Bargaining and the Regionalization Proposal
by Joe Stupak, MEA Director of Collective Bargaining and Research
jstupak@nea.org

I have received several reports about local bargaining sessions that have occurred since the Governor's announcement of his budget proposal, in which school board negotiators have taken the position that they want to negotiate only a one year contract for 2007-2008. This position appears to be based on anxiety as to whether the school unit will continue to exist as an independent unit after June 30, 2008. In a few cases, school boards have unilaterally cancelled scheduled bargaining sessions, identifying the regionalization proposal as the reason for the cancellation.

Longer term contracts provide employees and employers with more stable, better known wages, hours and working conditions than one year contracts. With longer term contracts, negotiators engage in conflict less often about what the contract terms will be. Budget planning from year to year can be based on known costs for school units and known income and compensation for employees. Since three year contracts exist in a majority of units represented by MEA affiliates, it is clear that our members prefer them.

The Governor's budget proposal is not a reason to change bargaining goals or strategies. Its own details, and the Commissioner's understanding of them, are still evolving. There are several other proposals regarding school administrative organization that will be considered by the Legislature this session. School regionalization studies and proposals have been around for a long time. People, no matter who - from the Governor to the Commissioner to individual school superintendents and school board members - can only speculate as to what changes in school administrative structure, if any, will actually result from Legislative action this session.

My recommendation to association negotiators is to ignore the pending Governor's proposal for school administrative reorganization  in their negotiations. It should not, and need not affect a contract's terms or its length. If school board negotiators persistently refuse to meet or cancel meetings, local associations can use the ten day notice provision of the collective bargaining law to at least get the other side to the table.

What will happen in the future is always unknown. Contracts have been negotiated in Maine schools for decades without knowing at times whether Palesky, TABOR or Question 1A would pass; whether the State would base funding on a certified costs formula or EPS: what the level of State funding for schools would be; how much health insurance premiums might rise over the next three years; what will happen in the local state and national economy; or any of the multitude of other uncertainties about the future that exist when negotiating parties decide to settle terms for the next three years.

One uncertainty that concerns MEA members about the Governor's proposal is how it affects the status of contracts that have been or are entered into by their existing SAU and bargaining agent, in the event that the regional units proposed by the Governor are mandated. In a meeting with the Commissioner yesterday, she said that the proposal intends and includes language that all labor and employment contracts will be assigned to the new regional unit in which the SAU is included. The language of the budget proposal is not quite so unequivocal. What it says is:

Teacher contracts. The contracts between the municipalities or the career and technical regions within the district region and all teachers shall automatically be assigned to the school administrative district regional board as of the date the district regional learning community becomes operative and shall remain in effect until the end of the implementation year, June 30, 2009, unless otherwise negotiated by the teachers and the regional learning community.. The district regional learning community shall assign teachers to their duties and make payments upon their contracts.

5. Superintendent contracts. The contracts between the superintendents and municipalities within the district region shall be transferred to the school administrative district regional learning communities. The regional board of directors shall determine the superintendents' duties within the district region and pay that proportion of the salaries paid for by the former school administrative units in the district.

IF at some future point it appears likely that there will be a legislatively mandated regionalization of school administrative units as this legislative session unfolds, it will be the MEA's responsibility in the legislative process to assure that statutory language on this issue has its intended meaning, and effectively protects the interests of MEA members. However, this issue is not one that local associations can effectively address in current contract negotiations on a unit by unit basis.

Finally, some school unit negotiators are making attempts to bluff, bully or misrepresent their way through negotiations with forward-looking statements about school funding and EPS changes over the next two years.

Here is what is known at this point in time, which I have confirmed today with Department of Education staff:

·         Both the Commissioner's recommended funding level for 2007-2008 and the Governor's proposal include increases in the total state subsidy from this year to next.

·         Existing law continues the ramp up toward a 55% state share.

·         The local mill rate expectation will decline from this year to next.

·         Therefore, most school units, with the exception of a few who have local valuation issues arising from rapid increases in property valuations, should see increases in state GPA in 2007-2008 under any potential legislative outcome.

·         The Department of Education has prepared no SAU printouts yet and is not expected to do so before February.

·         The teacher salary matrix for 2007-2008 has not been released yet, but it is likely that it will show new relationships between salary and education and experience, due to the implementation requirement of the $30,000 minimum next year.

·         Regional labor market indexes did not change in 2006-2007. The Department of Education did review those labor markets adjustments for realignment, and made a report to the Legislature's Education committee in February, 2006, but no change resulted. No change in regional LM indexes is planned for 2007-2008.

·         The proposed teacher-student ratio change at the middle and high school levels to 17:1 in the Governor's budget proposal would require a statutory change, since the existing 17:1 elementary, 16:1 middle level and 15:1 high school are set forth in existing statute.

Furthermore, please remind local negotiators that EPS is a cost calculation formula that produces an allocation to each SAU that is available as a block grant, except for the minor amounts that come as targeted funds. Whether the EPS components change or not, there is no limitation, except for targeted funds, on the discretion of the local school unit to use any amounts of the EPS allocation to fund personnel costs, no matter what the basis for their calculation in the EPS allocation.