South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
-
Upload
philip-tortora -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
1/39
1
**************************************
SOUTH BURLINGTON EDUCATORS *ASSOCIATION, VERMONT NEA/NEA *
*and ***
SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT **
*************************************
FACT FINDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BEFORE: John B. Cochran, Esq.
APPEARANCES:
For the Association: David Boulanger,UniServ Director
For the District: Steven F. Stitzel, Esq.
HEARING DETAILS:
INTRODUCTION
The South Burlington Educators Association
(Association) is the collective bargaining representative for
teachers employed by the South Burlington School District
(District). The District provides educational services for
the residents of South Burlington, VT, a community of
approximately 18,000 residents located in Chittenden County
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
2/39
2
in northwestern Vermont. 1 There are three elementary
schools, one middle school, and one high school in the
District. Total student enrollment is 2,606, and the District
employs 252 2 teachers. The Districts 2012 Annual Report
Card reflects that student assessment results are higher than
state and national averages.
The parties began negotiations for a successor to their
2010-2013 collective bargaining agreement in November 2012.
Between November 13, 2012 and January 14, 2013 they met five
times but were unable to reach agreement on the terms of a
successor agreement. Accordingly, they proceeded to
mediation on January 29, 2013 but were still unable to reach
agreement. Subsequently, the parties jointly selected me to
serve as a mediator for a second round of mediation, and, if
necessary, as a fact finder. On May 15, 2013, I held a
mediation session with the parties that did not produce an
agreement, and I convened a fact finding hearing later the
same day. I have thoroughly reviewed the parties oral
presentations at the fact finding hearing and the supporting
documentation each submitted in support of their respective
1 The average household income in South Burlington between200-2011 was $63,457, which is the third lowest inChittenden County, although the county is one of the moreaffluent in the state.
2 The Vermont Department of Education shows there are 204teachers, but District Exhibit 11 reflects there are 252.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
3/39
3
positions on the issues in dispute. Based on the evidence and
arguments presented by the parties regarding economic
conditions, comparisons of existing and proposed salary and
benefit levels to those in comparable communities, and
contract language in comparable communities, I make the
following recommendations concerning each of the issues that
remain in dispute.
RECOMMEDNATIONS ON ISSUES IN DISPUTE3
ISSUE NO. 1
ARTICLE II NEGOTIATIONS
Current Contract Language
2.1 Notice. The Association shall notify the Board of anyintent to negotiate by October 15 of the terminal year ofthis contract. The Board and the Association will establisha negotiating schedule for the successor agreement which willassure that if fact finding is necessary, it will becompleted and the fact finding report received by June 30 ofthe final year of the Agreement. The Board and theAssociation will exchange proposals at the first meetingmutually agreed upon for such purposes. The Board and theAssociation will schedule such additional meetings asnecessary to discuss all matters properly to be negotiated
for the successor contract.
3 My recommendations follow the order in which the disputedissues appear in the parties current collective bargaining
agreement.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
4/39
4
District Proposal
The District proposes to amend the language of Article
2.1, as follows:
2.1 Notice. The Association or Board shall notify the otherin writing of any intent to negotiate by October 15 of theterminal year of this contract. Such notification shallclearly state the partys intent to negotiate and shall
contain substantially the following language: Pursuant to
Article 2.1 of the Agreement between the parties, the(Board/Association) hereby provides formal notice of itsintent to negotiate a successor agreement. The Board and
the Association will establish a negotiating schedule for thesuccessor agreement which will assure that if fact finding isnecessary, it will be completed and the fact finding reportreceived by June 30 of the final year of the Agreement. Ifthe fact finding report is not received by June 30 due todelays caused by the Association, teachers will remain onstep until 45 days after reception of the fact findingreport. The Board and the Association will exchangeproposals at the first meeting mutually agreed upon for suchpurposes. The Board and the Association will schedule suchadditional meetings as necessary to discuss all mattersproperly to be negotiated for the successor contract.
In support of its proposal, the District emphasizes
that, during the parties last round of negotiations, the
District wanted to add language eliminating automatic steps
if the parties did not reach agreement on a successor
agreement before the prior agreement expired. As a
compromise, however, the District withdrew that proposal and
the parties agreed to the current language in Article 2.1,
which is designed to ensure that the negotiation process is
completed and a fact finding report issued, if necessary, no
later than June 30 of the last year of the agreement.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
5/39
5
According to the District, however, the Association has
protracted the current round of negotiations by delaying the
start of negotiations from September 20, 2012 to November 5,
2012. Therefore, the District is now proposing an amendment
to Article 2.1 that will: 1) clarify the parties respective
obligation for commencing negotiations and developing a
negotiation schedule; and 2) delay any step movement until
the parties have reached agreement or the District has
imposed a new agreement if the Association causes delays in
the negotiations.
