We retracted removing all together and instead just suspending.

HEA: Removing this section will affect 80 employees. Is that still the district intent?

HPS: Everything we do to make budgeting sections will impact all teachers. So, yes, it is our intent given the budget deficit.

HEA: We should suspend discussion of this and instead address this in our salary conversation. Is the district still willing to suspend these sections rather than removing them all together.

HPS: Yes. We will suspend further conversation to include in salary discussion.

NonTA: We will make decisions about the suspension of 4.1-4.5 when discussing compensation.

4.7 Mentoring

HPS: We are not interested in beginning another committee. We have great challenges matching mentors with new employees already. This has been even more difficult now that we do not have the requirement of a Professional Service commitment.

HEA/HPS: Discussion of history and past practice with mentoring program.

HPS: We are not opposed to the mentoring program or designing a mentor committee. We just do not want this in contract language.

HEA: We have worked hard over the years to develop a mentoring program consistent with best practice and professional standards. We would like to improve this program and our cooperation with HPS. If we remove this section, it will impact the PIR section that identifies how the PIR day for new teachers is used.

HPS: At this point we are not accepting HEA’s proposal for this language addition. We want to keep the current language and work on improving the Mentor Program in cooperation with HEA.

HEA: By rejecting this language change we will impact the way that the PIR day will be used for new employees.

2.5(a) Pupil Instruction Related (PIR) Days

HPS: Can we move the last two paragraphs to combine them—these are related to the new educator area.

HEA: agreed to combine the last two paragraphs.

HEA: Can we get a response for when teachers will receive PIR credits?

Teachers will receive a certificate of renewal within sixty (60) days of completing the steps necessary to document completion of PIR.

HPS: We are not interested in including this language because people are not submitting in a timely manner.

HEA: This language does not speak to those who have not completed the process but for those who have completed the steps necessary and are just waiting for their credits.

TA: Movement to combine last two paragraphs.

NonTA: HPS not in agreement with 60-day return of renewal certificate.

Back to 2.4 C- Lane Movement

HEA: We are in agreement for language change in 2.4 C proposed by the district if there is a read-receipt.

HPS: We have checked and a read receipt will be received once the form is submitted.

Teachers must notify the Human Resources Director Office between January 1 and April 15 of the current school year of their intent to move a lanefor the following school year. The form would need to be submitted every year. at any time during the beginning of the next school year. A receipt needs to be sent to the teacher within five (5) business days for each form submitted by the teacher.

TA: Paragraph C adding language above. We agree on all of Board Certification Language but will figure out where this language should be placed.

2.4 E Class 4 License

HEA: Worked in committee for language change regarding the process for reviewing the pathway to lane movement. This is language drafted and not a HEA proposal but rather drafted in cooperation with HPS.

HPS: We would like to read through the whole section of proposed language and work through the entire process.

HEA: Read through language proposal and discussed intent to maintain the standard in the certification process.

HPS: We need to keep in mind how this section is closely connected to the Preamble (former Paragraph A) that defines movement on salary matrix.

HEA: The sections in black would likely not stay in CBA but rather be applied to the process for validating the acceptance of Class 4 license

HPS: We are close, but we still need to look through and think through the variety of possibilities for earning Class 4 license.

HEA/HPS: Working through the specifics in the language to reflect the intent, one sentence at a time.

HPS: We like the language suggestions but would like to look at this further. We are really close and the only pause we have is on the committee. We are not at a point to make a decision yet.

3.1 Discipline

HEA: We proposed sunset day of one year for verbal warnings (written) to be removed from personnel files

HPS: Counter proposed to include in the 3-year evaluation cycle for review of personnel file

HEA: We are not in agreement with these language changes, so 3.1 will be left as is. Grievance process will be used.

2.4 (a) Additional Compensation

HPS: We are not in agreement with HEA’s proposal for additional compensation. We may want to revisit this once we talk about compensation given our budget constraints.

