This is the San Diego Unified School District’s third Negotiations Update about what is happening during our bargaining sessions with SDEA. We send or post updates on the web soon after each session (www.sandi.net/negotiations). The third negotiations session between the district and SDEA was held on Monday, October 20, 2008.

SDEA Presents Only a Few of Their Initial Proposals
As we stated in our October 3 Negotiations Update, the October 20 session was to be devoted to SDEA’s presentation of its Initial Proposals. The district’s negotiations team had expected an organized and comprehensive presentation from SDEA with substance and specifics. The district team was prepared to ask questions about the details underlying SDEA’s initial proposals, but after raising expectations by referring to the extensive work that they had done with their constituency to gather input on negotiations, SDEA unfortunately used this session to present only a few proposals (none of them new) with very limited details.

SDEA has opened more than 20 Contract Articles and more than100 separate issues, but SDEA elected to present just a few including the following:

• Compensation Increases. No written proposal was shared. SDEA stated that its compensation goal of reaching the county median is not dependent upon “new” money from the State, but rather on a re-prioritization of spending by the Board of Education. SDEA shared no details, specifics or concrete concepts relative to re-prioritization. SDEA did question the Board of Education’s recent class size reduction efforts at the Kindergarten, first, second and ninth grade levels. SDEA also questioned district funding to enable students to take the PSAT at no cost to the student and their families. SDEA minimized the impact of the current global economic crisis and the likelihood of “bad budget years” and stated that the Board of Education could still provide a “significant” wage increase through this re-prioritization effort.
  
  
• Automatic Health Benefits Enrollment. SDEA proposed that members be automatically enrolled in the least expensive health benefit plan if they fail to enroll within time deadlines set by district procedure. In support of its written proposal, SDEA relied upon one unfortunate situation that occurred more than seven years ago. A member chose not to enroll and thereafter developed a serious medical condition. The district’s practice is to repeatedly inform employees, in writing and by telephone if necessary, as to the approaching deadline and it is the employee’s obligation to choose and enroll in the desired plan. The district team asked how many members would be assisted by SDEA’s proposal. SDEA provided no data or figures, but indicated that “one or two” members contact them about such issues. SDEA has made this proposal in prior negotiations.
  
  
• Retirement. SDEA proposed that an actuarial study be performed in connection with a possible “Golden Handshake” retirement incentive for teachers only, stipulating that they do not want the teachers’ plan to subsidize the cost for other bargaining units. Again, there was no written proposal. SDEA put forth this same proposal during negotiations about the impacts and effects of layoffs back in July 2008.
  
  
• Retiree Medical Fund. No written proposal or specifics were shared, but SDEA generally expressed a desire to increase contributions or make other improvements to the Retiree Medical Fund. Again, this is a proposal that has come to the district in prior contract negotiations and is neither new nor a surprise to the district.
  
  
• Workload Reduction. SDEA described current teachers’ and other certificated employees’ increasing workloads as “impossible.” SDEA indicated that a 40 hour workweek should encompass a “full plate” and that work “added to the plate” should be optional for the employee or paid for by the district in the form of overtime compensation or comp time. SDEA then presented a written proposal, entitled “Maintenance of Standards.” SDEA stated that the proposal dates back to “1977.” SDEA made the same or substantially similar proposal during layoff effects negotiations in July 2008. The proposal was unintelligible and lacked details necessary for any substantive discussion. SDEA then suggested that the written proposal was just a starting point for discussion and provided no detailed proposals about the implementation of the concepts.
  
  
• Contract Cleanup Issues. SDEA devoted much of their presentation to contract clean up issues which are typically addressed at the end of negotiations. Cleanup often involves omitting outdated or obsolete sections or language, and updating salary data and other information found in the contract and appendices. The district team expressed its surprise that SDEA elected to devote so much of its initial presentation to cleanup issues.
  
  

The district team expressed disappointment that SDEA did not present the more detailed proposals that were expected at this session. The next session will again be devoted to SDEA’s presentation of its initial proposals. The district will present its initial proposals thereafter.

Ground Rules
The parties continued to discuss basic ground rules for negotiations, but SDEA continues to resist working with the district to develop a roadmap or organized plan to effectively and efficiently negotiate and complete this round of bargaining.

Rather than accepting the district’s request for a detailed roadmap for negotiations, SDEA presented a ground rules counterproposal, That proposal calls for “open bargaining,” transparency and accountability and a provision which would allow SDEA, at any given session, to add up to THIRTY (30) members to its current eight (8) member bargaining team. Expressing concern about that many teachers being out of the classroom for bargaining, the district team rejected this proposal in a written counterproposal. SDEA noted that consideration could be given to bargaining in evenings or on weekends, only to reject such a notion later in the bargaining session.

In response to SDEA’s call for “open bargaining,” transparency and accountability, the district previously suggested that bargaining sessions be videotaped and web cast. The district team shared estimated cost information received from ITV (approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per session). Costs would be shared between the parties. SDEA agreed to address this issue in a counterproposal to the district.

The District’s Negotiations Team
Sam Wong informed SDEA that his full team was now in place. Sam introduced each member of the team:

Sam Wong, Chief Human Resources Officer
Tim Asfazadour, Certificated Staffing Administrator
Rupi Boyd, Elementary School Improvement Officer
Ami Shackelford, Director Financial Services
Deberie Gomez, Labor Relations Consultant
Jonathan Pearl, Attorney

SDEA then introduced its bargaining team members:

Dick Gale, SDEA Executive Director
Steve Kaplan, SDEA Field Organizer
Craig Leedham, SDEA Field Organizer
John Anella, Program Monitoring Dept.
Marc Capitelli, SDEA Vice President
Bill Freeman, Porter Elementary School
Meghann Hughes, Kearny High School
Shari Wood-Valenzuela, Franklin Elementary School

Next Session
The next session is currently scheduled for November 13, 2008.