Fairview Education Association files complaint against board

By Bill Vander Weele

Sidney Herald
Published on Friday, July 3, 2009 11:23 AM MDT

The relationship between the Fairview Education Association and the Fairview School Board has gotten to the point where an unfair labor practice complaint has been filed with the Department of Labor and Industry’s Board of Personnel Appeals against the school district.

A collective bargaining session ended in late May with Fairview Education Association representatives saying mediation was the best course. At that meeting, the teachers proposed an additional $152,000 would be spent on salaries next year and $73,000 would be used in the second year of the contract. Teachers noted the $152,000 is really an increase of $142,000 because $10,000 of the increase comes from “steps and lanes” that some teachers see starting next year. The salary increase would be between 8-26 percent per teacher the first year (with the average about 15 percent) and between 5-8 percent the second year.

The board’s proposal would increase the base pay to $26,639. Teachers would receive a 4.89 percent salary increase across the board. An additional $44,269 would be spent on teaching salaries by the district. The parties are also discussing a system where teachers receive a 12 percent bonus from oil revenue after all general budget needs are met. This year the amount was 10 percent.

The unfair labor practice complaint states the board has bargained in “bad faith.” Four instances are pointed to by the Fairview Education Association including:

• Refusing to tentatively agree on anything: “until we have taken it to the full board.” (quote attributed to board member Randy Skov on April 6).

• Refusing to even consider the addition of representation fee, labeling it as “communism.” (quote attributed to Skov on May 7).

• Claiming inability to pay increases on the salary schedule matrix because oil and gas revenue are not “permanent” when more than 90 percent of the entire general fund budgets are funded with oil/gas and state monies.

• Reducing the cost of economic salary proposals at each successive bargaining meeting and claiming the district has only the “new money” awarded by the Legislature to spend.

The complaint further reads, “The union accepts we may not bargain how the district constructs its budgets. However, the district cannot fund the GF (general fund) budget almost entirely from one revenue source and then claim that source ‘off limits’ for salary and other benefits. If limited to non oil/gas monies, the current salary/budgets would be reduced to ashes. Thus, while the union does not bargain budget, the district cannot cry poor when receiving literally millions (from 2000 forward) in oil/gas revenue.”

The Fairview Education Association’s “remedy” is to have the district to cease and desist in bad faith bargaining; to order the trustees to immediately begin bargaining in good faith; and to implement whatever remedy the board deems appropriate.

In the district’s response, written by Montana School Boards Association’s attorney Tony C. Koenig on June 24, it denies the board bargained in bad faith.

The response states that Skov’s comments about refusing to agree on anything before taking it to the full board came during the ground rules conversations. “Clearly Mr. Skov’s statement was simply an affirmation of what is, in fact, true. The bargaining team lacks the authority to bind the district to an agreement that has not been approved by the board of trustees. Rather, as a committee of the board, the bargaining team may only make recommendations to the board.”

Regarding, Skov’s comment that requiring representation fee is “communism,” the response reads, “It appears to be the position of the FEA that rejection of their proposal to impose a representation fee on non-union members constitutes an unfair labor practice. This is not correct. Bargaining in good faith does not require the board’s bargaining team to simply accept every proposal submitted by the FEA.” The response later reads, “Tentative agreement has been reached on some proposals, some proposals have been rejected, and the parties continue to negotiate over others.”

The response says the board’s bargaining team hasn’t reduced salary proposals but has increased them from 3 percent May 7 to 4 percent May 18 and 4.89 percent on May 26. The response says the district’s most recent proposal would cost the district about $40,000. The Fairview Education Association’s proposals would cost between $150,000 and $200,000.

The response says that the elementary district is funded at 5.77 percent with district mill levies, 39.72 percent with oil and gas revenues and 54.51 state aid. The high school district is funded at 4.38 percent with district mill levies, 20.21 percent with oil and gas revenue and 75.41 percent with state aid.