Association Response
The Association opposes the Districts proposal to
modify Article 2.1. In its view, the proposal is a draconian
proposal that would punish the teachers if the parties are
unable to complete the bargaining process by June 30 because
of a perceived delay caused by the Association. It points
out that there are legitimate reasons why negotiations can
take longer than expected and it should not have to live with
the fear that the District will claim a legitimate basis for
a delay would jeopardize the teachers ability to receive
their step increases.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
6/39
6
Recommendation
To the extent the District is proposing to clarify the
parties obligation to provide formal, written notice of the
intent to negotiate a successor agreement by October 15 of
the final year of the agreement, I recommend that the parties
adopt that modification. What the District is proposing is a
more formal process for commencing negotiations that does not
appear to affect the substantive bargaining rights of either
party.
However, I do not recommend the parties adopt that
portion of the Districts proposal providing that, If the
fact finding report is not received by June 30 due to delays
caused by the Association, teachers will remain on step until
45 days after reception of the fact finding report.
Although t is understandable that the District wants to avoid
automatic step increases if negotiations are not completed by
the end of the contract term, I believe there is an inherent
ambiguity in the language delays caused by the Association.
Under the Districts proposal, if the Association cancels a
negotiation session for any reason, even because of illness,
weather conditions, or legitimate scheduling conflicts, the
District could claim the Association is responsible for
delaying the negotiations. Similarly, if the Association is
unable or unwilling to agree to a proposed mediator or fact
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
7/39
7
finder, the door would be open for the District to claim the
Association had delayed negotiations. Finally, there may be
legitimate reasons whey the Association or the District might
want to obtain more information or to further analyze an
issue before taking a position at the bargaining table, which
could be construed as a delaying tactic. In sum, I am
concerned that the proposed language is fraught with
potential disputes about what constitutes a delay and whether
a delay has been directly caused solely by the Association
Similarly, I am concerned that those disputes could interfere
with the substance of the parties bargaining and lead to
potential grievances or unfair labor practice charges.
ISSUE NO. 2
ARTICLE IVTEACHING HOURS AND TEACHING DUTIES
Current Contract Language
4.5 Duty-free Lunch. A duty-free lunch period shall beprovided for each teacher. The teachers lunch period shall
be continuous, and shall be at least as long in duration asthe students lunch period in the same school. The school
district will make a good faith effort to provide teachers
with a duty free lunch period of at least thirty (30)minutes.
Association Proposal
The Association proposes to substitute the following for
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
8/39
8
the current language in Article 4.5:
4.4 Duty-Free Lunch. A minimum 3o minute duty-free lunchperiod shall be provided for each teacher.
The Union contends that this is a reasonable, humane proposal
that guarantees all teachers in the District have at least a
half hour for lunch.
District Response
The Districts position is that most teachers currently
receive a thirty (30) minute lunch period, and the current
contract language recognizes that goal. However, there are
times, when it is difficult to meet that goal at the
elementary school because of the schedules at those schools.
Recommendation
Although the Associations proposal appears reasonable
on it face, it is not readily apparent that the current
language has been a problem or that the District has
routinely deprived teachers of a thirty (30) minute duty-
free lunch period. Further, it is not readily apparent
what impact the Associations proposal would have on
scheduling at the elementary school level. Finally, the
teacher contracts for the Chittenden East Supervisory Union
and the Essex District provide that teacher lunch periods
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
9/39
9
will be the same length as student lunch periods, and the
Milton and Winooski teacher contracts provide for only a
twenty-five minute lunch period. The current language
here, which obligates the District to provide a lunch
period at least as long as student lunch periods and to
make a good faith effort to provide teachers with a
thirty minute lunch period, is consistent with agreements
in surrounding districts. Therefore, I do not recommend
the parties adopt the Associations proposal at this time.
ISSUE NO. 3
ARTICLE IV TEACHING HOURS AND TEACHING DUTIES
Current Contract Language
4.8 Minimum Prep Periods. Each teacher at the high schooland middle school will have a minimum preparation period ofone (1) class period per day. Each elementary teacher isguaranteed a preparation period whenever a special subjectteacher, identified for the purposes of this section asart, music, and physical education teachers, is scheduledto assume responsibility for a class (normally five (5)times per week). Special subject teachers shall havepreparation times each day, which is substantiallyequivalent to the elementary teachers preparation period.
Association Proposal
The Association proposes to amend Article 4.8, as
follows:
4.8 Minimum Prep Periods. Each teacher will have a minimum
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
10/39
10
preparation period of one (1) class period per dayscheduled during the student day. For elementary schoolteachers, the prep period will be equal in length to atypical special class (music, art, PE, etc.).
