|
March 26, 2004MEDIATION AND INTEREST ARBITRATION As is the case every time teacher collective bargaining is slow, your MSBA staff has received many inquiries seeking an explanation of the mediation and interest arbitration processes found in the bargaining law (PELRA) as they apply to teacher bargaining.
Mediation – M.S. 179A.15 deals with mediation. Essentially, mediation is a process through which a mediator assigned by the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) tries to assist the parties (the exclusive representative and the school district) in agreeing to a settlement. Either party may unilaterally petition the commissioner of the BMS in writing for mediation services, and the commissioner – if he believes mediation will be useful – will then assign a mediator and fix a time and place for mediation. The parties are then required to attend the mediation session(s) until excused by the commissioner. Mediation is without cost, and the mediator has no authority to force the parties to agree. The mediation process can be a helpful one in that, almost without exception, the commissioner will empower the mediator to close the session(s) so that the parties can work outside of the public’s scrutiny. In addition, the mediator often brings fresh/new perspectives to the process. Finally, in order to “trigger” its statutory right to strike, the exclusive representative has to have participated in mediation over a period of at least 30 days (please see M.S. 179A.18, Subd. 2.). Because mediators have no authority to bind the parties to any settlement, school boards should not be leery or fearful of participating in the mediation process.
Interest Arbitration – M.S. 179A.16 deals with interest arbitration. In order for the parties to participate in interest arbitration, they must both agree to do so. In addition, they must agree as to the unsettled issues that they want the arbitrator to decide as well as the particular type of interest arbitration they want the arbitrator to use. If agreement is reached, the parties must request interest arbitration, in writing, from the commissioner of the BMS. Unless the parties can mutually agree as to a particular arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, the commissioner will provide them with a list of BMS arbitrators from which the parties must select. The selected arbitrator or panel then has the authority to bind the parties to his/her/its decisions, and the fees, charges, and per diems of the arbitrator/panel are split equally between the parties (the commissioner has a database of those costs). The three types of interest arbitration from which the parties may choose are explained below. Conventional interest arbitration – in this type, the parties each submit their last, best offer (reminder: “last, best offer” does not mean the last offer the parties had on the table; rather, it means the offer the parties want the arbitrator to consider) along with supporting data and rationale, and the arbitrator has the authority to fashion decisions which may be more than the best offer, less than the worst, or some place in between. Generally speaking, though, the arbitrator will try to maintain the parties’ current positions relative to those districts with whom they compare. Final-offer item-by-item interest arbitration – in this type, each of the parties submits its last, best offer for each of the unresolved issues, and the arbitrator must select one of the offers for each issue. Final-offer total-package interest arbitration – in this type, each of the parties submits its last, best total-package offer, and the arbitrator must choose one total offer or the other. In addition, there are a few general points about interest arbitration that should be remembered. Historically, interest arbitration has not been advantageous to management; in other words, arbitrators’ decisions have leaned more toward union positions than they have toward management’s. However, over the past few rounds of teacher bargaining, about three-quarters of the districts which used final-offer total-package interest arbitration were successful, so if your district is considering using interest arbitration, its best chance of success would be to go final-offer total-package. Finally, deciding to allow an outside party to determine a district’s bargaining fate is as much a political decision as it is an economic one because some individuals will view such a decision by a board as that board not doing what it was elected, in part, to do, while other individuals will view said decision as a board doing all it can to achieve a settlement. Either way, boards should understand that the decision to use interest arbitration will likely involve more than dollars.MODEL BULLYING PROHIBITION POLICY In December 2003, MSBA released its model policy, number 514, prohibiting bullying. This policy was developed for a variety of reasons. Here are three of those reasons. First, and most importantly, we hope districts will talk about this issue, adopt and enforce a policy, and the end result will be to help protect students. Second, MSBA has had numerous requests for a bullying prohibition policy. We want to be responsive to you, our members. Third, bullying has had a great deal of attention in the media and at the legislature. We want schools to be in a position to tell legislators, the media, parents, and students that schools are doing something to stop bullying. We hope the model policy can be part of an effort to end bullying in schools.
At the present time, the legislature has not required that schools adopt a bullying prohibition policy. So right now, this policy is NOT a mandatory policy. The Minnesota Legislature is considering a bill requiring schools to have a bullying policy. If a requirement for a bullying policy becomes law, MSBA will let you know. If you have any questions about model policy 514, Bullying Prohibition, or other policies, please contact Cathy McIntyre at the MSBA office or by email at cmcintyre@mnmsba.org.NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND For several weeks now, newspapers, television, and education journals have been abuzz with information about "increased flexibility" in the No Child Left Behind Act. To be sure, there have been signals from Washington that certain issues and concerns expressed by boards and administrators are being discussed. Most notably, MSBA has received preliminary indications that changes are forthcoming in the assessment of English Language Learners and Special Needs Students as well as when and how teachers will become highly qualified. It is certain that additional discussions on these issues and others will continue as states make requests for waivers and exemptions from various rules or seek to introduce state requirements into the mix. You are likely to hear continued news that points to creating flexibility within the NCLBA from now through the election as people try to use this very important and, to some, controversial law to attract voters.
MSBA would remind its members to be careful about identifying to their publics that changes are coming in the NCLBA until confirmation of these changes comes from our own Minnesota Department of Education, along with both direction and support. The truth is that states continue to struggle to understand and implement some of the "press release" flexibility and changes being expressed in Washington. In addition, many states, including Minnesota, have requests pending with the U. S. Department of Education that will need to be addressed in the coming months.
MSBA recommends that district administrators and board members alike make every effort to stay current with the changing requirements and deadlines of the NCLBA. The Minnesota Department of Education is touring the state now offering two-day workshops on many aspects of this law, and district attendance at these workshops should be considered. Check the Minnesota Department of Education website at www.children.state.mn.us for information on registering for and attending these programs.SCHOOLFINANCES.COM SchoolFinances.com has secured files that will be used for the Profiles Report and we have programmed a TREND and COMPARISON report with the Profiles Data. These reports are helpful in understanding how the factors influencing a district have changed over the last 6 years and also in understanding how the data for a district compares to other similar districts.
The Trend report is 14 pages with 31 graphs and presents the key financial data for a school district for school years 1997-98 through 2002-03. The Comparison report is 13 pages with 25 graphs and presents comparison data for 2002-03 on the major district and up to 9 comparison districts.
The cost of these reports is $60 each or $100 for both. When ordering the comparison report, please list the district numbers of the comparison districts. All reports are sent as email attachments and you should allow 1-2 days for processing.
To order report(s) for your district just send a note to Ann@schoolfinances.com or to Jim@schoolfinances.com If you would like to see a sample report before ordering, just send Ann or Jim a note.Return to Management Services Newsletter Home Page
|
|
|
 |
|