“The district is not obligated to fund increases in teacher salaries from oil and gas money. As far as that goes, the district is not obligated to increase teacher salaries at all. The FEA is correct that it cannot dictate to the district how to construct its budget. The source of funding for proposed increases in teacher salaries is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. That being said, the district has met with the FEA and negotiated in good faith over teacher salaries. The fact that the FEA is unhappy with the proposals of the board’s bargaining team does not equate to a conclusion that the district has committed an unfair labor practice,” the response reads.

In the conclusion of the response, comments made are that the district isn’t obligated to agree to the association’s ground rules or to a 20 percent salary increase or to fund any increase with oil and gas revenue. “Stated plainly, the district is not obligated to roll over and meekly accept every demand of the FEA.”

editor@sidneyherald.com

Print this story Post A Comment

Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of the Sidney Herald.

you betcha wrote on Jul 12, 2009 1:55 PM:

" don't you suppose the tax payer should be willing to pay for a good lawyer to protect and conserve the money they put out? "

QUESTION wrote on Jul 10, 2009 11:42 AM:

" To You Betcha

Thank you...point made. "

comment reader wrote on Jul 10, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Most school boards in Montana are in a union of their own and their lawyer is paid for from their dues. Another thing, lots of teachers also have master's degrees and do not get paid as much as administrators. "

Tired wrote on Jul 10, 2009 7:02 AM:

" Go look at the Environmental Workers Group's Farm Subsidy Database. You'll have to Google it and then do some hunting around in the site.

What you'll see is that teachers (schools) are not the only ones using government subsidies(note: our tax dollars). The site, farm.ewg.org lists all agricultural recipients of tax money subsidies by state and county. I see that several are either on the school board or are siding against the teachers. No one is pure and innocent. "

Just Wondering wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:14 PM:

" I would probably agree with the school board on this issue, but have a couple questions for them. Rumor says the school paid several thousand dollars over the appraised price for the house across the street from the school. If this is true, (May be just talk), but if true........why????? And HOW MUCH DID THE BUS BARN COST!!!! "

you betcha wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:48 PM:

" who do you think pays for the school's lawyer? i don't think they pass a hat around at the waterhole. i am pretty sure it's the tax payers. what's your point? "

QUESTION wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:02 PM:

" WHO PAYS FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD LAWYER? IS THAT TAXPAYER MONEY? "

Balanced Perspective wrote on Jul 9, 2009 5:58 PM:

" Thanks for any intelligent sounding/informative responses as some people search for more "sides to the story." Emotions appear to be running quite high! WOW! I agree with the fact that more education generally does generate more money. I'm not necessarily in agreement that this should assure more "perks"; especially if those come in the form of taking advantage of a position of authority. I do not think that job status necessarily equates to 'deserving or honesty' components, (as is true in any area, I'm sure.)

In regard to Unions, it's kind of been the 'American Way' for many years for several professions, hasn't it? I think if any teachers pay money in union fees, their union reps should earn their keep! Negotiations should be done with fairness, integrity, and with give and take. Mediation should help all involved come to common ground and to help reveal truth about some of the monetary aspects involved in the school district. This could also be very helpful with diffusing some emotions, I would think.

Once again, I hope that some positive resolution can come of the entire process, as I'm sure some of you do. Who wants controversy and negativity when it utlimately comes down to quality education for kids? "

Fairview Alum wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:18 PM:

" To balanced perspective. The school administrators are entitled to larger bonuses and perks. This is because they put the effort into receiving a masters degree. It is the same as in any profession, the more education/experience you have, the more bonuses and perks are awarded. The wages are publicly debated because us taxpayers pay those wages. The teachers are bringing all this public discusion upon themselves since they do not feel they are being adequately reimbursed. "

Balanced perspective wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:40 AM:

" Thanks for your response, Randy. It just seems that everyone gets in quite an uproar over teacher's raises, but raises/bonuses of other school staff are a bit less of a focus. I think it might interest people to see what Administrators get for their yearly raises, along with some other "perks" of the position. Wouldn't it be interesting to get to publicly debate and criticize wages and increases of employees in other various professions/jobs? The comparisons might be eye opening and astounding. There are some people who apparently love to attack various professionals when given the venue to do so. In this regard, I would think that teachers must have to have pretty "thick skins" to deal with the nasty comments some people direct toward them. Hopefully, these issues can get resolved with honesty and integrity, and that anything being done with negative and dishonest intent, will end with positivity. The school students are what matter in the long run, and I can't imagine that having a school board or administration who feel so negatively toward teachers and vice versa, can make for a great working environment. "

Randy wrote on Jul 8, 2009 11:17 PM:

" Balanced - Since these folks are paid with tax money, their wages should be a matter of public record ... Just have to find out where the records are kept. "

san fransisco treat wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:45 PM:

" cheese and rice!! "

ugg unions wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:43 PM:

" unions have broke our automakers and we can see their evils here locally.

it seems they are quick to throw their weight around and quicker yet to send the lawyers to the school's doorstep. at one time they had a place, now they are just extortionists.

man o man do i hate them unions! "

Balanced perspective please wrote on Jul 8, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Just out of curiosity, what have the Administrators of Fairview Schools received for a pay increase or bonus this year? What about support staff, clerk, secretaries, etc.? Can someone please give a legitimate $ amount for their pay raises? Thanks. "

Randy wrote on Jul 7, 2009 2:08 PM:

" While I believe that most teachers are underpaid, I also believe that Fairview's educators should be happy with ANY raise in pay. There are school districts throughout the nation that are flat-busted-broke and are having to eliminate teaching positions and programs, including sports.

I also agree with the Board's position on the oil money - Since this is basically "found" money and its flow can stop tomorrow, it can and should be used for things like infrastructure (buildings equipment etc) but it should NEVER be used or dedicated to fund an entitlement such as wages. To do so would be fiscally irresponsible. The Board has a big responsibility to the taxpayers and in this case, they are doing the right thing. "

Fairview Alum wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:25 AM:

" I am wholly on the Fairview School Board's side. They have tried to offer the FEA a fair increase in pay three different times. The increase that the teachers are asking for is unreasonable. From what I understand, the longer a teacher has worked, the more of an increase in pay they recieve. This includes a few teachers recieving a 26% increase! Who are these teachers trying to kid. For anyone else to recieve an increase in pay like this they would need to further their education or find a new job. It sounds to me like not all of the teachers are on board with these complaints. I believe the Fairview School District could find new teachers if they needed to replace a few.

Also, the teachers are asking for the money to come out of the oil/gas fund. It is fine while the oil money is there. But what is the school board supposed to do when it is gone? It is illegal for the school board to cut wages. They would need to raise taxes so these greedy teachers could be payed.

To the people that say teachers work more than we think. I can see them working harder maybe the first three years they are teachers, developing their lesson plans and getting used to teaching. The teachers that have been there for years use the same tests and the same lectures year. "

grow-up wrote on Jul 5, 2009 12:33 PM:

" Well, well, well, Fairview school teachers are at it AGAIN!!!!
Greedy people,be glad for your jobs,in this economy. You do not need raises every frickin year!!!! FINALLY A SCHOOL BOARD THAT HAS SOME BALLS!!!!!!!!! "

WRITE A COMMENT

Comments Policy:

All comments transmitted through, or linked from the site, are the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated. www.sidneyherald.com encourages our readers to engage in civil discussions about issues. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately, but are reviewed by Herald staff. The Herald cannot edit or change your submissions.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 250 Words.

There are some exceptions to the above rules when public figures are involved. We define public figures as individuals who work in the public’s eye and/or are candidates for public office and/or their position is paid with tax dollars.

Thank you for your comments!