The Union asserts that scheduling preparation time during
the student day would ensure close proximity between
preparation time and instruction, which would improve
teacher productivity. Further, preparation time at the
elementary level revolves around special classes and may be
a little less than thirty (30) minutes a day.
District Response
In the Districts view, it is a resource issue to give
teachers preparation time when want it. According to the
District, teachers do not always get a preparation period
every day, particularly at the elementary level, where
preparation periods are linked to special classes. However,
the amount of preparation time each teacher receives
averages out to one class period a day. However, if the
District were required to guarantee all teachers a daily
preparation period during the student day, there would be a
significant impact on the overall schedule and could
require additional personnel.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
11/39
11
Recommendation
The Association makes a valid point that scheduling
preparation time and instructional time in close proximity
to one another might well be more efficient for teachers.
However, that interest must be balanced against scheduling
constraints, particularly at the elementary schools where
preparation periods must be scheduled around special
subjects. Therefore, because of the logistical problems of
implementing the Associations proposal, I do not recommend
that the parties adopt it in their new agreement.
ISSUE No. 4
ARTICLE VI SALARIES
Association Proposal
6.1 Salary Schedule. The salaries of all persons covered bythis Agreement are set for in Appendix A which is attachedto and made a part hereof.
(1) The starting salary for the 2013-2014 school year shallbe $42,545 and the maximum salary shall be $88,494.
(2) The starting salary for the 2014-2015 school year shallbe $44,203 and the maximum salary shall be $88,494.
(3) The starting salary for the 2015-2015 school year shallbe $46,038 and the maximum salary shall be $95,759.
The Association acknowledges that the District
compensates teachers well when compared to comparable
districts in the county. In its view, however, it is
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
12/39
12
important for attracting and retaining teachers for the
District to maintain its relative salary level by
continuing the existing salary schedule. It points out
that recent settlements for 2013-2014 in Chittenden County
have with a few exceptions been at least 3% in new money.
Similarly, recent settlements in Essex Town, Winooski, and
Milton for 2014-15 and 2015-16 have ranged between 3% and
4.8. Therefore, the Associations proposal, which calls
for new money on the salary schedule of 4.93% in 2013-14,
4.88 in 2014-15, and 4.91% in 2014-15 is consistent with
the trend in comparable school districts.
Next, the Association argues that its proposal is
supported by solid economic data showing low unemployment
in Chittenden County and South Burlington. Further, the
combined school and municipal property rates for South
Burlington fall within the median, and a majority of its
taxpayers qualify for tax relief under the state formula.
Finally, the Association asserts that the Districts
proposal to revamp the salary index on the ground that
those on the higher columns are disproportionately overpaid
in comparison with their counterparts in surrounding
communities is misplaced. It claims that the real reason
for the disparity is that there are a large number of
experienced teachers in South Burlington who are being
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
13/39
13
fairly compensated based on their experience. Similarly,
it asserts that the South Burlington salary index is a
unique index that rewards teachers for performance, and
cannot be compared in a meaningful way with the salary
indices in other districts in the county.
District Proposal4
At the outset, the District takes the position that
its teachers are well compensated in relation to their
peers in Chittenden County and have the highest average
teacher salary ($72,845) in the county. Therefore, rather
than proposing to adjust the salary index by an across-the
board increase, the District is proposing to adjust each
column on the salary index by an identifiable percentage so
that teachers in each column except for the BA 30 column
will earn five percent above the average teacher salary in
the county. Specifically, the Districts proposal includes
the following components:
1. No step movement in 2013-142. Different percentage increases in the five left hand
columns on the salary index, with no increase in theM+30 column
3. A one-time cash payment for all teachers who would4 During the parties negotiations the Districts salaryproposal consisted of no step increases and no new moneyfor salary increases. It presented this proposal for thefirst time the day of the May 15 mediation/fact finding.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
14/39
14
receive less than $1,000 under the revised index toassure all teachers would receive some additionalmoney and to offset the increased health insurancepremiums proposed by the District
According to the District, its proposal will result in
total new salary money of 1.54%, which includes $89,217 in
column increases, $160,000 in one time cash payment; and 3)
$15,000 in co-curricular increases.
The District advances several arguments in support of
its proposal. First, it claims that the twenty-five
percent of its teachers who are at the top step of the
index are some of the highest paid in the county, which is
an anomaly. Second, because the teachers in the top
columns are already so well compensated in relation to
their peers, it would merely exacerbate the disparity to
award them an across-the-board increase. Third, its
proposal helps to equalize the relative position of the
teachers in the left hand columns with their and still
ensures that the teachers in the other columns will receive
additional compensation in the form of a one-time cash
payment. At the same time, the lifetime earnings of
teachers in South Burlington would be brought more in line
with their counterparts.
