This opinion piece was submitted to the Jacksonville Review by Jacksonville Elementary parent, Sandy Brown.

Dear Medford School Board Members,

My name is Sandy Brown and I have a child in the Medford School District. I initially emailed to voice my concerns about the School Board’s position in negotiations with the Medford Teacher’s Union. Since that time, I have discussed my email with one of your Board Members, Jeff Thomas (who took the time to call me back – thanks), as well as with individual teachers and the Medford Education Association. My conversation with Jeff was helpful in understanding the Board’s position; however, I still don’t feel that either side is really trying to negotiate; both sides still seem to be using their energy to blame each other. I have reviewed both the District’s latest offer and the Medford Education Association’s offer. As a tax paying parent who will be attending your next board meeting unless the two sides can come to a consensus beforehand, here are my concerns with the latest offer, as follows:

• Article 9, School Year Calendar: As I discussed with Jeff Thomas of your Board, I think the number of days should be increased back to the December offer of 180 days (more days!) but the teachers should be compensated for the extra days they work. The current offer is 177 school days. Oregon has one of the shortest school years in the nation; if one of the School Board’s goals is to improve education requirements and increase the number of graduates, more school days means more instructional days that students could learn and teachers’ salaries would increase because they’d get paid. It’s a win/win for all.

• Article 11, Net Salary Increases. I have been told repeatedly that in the past the teachers were requested to take salary reductions that amounted to a 7% reduction and that the District agreed in a 2011 memorandum signed by union leaders and Superintendent Phil Long that stated the district promised to invest any new money it would receive to add back school days or restore salary concessions the union made in past negotiations. The District therefore should honor their promise, as there is discretionary money. I don’t care what other goals the School Board has set, this was an agreement in writing to the teachers, and therefore it needs to be honored. This needs to be addressed – again, revisions to Article 9 by increasing the number of school days would help to increase the teachers’ salaries by increasing the number of compensated school days. The District’s offer to increase the number of school days without compensation to the teachers is unfair. The teachers have said your latest offer gives about .78% the first year, 1% the second year, and 1% the third year. The latest information from the Board makes it look vastly different; I want to know why the numbers are different on both sides as I am still unclear. I had been told by the Board that there is about $1,000,000 in discretionary funding (and the Medford Tribune reported that number at closer to $4 million so I’d also like to know what the real numbers are in terms of discretionary funding) and that the Board wants to use the money to hire additional teachers and pay for teachers to help at risk children when school is not in session (spring break, summer break, etc.) to bring up graduation rates. I agree that we need to hire additional teachers and that some of the money should be used for that; however, the money could be balanced to hire additional teachers, increase the number of school instructional days (which would also give the District additional money per child from the State for those additional days), and give the teachers a slight increase in salary above what is currently proposed. I do not agree that the best use of the money is to hire teachers during times when school is not in session as that will help very few teachers since a limited number of teachers would be hired. I think a better use of the money is to increase the number of compensated school days, especially since the District previously agreed to do so when funding got better. [I also have to comment that I think the teachers request for COLA increases equal to the Portland annualized CPI-U of not less than 2.5% but not more than 2.99% for 2013-14 and not less than 2.5% and not more than 3.75% for 2014-15 is too high considering comparative wages in this area. Given the amazing health care, retirement and vacation benefits that teachers receive that are truly incredible when compared to other employment benefits in the Rogue Valley; they have to realize they will not receive wages as high as more urban areas where employment opportunities/benefits are more competitive.]

• Article 12, Working Conditions. I’ve been told by the teachers that this is where they really feel the District is not working with them. Since this is a non-monetary issue, this is an area where I think the District negotiating team should be bending over backwards to work with the teachers union. We all know how hard teachers work and the increased burdens that have been placed upon them. I’m involved at Jacksonville Elementary and I see how overburdened these teachers are with increased class sizes and curriculum requirements, and we’re at a school that has amazing parental volunteer and monetary resources. I can’t imagine the conditions at schools with less parental involvement and monetary resources.

• Article 13, Insurance Benefits. In reading the latest Union proposal they propose that the District pay for 95% of their insurance benefits instead of 93% (they do not specify what this means in terms of dollar amounts). In the District proposal, they propose to pay $1,050 a month per employee for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years (they equate this to an employee paying about $77 per month for full family coverage with a $500 deductible or $0 for full family coverage with a $1,500 deductible and a one-time District contribution of $500 to an HSA). The District proposes that the employee pay for any additional increase in health insurance benefit costs in the 2015-16 school years. I think the teachers have amazing insurance benefits and they currently pay less than anyone I know for their benefits. As a former government employee that is currently self-employed, I can only wish for comparable benefits. I think the District’s proposal is very reasonable for the first two contract years as they have continued to pay for increases to health care benefits and the teachers have not had to pay for any increases. I understand the teachers’ concern, however, about the language where the teachers will be required to pay any additional increases in health insurance benefit costs in the 3rd year of the contract. Since it is unknown by everyone what the increase would be, I think it’s reasonable to include a monetary cap on what increase the teachers would have to pay in case the increase is substantial. A reasonable amount should be negotiated with the Teachers Union.

• Article 14, Retirement Benefits. It is my understanding in reading the latest Union proposal that they propose that retirees that are at least 57 and have a minimum of 15 years of experience with the district in a licensed position, or who have a minimum of 10 years of experience with the district in a licensed position and on Step 14 of the salary schedule who retire prior to June 30, 2015 would receive up to 8 years of District paid health benefits (medical, dental and vision). Retirees that meet the above criteria who retire after June 30, 2015 but before June 30, 2026 would receive up to 6 years of District paid health benefits (medical, dental, and vision). This is a benefit that is virtually unheard of and it definitely needs to be phased out. I understand the teacher viewpoint that you can’t take this away from teachers that have been counting on this benefit and are ready to retire. I agree to some extent, but think it should be greatly phased out. This is one area I think the teachers really need to give on as nobody else in the working world gets a benefit like this. The District is proposing to pay for this 8 year benefit for those retirees that are at least 58 (a one year difference) but only up until March 30, 2014. After that date, the District is proposing to pay $1,500 per year of service in the district, up to Oct. 31, 2013, to qualifying employees at the time they retire, if they retire before becoming eligible for Medicare. I think the District should meet the Union part-way and extend the benefit to employees who are at least 58 who retire prior to June 30, 2015. After that time, I think the District offer should apply as they will pay $1,500 per year of service (so an employee who has worked for the District for 10 years would receive $15,000 to help pay for their health care benefits if they choose to retire prior to being eligible for Medicare. I think the Union needs to understand this has to be phased out as this is an unheard of benefit and at least the District is proposing to continue some sort of assistance for those employees who choose to retire early.

• Article 19, Duration of Contract. The Union is proposing that the contract end on June 30, 2015; the District is proposing that the contract end June 30, 2016. I completely agree with the District that it should be for 3 years. The contract should not be any shorter or the District and the teachers will be back in this negotiating stance again and we really need to be focusing on what this is all about, teaching our children.

I do want to thank you all for your service, I know this is a volunteer position that takes a lot of your time and I really appreciate your involvement. However, I am hearing from both sides that the other is not willing to really negotiate in good faith. I urge all sides to increase the effort to negotiate and avoid a strike, which is not good for anyone. I am still hopeful I will not have to attend your next Board meeting scheduled for Monday January 27 and you can work this out with the Medford Education Association prior to that date. Otherwise, I and many other parents will be there in attendance to speak to the Board about the negotiations process. We all need to focus on what this is all about and how much harm a strike could do both to our community and to our kids.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Regards,

Sandy Brown

Posted January 26, 2014