Tavares, FL - Sunday, June 3, 2012
by Vance Jochim
Here is my analysis of the proposed NEW 3-year LCEA Collective Bargaining agreement going to the Board for approval on Monday night, June 4, at 6pm. This report has already been sent to the Lake County School Board and key administrators for comments on Friday, June 1, with a deadline for comments of Sunday evening. Only one comment was received and I revised the wording.
The agenda for the “regular” 6pm Board meeting on Monday, June 4th can be located in the Board Docs menu section of the Lake County School District website here:
http://www.boarddocs.com/fla/lake/board.nsf/Public
Below, I listed my review notes for the entire 96 page agreement, where I commented ONLY on changes from the prior agreement. MY summary conclusions are:
FiscalRangers.com Conclusion Summary of our Review (details are further down):
- Overall the wording changes seem to improve the Administration and Board authority over some important staffing decisions.
- The wage increases have a total impact of $1.2-million, and the increases are under 2% for most teachers for a one step increase, and not huge in comparison to inflation and CPI rates. The contract does not specify how long it has been since prior increases or compare them on a trend basis. You would see that kind of analysis if requesting approval for construction, etc. but not here for wages. I have usually spoken out against wage increases without any correlation with economic indicators or in this economy, but I am ambivalent about this one. If you are unemployed, you might wonder why, but if you are employed, you might support it. These were a STEP increase for seniority and not increases in base pay (that I could tell, since NO CLEAR explanation of the changes is provided...).
- THERE is no public executive summary or staff trend analysis of these changes that is available, which is a negative related to government transparency. That means we had to read all 96 pages.
- The big change is the dropping of seniority requirements for some actions like teacher transfers, layoffs etc. This gives the administration more responsibility and they can’t hide behind union restrictions when defending their success or failure. This also puts poor performing teachers on notice that they can’t cruise through to retirement and if they don’t improve, they are the first out the door in layoffs or transfers. Being transferred from South County to Umatilla might make them think about improving. (That is what they do in the Federal Government. I knew one Federal Circuit Judge who transferred all the poor performing attorneys to one distant office in his circuit area, then closed the office).
- Note: Pending wage increases for the SEIU union and the administrators are usually in line with the LCEA agreement, so expect to see similar increases for them to be announced in the near future.
- Teacher and employee wages need to be discussed clearly in the open, and detailed written summaries, with reasons, methods, etc should be supplied for contract changes. Wage negotiations ARE discussed in open meetings between staff and the unions, but they fail to have copies of offers to handout, read documents without providing copies and generally play tricks to reduce the open transparency over the process. Once an offer goes to the Board for approval, there are no public minutes or recordings of the discussions and we have no idea whether the Board was flim flammed or given adequate, professional, objective information before making approvals. This is one reason to elect business experienced and educated Board members who can ask credible questions during this process. Until transparency over the wage and benefit negotiations are much improved, I am usually suspicious of any wage negotiations between the School Administrators, or the Board with either the LCEA or the SEIU.
- end of summary -
===================================================================
Here is the only staff supplied description of the changes in the new agreement - taken from the Agenda Item Details page:
“The School Board and the Lake County Education Association (LCEA) reached tentative agreement on a new three-year contract on May 18, 2012. The contract includes revisions to language on teacher evaluation, contracts, transfers and reduction in force to be in compliance with SB 736, the Student Success Act. New contract provisions also include reporting of student grades on the district electronic system for parent access and an additional day of sick leave that may be taken for personal reasons. In the area of compensation, one salary step increase effective July 1, 2012 will be provided to all teachers and psychologists who are entitled to a step increase effective on that date and are at less than Step 23+. In addition, there will be a $500 incentive payment for those teachers and psychologists currently at Step 23+. The incentive payment will be distributed across all pay checks during 2012-13 in amounts that are as nearly equal as practical.”
The actual Agreement with the LCEA (which I reviewed below) is HERE:
Monday’s regular 6pm upcoming meeting agenda on Board Docs shows item 9.08 has the new proposed LCEA agreement (see link below), but there is no summary statement of all the changes in the 96 page document. There is no analysis of changes, reasons, etc. Please send me a copy of the summary showing prior wording vs new wording and fiscal impact calculations, which must exist.
I just confirmed with LCSD’s public information officer that there is NO executive summary or plain English overview of changes to the contract. There are no details showing how they calculated the $1.2-million impact for next year’s budget. Some sections in the contract contained complex and multiple changes, and there is no “plain english” summary of the changes or the reasons for the changes.