Finally, the District emphasizes that the salary
increases it is proposing under the new index are realistic
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
15/39
15
in light of current economic realities, particularly the
most recent CPI, which is less than 2%. Further, as its
annual report reflects, it has already made cuts to
accommodate the FY 2014 budget approved by the taxpayers.
If it must absorb salaries higher than it has proposed, it
will be necessary to cut additional programs and staff.
Recommendation
As I have frequently observed, I believe Section
1732(d) of the Vermont Municipal Employees Labor Relations
Act sets out the criteria that are most relevant for
analyzing the parties respective economic proposals: 1)
the wages and benefits of similar employees in comparable
communities; 2) the ability of the Board to pay in light of
current economic conditions; and 3) the cost of living
index.
The parties here have a fundamental, philosophical
difference about what constitutes comparable wages. In the
Associations view, comparability should be determined by
looking to the percentage wage increases received by
teachers in surrounding school districts. However, the
District claims I should compare the actual salaries of
teachers in South Burlington to those of other teachers to
determine what increases are warranted. As a practical
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
16/39
16
matter, neither approach is entirely satisfactory.
Percentage increases may vary depending on the political
and fiscal realities facing a community. Similarly, there
may be specific reasons why one school district has chosen
to pay its teachers significantly more or less in any given
year than their counterparts. Therefore, I do not believe
that looking at a snapshot of a single year is the best
predictor of comparability. Rather, it is necessary to
look at historical practices, emerging trends, and unique
community factors to get a true picture of comparability.
Here, the charts submitted by the District comparing
South Burlington teacher salaries with those in other
communities for 2012 and 2013 show that South Burlington
had the top salaries in all but the BA-Step 1 and BA-30-
Step 10 columns each year. Significantly, however, that
had also been the case since 2006-07. In other words, the
District has for the past eight (8) years paid its teachers
more than the surrounding communities. It is also
significant that the salary index for South Burlington has
a unique performance system that places teachers on a
higher step based on their demonstrated performance.
Finally, the number of teachers in South Burlington in the
M+30 column is a testament to their longevity and
experience. In sum, there are historical reasons why there
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
17/39
17
are more teachers in South Burlington at the top steps of
the right hand columns because of the vagaries of the South
Burlington index and their longevity, which does not
necessarily mean they are paid significantly more than
their counterparts with comparable years of experience.
What all of the data shows is that the District has
historically chosen to compensate its teacher, particularly
those in the right hand columns, well based on their
performance and experience. As Association Exhibit #5
reflects, since 1999, the District has routinely agreed to
percentage wage increases than allowed its teachers to
maintain their relative standing in the county. Therefore,
I find that the measure of comparability is the South
Burlington teachers relative historic standing among their
peers, rather than merely how much they currently earn. In
sum, I am convinced that, on the unique facts before me, it
is most appropriate to look to the percentage increases
received by teachers in surrounding districts in 2013-14
and 2014-15, rather than actual salaries to assess
comparability.
Tested by this measure, I find that the there is
insufficient grounds to recommend revamp the salary index
at this time and that teachers should receive total annual
new money salary increases based on the current index.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
18/39
18
This is not to suggest that the parties should not re-
examine the current index in future negotiations. However,
because the District made that proposal for the first time
at fact finding, the parties need more of an opportunity to
explore the issue in greater detail at the bargaining table
before I or any other fact finder can endorse such a
fundamental change in the salary index.
Finally, I must consider what would constitute a fair
and reasonable salary increase in light of the factors I
have outlined above. The District proposes a one-year
increase of 1.5% in new money, and the Association proposes
a three-year agreement with increases of 4.9%, 4.88%, and
4.91%. In my view, both of these proposals are out of step
with current economic reality and percentage increases in
surrounding districts for the following reasons.
First, the CPI index for March 2013 reflects an annual
increase of 1.5% at that time, which reflects that teacher
salaries would have to increase by at least that much to
keep pace with inflation, which is less than a third of
what the Association has proposed. Second, there can be no
dispute that the District faces budget challenges and
uncertainties about future educational funding. However,
in light of the relative standing of South Burlington
taxpayers, the unemployment rate in the community, and its
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
19/39
19
overall economic standing in the state, I believe it is
able to absorb the cost of fair and reasonable teacher
salary increases without undue financial hardship. Perhaps
the most significant variable here is the increase teachers
in comparable communities have received in 2013-14 and
2014-15. With three exceptions, salary increases in the
county have generally been at 3% of new money for 2013-14.
