The Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers last week formally began
the important process of negotiating articles for a successor
contract with the Morgan Hill School District. We continue to work
under the provisions of the former contract until there is a new
settlement.
The Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers last week formally began the important process of negotiating articles for a successor contract with the Morgan Hill School District. We continue to work under the provisions of the former contract until there is a new settlement.
We have only negotiated a calendar for this school year. The formal process of negotiations will begin after Feb. 9, 2004, when the board’s proposals are sunshined. We have been in committee work with the district researching and educating ourselves to budget processes and examining district revenues. I would like to thank (district administrators) Bonnie Tognazzini, Denise Tate and Fred Gallanciano for their help in this process.
There are three central issues facing the district: revenues, respect and results. Not one of these is less important or less difficult to solve than the other.
• The first issue I will speak on is revenue.
The federation acknowledges that a fluctuating budget picture at the state level exacerbates the budgeting process for any district but nevertheless, improving the teachers’ wages and working conditions must be a top priority.
Less than 10 years ago Morgan Hill School District teachers were at the median in wages for districts in the Santa Clara County. We are now dead last and losing ground. If you include the abysmal health and welfare allocation, teachers are actually taking a pay cut when the deduction for their families medical coverage is calculated. Many teachers pay anywhere from $300-$900 out of pocket each and every month.
If we wish to attract and retain the excellent teaching staff we currently have we must reverse this pattern. There were a number of teachers at last week’s meeting to stress how important this message is. The board hear them and respond to them.
The Federation does not believe that there are hidden dollars in the budget or secret slush funds. However what the Federation questions is the priority of the district spending. The teachers are in the classroom. They should be your highest priority.
There are several revenue facts that illustrate my point. It has been emphasized to me repeatedly that there are no new revenue streams. No cost of living funding from the state, no increased avrage daily attendance revenue, no equalization dollars, no federal bailouts or paybacks for mandated programs.
Still the district is planning to open a new high school. Since June 2002 the Federation has formally been requesting the budget for Sobrato. Eight months from opening the school surely someone knows the budget. If not I would strongly question why not. The startup for the new school is built into the budget from bond dollars and some state supply monies that accompany new buildings. But what is not included is the salaries for administrators, clerical, custodial, maintenance, coaches, librarians, health clerks, department chairs and other dollars necessary just to turn on the lights. This figure is estimated (by myself and others) to be approximately $300,000-$350,000.
The predominate question the board should be asking is – If you have no new monies, how will this be funded? If you have the dollars to begin a new school, you must find the dollars to compensate the teachers.
The district currently has two administrators being paid from modernization funds. Their salaries will now come out of the general fund, you have a two-tiered wage scale for site administrators with additional pay for longevity going towards a few, you have defacto no custodial support for the amount of work necessary to clean the buildings contributing to a low moral and deplorable working conditions.
There is discussion about reopening Machado Elementary, you have cut the athletic program by $30,000. Special education spending is appoaching being out of control, with another $600,000 encroachment this year. The teachers have been compensated only 1.64 percent over the last four years. I was an economics’ teacher for 14 years. The first lesson in economics is opportunity cost. You can’t have it all. But you can’t balance this budget by eliminating raises for teachers.
Teachers do not want all dollars allocated and then their needs addressed. A budget plan for one year, three years and five years is necessary to move the teachers, at minimum, back to the median. The district does not currently have the 4 percent a year necessary to make that a reality, but the board has within its means the ability to make that a priority.
In the recent past the vehicle for budget planning has been the performance-based budget process. Myself and other members of the negotiations team have met with the superintendent and her representatives to discuss changing the most current practice. This has been a series of presentations where each department head or school administrator defends their program and then prioritizes cuts or spending.
The Federation is recommending a different approach to budget planning. We believe a smaller committee consisting of representatives from the Federation, SEIU, site administrators and district personnel would be more productive in developing budget priorities than the most recent approaches. We must have a more in-depth look at the total budget and examine ways to reprioritize spending. We are in a new era of extremely limited resources and we must have new thinking and restructuring of spending practices in order to remain fiscally solvent.
• The second issue is one of respect. Trust is the key in implementing communication and decision-making processes that move forward a vision for the district. Board oversight, demand for the tough answers and decisions from your district leadership is imperative. I do not speak without accurate information and the backing of the teachers.
In representing them I am accurate in my information and understand their needs and the importance of conveying their feelings. I have been asked if I represent many, I have been told I am only “posturing”. There are no secrets in this district. I stand by my past statements and clearly hope trustees understand the issues and plans I present. I consider trustees to be honorable and thoughtful people. Public service and recently public teaching has been a thankless task. Even in bad times, good things can happen. I have spoken with many board members recently and hope to continue that dialogue which is designed to move us toward solutions.
• My third issue is results. We all have a vested interest in solving our problems. I do not criticize or demand change without solutions and plans to back up those changes. We must continue our dialogue. Committee structures must be articulated so everyone understands processes for curriculum changes. Respect for the collective good work of committees must be given. Grant dollars can be one solution to our problems but we want to have the Federation consulted and teacher buy-in assured. Outside third party funds cannot usurp our contract nor drive our curriculum.
The Federation has already scheduled meeting times to begin negotiations. Collectively we can change the direction of the district. It is a commitment to new thinking that is necessary. The many teachers were at the most recent board meeting to let trustees see their concern and understand their commitment to a new way of thinking.
Negotiations are the vital process that improves communication between the district, board and Federation. We look forward to meeting the challenges before us.
Donna Foster, Live Oak High teacher, is president of the Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers. Readers interested in writing a guest column should contact editor Walt Glines at ed******@*************es.com or 779-4106.