The public should not have to scroll through all 96 pages of both the old and new contracts to see what changes were made. Such a summary should be a standard practice and it should be included on the agenda. No corporation board would ever issue a detailed budget or updated contract with ANYONE without an executive summary that described the specific changes and cost impacts.
FiscalRangers.com analysis of the proposed new contract , and our summary conclusion is above.
I DID scroll through the entire 96 page NEW contract (not the old one) and noticed these changes, and added comments and a conclusion
- Note: I only looked at changes indicated by cross outs or underlining. I did not review unchanged sections for comments (or it would be another two days…)
- Article VIII on Discipline added a five step progressive discipline system but then says the Superintendant doesn’t have to follow it, which gives her more clout over teacher discipline.
- Page 25 – Section 8 – adds requirement for teachers to meet current state mandates, but does NOT provide a method or place to learn what they are, which is pretty vague for teachers to follow.
- Page 26 – Section 16 – inserted a new section that added requirement that Teachers must timely report grades on the electronic reporting system within one week of due date.
- Page 31 – Section 23 was Deleted – It described teachers formerly holding contracts and then re-employed. The purpose of this section is not clear, and the reason for deletion is not described.
- Page 34 – Section 2 – modified name of teacher appraisal process to the TEAM system now used, which replaced the IPPAS system. Many wording changes were also made in the following sections regarding teacher evaluations. Buzzwords were changed from “assessment forms” to “evaluation instruments”. Also describes changes in the teacher appeal process over evaluations.
- Page 37 – Professional Improvement – Sets a deadline of 30 days for teachers to turn in updates in credentials. (Apparently there was no deadline specified before). Section 2 included requirement that new teacher hires can attend an orientation and BE COMPENSATED only if budgeted and Board approved. Both changes seem to be an improvement in controls of the process.
- Page 38 – Many changes in requirements for Instructional contract teachers regarding initial contract periods. Hard to understand the purpose without an executive summary. Appears to restrict pay step level until a new teacher gets “highly qualified” designation, which seems to be an incentive to get them to become qualified. That is good.
- Page 43 – Section 4 – added definitions of Just Cause for dismissing instructional personnel. These were all added, thus implying prior contracts did NOT define reasons for dismissals.
- Page 56 – Section 10 on Health, Hospitalization and Life Insurance.
- Removed the cost to the employee for the Blue Choice plan which was $54.32. Adds a provision saying the Board will pay 95% of the Blue Options plans and this is NOT clear – refers to another insurance program, thus true cost of the change is not shown. Cannot compare a dollar value to a percent of some other plan not in the same section. Nowhere else is the cost of benefits or changes mentioned in this contract, thus I assume there were NO CHANGES to benefit contribution requirements. You would have to track down separate documents or plans. There is no mention of employee contributions, limits, etc.
- Page 61 – Teacher sick leave allowed for personal reasons was INCREASED from five days to SIX days. However, this is not an increase in sick days, only the ability to use one more day for personal business.
- Page 68 – Section 1 – Authority for transferring teachers – adds section to clarify that the District School Board SHALL act (i.e. agree and support) on recommendations of the Superintendant regarding transfer of any employee. This means whining before the Board won’t help if a teacher is transferred by the Superintendant. This gives more authority to the Superintendant.
- Page 68 – Section 2 – Transfers - REMOVES a requirement for a list of teachers requesting voluntary transfers. Retains section where management decides transfers on the basis of certifications, performance evaluation (added), etc., without being required to first consider a list of volunteers first. Seems to increase ability of management to make transfer decisions based on merit, and not whether someone else volunteered on a list. Section 2b: Involuntary Transfers - Removes some restrictions on ability for management to transfer teachers. Beefs up their ability to do it on merit and need without being bogged down (my opinion) by union restrictions. Thus, if you hold management responsible for grades and graduation, you have to give them authority to make changes to meet those objectives first.
- Page 69 – Advertisement of vacant positions – Cleans up wording, reduces union required DAILY posting of ads to WEEKLY posting at least five days before being filled. This reduces need to make daily updates to vacancy listings (my opinion). Other changes allow faster hiring than before.