Although there is less data for 2014-2015, two of the three
districts with information reached settlements of 3% and
3.25 percent. The one exception is Winooski, where teacher
salaries will increase by 4.8% in 2014-15. However, that
increase must be viewed in light of the below average
increase Winooski teachers received in 2013-14. Therefore,
I find new money increases equal to 3% for 2013-14 and
3.25% for 2014-2015 for teachers in South Burlington fairly
balances the available financial information and the
compounding effect of the increase I have recommended in
teachers health insurance premium contributions, and I
recommend that the parties adopt these salary increases for
2013-14 and 2014-15.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
20/39
20
ISSUE No. 5
ARTICLE VI SALARIES
Current Contract Language
6.10 National Teacher Certification Teachers who possessNational Board Certification as of December 1 of the schoolyear will receive an annual incentive award from theDistrict of $1,500. The Parties agree to appoint a studycommittee to review the comparability of advancedcertification programs for Speech and Language Pathologistsand Registered Nurses in light of the requirements forNational Board Certification and make recommendations tothe Board and Association for their consideration.
Association Proposal
The Association proposes to amend the language of
Article 6.10 as follows:
6.10 National Teacher Certification Teachers, Nurses, andSpeech and Language Pathologists (SLPS) who possess
national Board Certification as of December 1 of the schoolyear will receive an annual incentive award from the
District of $1,500.
According to the Association, the parties created a study
committee pursuant to the current language of Article 6.10,
and it twice recommended to the District that registered
nurses (RNs) and SLPs who attain national board
certification be treated the same as teachers for purposes
of receiving an annual incentive award. Therefore, the
Association seeks to amend Article 6.10 to guarantee RNs
and SPLs will receive annual incentive awards commensurate
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
21/39
21
with their national certifications.
District Response
The Districts position is that the study committee
did not provide it with sufficient information regarding RN
and SLP national certifications to enable it to determine
whether they are equivalent to national teacher
certifications. Therefore, has not been able to determine
whether an RNs and SLP are entitled to an equivalent
annual incentive award. However, the District is willing
to continue receiving information from the committee and
proposes that the current contract language remain
unchanged while the committee continues to do its work.
Recommendation
The annual incentive award for RNs and SLPs employed
by the District is certainly reasonable and equitable,
provided the incumbents of those positions hold a national
certification equivalent to a national teacher
certification. It is in the Districts interest to
encourage all of its professional employee to attain and
maintain national certifications in their respective
fields, and the Associations proposal would provide an
incentive for RNs and SLP to strive for that goal.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
22/39
22
Unfortunately, however, I am not familiar with the specific
national certifications are available for RNs and SLPs or
whether they are equivalent to national teacher
certifications. Accordingly, I cannot recommend the
parties adopt the Associations proposal at this time.
However, the District is willing to consider extending
the annual incentive award to RNs and SLPs if it has
sufficient information to justify that action. Therefore,
I recommend the parties continue the existing language of
Article 6.10, and also include a specific time line for the
study committee to make a formal, written recommendation to
the District, and a time line for the District to issue a
formal, written response to that recommendation so the
parties can have some closure on this question.
ISSUE No 6.
ARTICLE VIII TEACHER EVALUATION
Current Contract Language
8.5 Complaints. Any complaint regarding a teacher made to
any member of the administration by any parent, student orother persons, if used in a formal evaluation, will bepromptly investigated and called to the attention of theteacher will be given an opportunity to respond and/orrebut such complaint.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
23/39
23
Association Proposal
The Association proposes to amend Article 8.5 as
follows:
8.5 Complaints. Any complaint regarding a teacher made toany member of the administration by any parent, student orother persons, if used in a formal evaluation, will bereduced to writing, promptly investigated, and called tothe attention of the teacher. The teacher will be given anopportunity to respond and/or rebut such complaint.
The Association contends that it is unfair for teachers to
have to defend against unknown allegations from unknown
sources if they are going to have professional consequences
for the teachers. Therefore, it proposes that all serious
complaints that could have professional consequences be
reduced to writing.
District Response
The District opposes the Associations proposal on
this issue. In the Districts view, complaints to
administrators are often informal and require little or no
follow up by administrators. Further, the District does
not know at the time a complaint is made whether it will be
used as part of a formal evaluation.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
24/39
24
Recommendation
At the outset, I note that the current language of
Article 8.5 is somewhat confusing. It requires
administrators to promptly investigate and notify teachers
if any complaints they receive about teachers are to be
used in a formal evaluation. What is not clear, however,
is how an administrator knows at the time he or she
receives a complaint that the substance of that complaint
will be used in a formal evaluation at some point in the
future. Therefore, my initial recommendation is that the
parties re-phrase the existing language of Article 8.5 to
provide that, whenever the subject of a complaint an
administrator receives about a teacher could: 1)
negatively affect a teachers evaluation; or 2) have other
professional consequences for the teacher, the complaint
shall be promptly investigated and brought to the teachers
attention. This will make clear, that administrators are
not required to take formal action on every offhand or
minor criticism they may receive about a teacher unless it
is of such a serious nature that it may be the subject of
adverse consequences in the future.