HEA: Is HPS rejecting this proposal or putting it on hold to address during compensation conversation?

HPS: Pausing until compensation.

2.4 E Class 4 Licenses—Revisit from Earlier

HPS: The intent behind the language change in Class 4 is to apply for those teachers who are teaching in areas where there are no other means to advance in lane movement. Is the inclusion of “college degree” still an appropriate reference to this area.

HEA: Yes, it is because it includes an associate degree.

The District is committed to ensure that every teacher, regardless of licensure or endorsement area, has a pathway to move horizontally along the salary matrix. Teachers hired or assigned to teach Career Technical Education (CTE) classes can move horizontally on the pay matrix through conventional means (as listed in Article 2, Sections A and B) or through unconventional means which include hours of industry specific experience, related training, specialized certifications, or college degrees. Unconventional means would need approval of the Class 4 Certification Committee to ensure both rigorous professional developments, as well as necessity for serving student needs in the District.

Any teacher wanting to make an individual application to move lanes through these unconventional means will make application to the Class 4 Certification Committee. This application would be applicable only to the individual teacher making the application.

All individual applications recommended for inclusion by the Class 4 Certification Committee would have to be approved by both the Board of Trustees and the HEA Board of Directors. All individual certifications that are approved by the two (2) Boards would not take effect until the next budget year. Employees would need to submit a notice of intent for lane movement as outlined in Article 2, Section E.

Applications for a new individual certification inclusion must be received by the Human Resources Office between September 1 and November 1.

TA: Changes for Class 4 Language.

Article 5: 5.3

HEA: Last meeting we asked about costs to the district for the Bereavement leave. Do you have the numbers for us to consider?

HPS: 2022 numbers and costs: 199 Bereavement (140 covered by subs) $92, 913

HEA: Why are averaging the cost on employee cost? Should it be figured on the substitute rate?

HPS: There is a financial liability to the district when an employee is not using leave from their pool, but instead the district is providing for this leave. It is not an immediate cost but one that creates a “liability” cost.

HEA: In 5.3 our ask is that “immediate or chosen family” be added to 5. 3. Clarification of inclusion of “chosen family” in 5.2 and 5.5 and comparison to current language.

HPS: We are looking for a clarification of the definition of family to help us control the amount of leave that is used and help define the financial obligations of the district. We are not trying to put limits on how employees define family.

Can we use immediate/chosen family? We are not expanding one’s family but just redefining.

HEA: This is an opportunity for HPS to trust the professionalism of teachers and care for employees knowing we will do best by our choices.

HPS: Can we make this change without being manipulated by some employees to take advantage of this leave?

HEA: Another avenue to prevent abuse of this leave is through the relationship between the building principal and building employees. Are you concerned with there being no teeth if this is not in the contract and instead handled by building principals?

HPS: We do put our principals in hard situations if/when they must question an employees’ request for bereavement leave. More clarity in the language here would help us in this difficult situation.

Is not including this language here that big of a deal? If an employee has the ability to use 15 days per year to use for bereavement already.

HEA: Current language does not allow for using sick leave for bereavement leave.

It feels like HPS has differing views on their standpoint here. We need clarification on the position of HPS here.

HPS: The system does not tell us why employees use sick, so we can not identify the reason an employee is out on sick leave. Currently we believe that it is used for bereavement in practice. We do philosophically feel like this is a good use of sick leave.

Can we change paragraph 2 of 5.2 to include illness or death in immediate or chosen family?

HEA: Can adding this language in P2 of 5.2 eliminate the need for adding “chosen family” in 5.3? The current language in 5.3, sentence 3 covers the need for emergency leave if sick leave is exhausted.

HPS: Can we add the term “immediate/chosen family” in 5.3? We will need to discuss this as a group. This is where we get hung up. Should we take this back so we can reach language that validates the need but helps us clarify for budgeting purposes?

We will not be able to get any closer than where we are right now.