- Page 69 – C: Promotional vacancies before seemed to be limited to union members, but new wording eliminated that and retains wording that the Board agrees with the intent of using existing employees, but the Board NOW “retains the right to determine whether or not an applicant is qualified”. Thus the Board (which gets recommendations from the staff) can approve or disapprove applicants based upon qualifications with fewer restrictions. This may be good, depending on how objective they are…
- Page 69 – Reduction in Force – Wording is changed to REMOVE requirement that certification and length of service are primary reasons to decide who is laid off. Instead, the Board (and Administration) MUST RELEASE POOR PERFORMERS FIRST (I.E. IGNORE SENIORITY) . Thus people at the bottom of performance rankings are release FIRST and top performers without regard to seniority can be retained. THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE – the new wording even includes very specific language: “The District School Board may NOT prioritize retention of employees based upon seniority, according to SB 736 (apparently a new State law). This means poor performers will all be released first in staff reductions, and a GOOD performing teacher with only 4 years experience can be retained over a poor performing teacher with 24 years experience. HOORAY. MERIT standards are being implemented here. In the prior section, it now seems that promotional vacancies may be based on merit, not seniority.
- Page 74 – Copies of Agreement – Before, copies were printed and distributed widely. Now printed copy volume is reduced and more reliance places on telling people to get the electronic versions on the District’s website. Before, the agreement was posted only on the LCEA website, and now it must be on the School District website which is more transparent. This is called saving trees.
- Page 78 finally describes the increase in pay, but as mentioned before, no info was provided on CHANGES to benefits:
- Note: This talks about step increases, but it is not clear to me from the page 79 chart what that is. One reason is that I know that step increase might not have been approved in the recent past, but that is not disclosed here. Thus a teacher with 15 years experience may only be at step 12 due to postponements in step increases. So I am not clear how this works and they don’t explain it on this page.
- Teachers are given an additional salary step increase effective July 1, 2012 (not retroactive, which is more costly) to teachers at less than step 23+ which is the highest step which is $55,050. The contract does NOT calculated the effects of step increases or how many teachers are at each step, but each step increase (i.e. based upon years service) seem to increase by from $100 to $1500 or more depending on seniority. The agenda says the total impact of these changes is $1.2-million, but did not provide details and they are not provided in the contract either.
- Teachers at step 23 or more get a $500 incentive payment. Thus they stay at the same step, and base pay does not increase like those under step 23 who move up a pay step.
- It is very hard to tell the percent of pay increase, but for instance a step 20 teacher is paid $56,826 and step 21 is $57,863. The increase is $1063, or an increase of 1.9% For teachers at step 23 or higher, the $500 payment is an increase of .007 or .7% - not very much. According to Kiplinger’s economic outlook report, inflation is expected to be 2% this year, and the Consumer Price Index was 3% last year, but expected to be lower in 2012 due to drop in oil prices in April. So, in this economy, is giving a 1% to 1.9% raise fair, or not in view of inflation and the CPI?? My guess is that if this was 2007 when taxes were rolling in, the increases would be much higher.
- Pages 80-82 – Differential pay schedules for coaches, club advisors, etc were unchanged.
- Page 90 – Memo of Understanding with LCeA regarding Leesburg High School’s School Improvement Grant – it provides for teacher bonuses if student scores on certain FCAT exams improve. Teachers who work a full year and get a evaluation rating of 2.5 to 4.0 will get an added stipend of $2,000. Teachers with evaluations LOWER than 2.5 (down to 1.5) will get $1000. So, merit pay is making its way into at least one school.
- Page 92 – Memo of Understanding with LCEA – Oct. 19, 2012 (only) is designed for professional development for teachers. Kids get the day off, and teachers have continued education sessions that day.
- Page 94 – Memo of Understanding with the LCEA defining pay for teachers who moonlight to teach classes in the Lake County Virtual School (online). Teachers are paid $125 per student who complete ONE segment of a virtual course with a grade of A, B, C or D. They only get $25 for an F grade. Why are we paying the SAME rate for students who get A&B versus C & D? Not much incentive to get students up to a grade of A or B. HOWEVER, page 95 has the form that is signed by the teacher, and it only says they get paid $125 per course segment passed per student. It is not clear if “passed” means grades A, B, C & D. It does not mention the different payment for an F student. Thus the MOU and the form appear to be inconsistent with each other.
- Page 96 – MOU with LCEA allowing LCEA President AND Vice President (new condition) use the School District email for updating LCEA members on announcements, etc. Thus the school is letting the union use email lists and the email system to communicate without using offsite facilities. The union, which collects dues, should be required in my opinion to pay for this service, but they get it for free.
Vance Jochim
Lake County Fiscal Rangers
Chief Fiscal Watchdog
Volunteers Searching for Ways to Improve Local Government Fiscal Management, Efficiency & Effectiveness
PO Box 1042
Tavares, FL 32778
Mobile: 352-638-3578
TWITTER: @FiscalRangers
Fiscal Ranger's page on Facebook
CLICK HERE to see recommended internet links related to Local Lake County government fiscal issues.