Second, I agree with the Association that, if
administrators do receive complaints that fall into the
category of complaints that could have professional
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
25/39
25
consequences, basic principles of due process suggest that
the teacher should have written notice of them and an
opportunity to respond to the specific allegations or
charges against them. Accordingly, I believe that Article
8.5 should be amended as I have recommended to clarify what
kinds of complaints it covers and to provide teachers with
clear notice of any serious charges against them.
ISSUE No. 7
ARTICLE IX SICK LEAVE
Current Contract Language
9.5 Catastrophic Leave. A teacher may request to usehis/her accumulated number of sick leaves days in excess of
the leave allowed under the FMLA or VPFLA in the event of aserious medical condition affecting the teachers spouse,
parent, child, or member of the immediate household . . .
Association Proposal
The Association proposes to amend Article 9.5, as
follows:
9.5 Catastrophic Leave. A teacher may request to usehis/her accumulated number of sick leave days in excess ofthe leave allowed under the FLMA or VPFLA in the event of aserious medical condition affecting the teachers immediate
family.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
26/39
26
According to the Association, the general catch-all
language is proposing is more inclusive of various family
members.
District Response
The District objects to the Associations proposal on
the ground that there is no need to expand Article 9.5 to
apply to individuals not listed in the current language.
Further, it contends that Associations proposal is overly
broad.
Recommendation
I do not recommend that the parties adopt the
Associations proposal as drafted. In light of the modern
notion of family, it does make sense to expand the
application of Article 9.5 beyond the listed individuals.
Further, it is common today for employees to have
responsibility caring for family members who do not live in
the employees immediate household. However, I am always
reluctant to recommend language that is so overbroad or
undefined that it could lead to future disagreements
between the parties about how it applies. Here, for
example, allowing catastrophic leave for members of a
teachers immediate family begs the question of exactly who
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
27/39
27
falls into that category. Therefore, I recommend that the
parties agree to language that would broaden the
application of Article 9.5 beyond members of a teachers
immediate household, but also list the particular family
members to whom it would apply to avoid the potential for
future disputes and grievances about who constitutes an
immediate family member.
ISSUE No.8
ARTICLE XIII PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Current Contract Language
13.1 Tuition
(2) The Board will reimburse teachers for university or
college credits which are consistent with a teachersIndividual Professional Development Plan, or the strategicaction plans of the District, or the professionaldevelopment needs of the teacher as identified through theevaluation process in accordance with the followingformula: the reimbursement shall be limited to three (3)credits per teacher per school year (i.e. July 1 throughJune 30) not to exceed one hundred (100%) percent of theU.V.M. winter three (3) credit rate; and said teacher hassuccessfully completed the course with a transcript gradeof B or better. The usual course approval process shall
be followed.
(3) The Board shall provide reimbursement in a total amountnot to exceed Eighty Thousand ($80,000 Dollars during eachschool year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) . . .
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
28/39
28
District Proposal
The District proposes to amend Article 13.1(2) as
follows:
(2) The Board will establish a tuition fund not to exceed$80,000 per school year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) forthe purpose of reimbursing teachers for university orcollege graduate credits . . .
The District proposes an $80,000 cap on tuition
reimbursement and proposes to limit tuition reimbursement
to courses taken for graduate credit. Although the
District recognizes that professional development
opportunities can improve teaching quality and increase job
satisfaction, it believes that limits on the amount the
District spends on course work is warranted. It emphasizes
that $80,000 dedicated to that purpose would allow forty-
six (46) teachers to take a three-credit course at U.V.M.,
at the current tuition rate of $1,746. Further, the
District notes that the pool of money available for tuition
reimbursement should focus on benefitting teachers working
toward their masters degree or beyond. Finally, it points
out that, in recent years, it has spent between $70,000 and
$101,000 for course work, which, in addition to the $80,000
the contract allocates for other professional development,
has cost the District more than $180,000 in some years.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
29/39
29
Therefore, the District believes that a cap on tuition
reimbursement is a reasonable and necessary cost
containment measure.
Association Proposal
The Association advances a two-part proposal to amend
Article 13.1(2) and 13.1(3). The first prong of its
proposal would modify 13.1(2) to require the District to
pay in advance for courses taken for university or college
credits. The second part of its proposal would amend
13.1(3) to increase the $80,000 allocated for conferences
and workshop fees by 3% a year beginning in 2013-14.