HEA: We are concerned about the tenor of this conversation and the indecision to trust the professionalism of the employees and instead address those who are taking advantage of this leave through a conversation with their building principal.

HPS: The language needs to be more agreeable to our systems—sub leave/principals.

HEA/HPS: We have agreed to some of the language in 5 but we need to get this language cleaned up in one copy and will get back to the group. We will revisit the language of “chosen family” in all sections.

HEA: For the sake of time, can we move on from Emergency/Bereavement leave and come back later.

5. 5 Leave of Absence

HEA/HPS: Working through language in this section with proposals from both HEA and HPS discussing and editing changes from both parties.

TA: Agree to language changes in 5.5

7.2 Potential Openings

HEA: We have added language congruent with the process that we have used this year. Initial 10-day posting and then after positions shift and/or new positions open, 2-day notice for transfer.

The Potential Openings listing will be open following the January 15th retirement benefit date, and will be updated as positions are filled or become open. The listing shall include school and grade level/position whenever possible.


Once the District has filled the first round of openings, new potential openings shall be posted and remain open for two (2) business days for consideration by tenured teachers only.

HPS: We all understand that there will be lag time and there will be movement as positions fill and others open.

HEA: Combine these paragraphs with recommended changes.

TA: Agreement in language changes to 7.2

7.5 Transfers

HEA: Recommended language change related to transfers:

Specific transfer requests are limited to three (3) positions per calendar year. New

transfer requests may be made as the Potential Openings List is updated.

HPS: We respectfully would like to wait and see how the 2-day notification plays out and how we are able to manage it. We would like to keep the current language.

7.7 Vacancies

HEA: Proposed language to clarify the announcement of vacancies during the “recruitment” period.

The exception to this is for “potential openings” following the first round of transfers/hiring during the recruitment season (see 7.2, Potential Openings).

HPS: How is this applicability with vacancies during the summer? Can we just end the transfer process near when school starts?

HEA: Can we add this language to transfer section?

HPS: This will limit our flexibility, especially with specialized positions. What we are trying to do is limit the movement prior to (10 days) before school begins.

TA: Language changes in 7.7

Safety: HEA Proposal for Language

HEA: There is a safety clause in the paraeducator document which is not what HEA has proposed. What we are proposing here is the same intent of language in Para CBA but using to ensure the safety of our teachers as a result of the actions of a student, not due to building concerns. Currently the only protection in place is the option for teachers to file charges against the student.

HPS: We would hope that there are sequential steps in place that include informing principal and enlisting help with a behavioral plan. There are building plans in place for student behavior already, if this behavior harms another.

HEA: There are safety flow chart plans in buildings that are used overall, and then specific behavioral plans in place in all buildings.

The bigger concern with unsafe student behavior is when it is handled in policy because this takes a longer process to implement. This time can put the teacher at risk while decisions are made and policy is implemented. This can be a point of liability for the district.

HEA: What can a teacher do if there are unsafe situations with students? What choice do teachers have other than using their own leave to avoid contact with the student?

HPS: They go to A-team and begin the process to put the student on a behavior plan. Part of that procedure is offering protection for teachers.

There are varying situations to consider. How can we do what you are asking and still be bound to serve students given the variety of situations?

HEA: Isn’t there a safety plan in place in each building already?

HPS: There are two different plans/procedures here—the building safety plan and the A-team plan or threat assessment plan.

HEA: We don’t have any good answers, but we are glad to have the conversation and know that there are some procedures and practices in place.

NonTA: There is no inclusion of this language, but we had a chance to talk through the issues from both perspectives.

SAAC Proposal from HEA

HPS: We are not in a position to offer preference to HPS employees for enrollment in the SAAC Program and feel this puts our families in need at risk.

Sick Leave Buyout:

HPS: The HEA proposal for this change is a cost for the district so we cannot support it. We are not in agreement with this change.

Next Meeting:

May 18th - Compensation


bottom of page