In support of the first part of its proposal, the
Association argues that it is a financial burden,
particularly for new teachers to front the cost of taking
college costs. Further, if a teacher receives tuition
reimbursement in advance and does not complete the course,
the teacher is obligated to pay back the District, so the
District will be able to guarantee that the requirements
for tuition reimbursement have been satisfied.
Next, the Association asserts that there should be
automatic annual increases in the pool of money available
for ongoing professional development because each year
there are some teachers who are not able to get any money
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
30/39
30
because the pool is often exhausted at the beginning of the
application period. According to the Association,
educational requirements for students, like the new common
core requirements, are changing rapidly and it is important
that teachers have an opportunity to attend conferences and
workshops that deal with the topics related to those
changing requirements.
Recommendation
1. I do not recommend that the parties amend Article
13.1(2) to limit reimbursement for college or university
credits to graduate credits. That section already includes
language limiting tuition reimbursement to credits that are
consistent with a teachers Individual Professional
Development Plan, or the strategic action plans of the
District, or the professional development needs of the
teacher. Therefore, the District is only obligated to
reimburse teachers for college course work that meets these
criteria and had been approved in advance. Further, there
may well be times when a particular teacher or the District
would benefit from having the teacher take an undergraduate
course in a particular subject matter, and the Districts
proposal would preclude reimbursement in those cases,
causing teachers to assume the cost of meeting the
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
31/39
31
professional development needs identified by District
administrators.
2. I do not recommend that parties agree to language
obligating the District to pay in advance for college or
university tuition for approved coursework.
Understandably, having to pay for classes and wait to be
reimbursed may be difficult for new teachers. However, I
believe that the problems associated with recouping the
money if a teacher does not successfully complete an
approved course outweighs the convenience of up-front
payment.
3. The remaining two portions of the parties respective
proposals regarding reimbursement for college tuition and
professional development opportunities relate to the size
of the pool of money the District makes available for those
purposes. On the one hand, the District seeks to place an
$80,000 cap on the amount of money available for college
reimbursement, and, on the other, the Association seeks to
increase the $80,000 cap on available professional
development monies by 3% a year.
There can be no question that it is in the interest of
the teachers, the District, and the students it serves to
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
32/39
32
reimburse teachers for relevant course work and
professional development opportunities. On the other hand,
reimbursing teachers for those activities does have a cost
impact on the District and it should be in a position to
budget for that expense annually. The amount the District
has spent on tuition reimbursement has fluctuated greatly
in the past five years, from a low of approximately $70,000
in 2010 to a high of $101,000 in 2012. As a result, the
District can face an unforeseen spike in tuition
reimbursement that can have a direct impact on its budget,
and a cap on the available tuition money would alleviate
this problem. The District has proposed a cap of $80,000,
which it claims is reasonable. In three of the last five
years, however, the District has exceeded that cap.
Therefore, to ensure that teachers will not see the
available tuition reimbursement funds available to them
decrease significantly, I recommend an annual tuition
reimbursement cap of $85,000, which is slightly above the
average spent by the District during the past five years.
I believe this will provide the District with the
predictability it seeks, without unduly limiting the
teachers access to tuition reimbursement funds.
Next, the Association seeks to increase the pool of
money available for professional development opportunities
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
33/39
33
by 3% annually beginning in 2013-14. As the Association
points out, the demand for professional development money
often exceeds the amount of funds available. In addition,
new educational mandates make it even more important that
there be adequate monies available for teachers to be able
to stay current. Therefore, a 3% increase in professional
development funds, which amounts to $2,4000 is justified
for the 2013-14 year, and I recommend that the parties
agree to raise the cap in Article 13.3(3) to $82,400.
However, I do not recommend that there be automatic 3%
increases in that cap each year. The amount of money
available for professional development should be determined
based on need and the Districts financial resources at the
time, and I am unwilling to recommend a permanent automatic
increase, with a compounding effect.
ISSUE No. 9
ARTICLE XVIII - INSURANCE
Current Contract Language
18.1 Health Insurance.
(1) The basic group health insurance plan maintained by theDistrict shall be the VEHI Dual Option Plan. Eligibleteachers may elect single, two-person, or family coverage.The Board shall pay the following percentage of the cost ofthe VEHI Dual Option health insurance plan for the coverageselected in each year oaf this Agreement.
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
34/39
34
School Year Board % Teacher %
2010-2013 85% 15%
District Proposal
The District proposes to increase the increase the
teachers contribution toward their health insurance
premiums from 15% to 18%. According to the District, its
proposal would place its teachers well within the range of
what teachers in other districts in Chittenden County
contributing toward their health insurance. Further, it
emphasizes that teachers in the District already enjoy a
higher level of benefits than teachers in the county,
including fully funded long-term disability, the highest
number of sick days, and the highest level of life
insurance. Similarly, their salaries are among the highest
in the county. Further, the District asserts that the
teachers will easily be able to cover the $230-$606
increase in health insurance premium contributions it has
proposed under its salary proposal.
Association Response
The Association rejects the Districts proposed
increase in the teachers share of employee health
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
35/39
35
insurance premium contributions and proposed that it remain
at 15%. According to the Association, overall VEHI
premiums have increased 10% for 2013-14, which is less than
initially projected when the District made its proposal.
More importantly, the increase proposed by the District
would require teachers in the District to pay one of the
highest premium contribution rates among comparable
communities.
Recommendation
With the exception of the Colchester School District,
no other district in the county required their teachers to
pay more than 15% toward the cost of their health insurance
premiums for the VEHI Dual Option Plan, and these figures
remained the same in Chittenden South and Essex for the
2013-14 school year. Nevertheless, the District asserts
that it is reasonable to expect teachers in South
Burlington to increase their share of health insurance
premiums to 18% because: 1) their overall benefit package
is significantly better than that it the surrounding
districts; and 2) teachers can easily absorb the increase
in premiums based on the wage increases the District has
proposed.
As the District points out, its teachers do enjoy a
high level of benefits, and have some benefits, like long
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
36/39
36
term disability, that are not available to their
counterparts in neighboring communities. However, the mere
fact that teachers in South Burlington have historically
had better benefits than their counterparts, does not by
itself justify requiring them to pay more towards their
health insurance.
What is significant, however, is that the District
will experience a 10% increase in health insurance costs,
or $252,831 if the teachers contribution rate remains
static at 15%. Under the Districts proposal, however, the
teachers and the District would each be absorbing
approximately 50% of that increase, which would cost the
average teacher an additional $747 a year. Therefore,
although I find the magnitude of the Districts proposal
would create an undue financial burden on the teachers, it
is reasonable for the teachers to absorb a small portion of
this increase with an increase of their own premium
contributions from 15% to 16%, which will at most, result
in an out of pocket increase to any teacher of $202 for a
family plan. In reaching this conclusion, it is important
for the parties to keep in mind that my recommendation on
this issue cannot be viewed in a vacuum but is directly
linked to my salary recommendation and is designed to
ensure that no teachers are affected disproportionately by
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
37/39
37
the combined effect of my recommendations on the two
issues.
ISSUE No. 10
ARTICLE XXII - DURATION
District Proposal
The District proposes that the parties successor
agreement be for one year only. In its view, the
uncertainly regarding how the Affordable Care Act and the
Vermont health care reform law, which both become effective
on January 1, 2014, will affect the kinds of health
insurance options the District can offer and the cost of
those options. Further, the District is concerned about
the impact a sluggish economy will have on Federal
educational funds and the states ability to provide
funding for public education. In the Districts view,
these unknown factors militate against an agreement for
more than one year. Accordingly, it advocates that the
parties follow the lead in Chittenden East and Chittenden
South and adopt a one-year agreement.
Association Proposal
The Association has a very different view of the
economic and health care variables. It does not foresee
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
38/39
38
any significant economic changes or health care
modifications over the next two years that would warrant a
one-year agreement. Further, it emphasizes that a three-
year agreement would provide the parties with a period of
stability and avoid the pressure and disruption of constant
negotiations.
Recommendation
Not surprisingly, the Board is reluctant to agree to
a multi-year agreement because of the unknown fiscal impact
of recent federal health care legislation and recent budget
cuts. In contrast, the Association seeks the long-term
stability and predictability of a three-year contract. In
my view, it is always in the best interest of both parties
to be able to avoid returning to the bargaining table in a
matter of months, which they would have to do under a one-
year agreement. In fact, pursuant to the language of
Article 2.1, the ink would not even be dry on a new
agreement before they had to start the process over again.
As the District notes, there are some uncertainties
surrounding health care and educational funding. In
reality, however, those uncertainties always exist, and the
parties can protect themselves by agreeing to language that
allow them to re-open negotiations if certain contingencies
-
7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report
39/39
occur. In the meantime, labor relations are best served by
having an agreement that will provide predictability for at
least a few years. Therefore, absent any known, imminent
factors that will affect either party, I believe two-ear
agreement provides the Board with enough flexibility to
respond to unanticipated variables that may impact future
health insurance benefits and provides a measure of
predictability in the parties relationship
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________John B. Cochran, Fact Finder
June 30, 2013Newton Massachusetts