New contract
with teachers ends two years of Grossmont district battles
By Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun
EL CAJON — After nearly two years, much discussion, and several protests, a new employment contract was finally signed between the Grossmont Union High School District and its teachers’ union. At a board meeting held April 20, which had its own share of heated debate, district trustees unanimously ratified the new contract agreement.
During the meeting, board members fought over the way the agreement has been presented to the public, since the deal was reached prior to spring break. The tentative deal was reached in the wee hours of March 30 during a fact-finding discussion between representatives from each side and a state-appointed labor arbitrator.
Trustees Priscilla Schreiber and Larry Urdahl argued that the district failed to fully disclose the cost of the new contract to the public in a timely manner before a ratification vote. They tried unsuccessfully to postpone the vote for at least a week to give the public more time to review the situation and provide input.
“How can we say we are a transparent government when there is such a blatant effort to conceal important financial information from the public and violate the law, which requires disclosure to the public?” Schreiber said.
Prior to the meeting, support materials on the contract agenda item had not been made available to the public, or even to trustees. Questions, which had previously been raised by board members, were left unanswered.
Schreiber asked questions as simple as how many members were on the district's negotiating team, and others as important as the financial impact of the tentative agreement.
These questions were dismissed by Superintendent Terry Ryan, who said that the board would receive all the information, and an explanation from an attorney, at the meeting. Schreiber and Urdahl, who have been at odds with the rest of the board on several issues in the past few months, retained another law firm in an attempt to squeeze the information from the district.
The argument was that the district is in violation of state law in not holding an announced public hearing on the district's financial situation before signing the agreement.
Ryan said that the district had complied with disclosure requirements and that the contract had also been reviewed by the county Office of Education. Two district lawyers at the April 20 meeting agreed that the public had been properly notified.
In a letter to Ryan, dated April 11, Lora Duzyk of the county office wrote: “Taking the proposed agreement into account, the district's 2005-06 budget shows deficit spending of $5.1 million.”
Ryan said that the new agreement is fiscally responsible, but added, “We’ll have to be very careful next year in terms of watching our resources.”
“Our teachers deserve it,” he added. “We believe we can afford it, but again, we’re going to have to tighten our belts to make this happen.”
Grossmont Education Association President Bruce Seaman expressed relief that the board ratified the new contract. He said the majority of the union's members approved the contract, but declined to give the vote count. “There was overwhelming participation,” he said.
Teachers, who had been threatening to strike, began voting Tuesday, April 18, whether to accept the new contract. The union gave them until noon, April 20, to cast their ballots. The votes were counted prior to the GUHSD meeting and were presented to the board.
“After almost two years without a contract and three years without a cost-of-living adjustment, our organizing efforts paid off,” wrote Seaman in a letter to union members. “Without the membership’s firm support we probably would continue to be without any agreement… Unity triumphs!”
“Through the membership’s tireless efforts — picketing, letter writing, working to rule, and mass rallies we have a tentative agreement at hand that is the best that can be expected, given the current board and superintendent,” Seaman said.
“Labor peace sounds real good to me,” Ryan said. “It will help us focus on students.”
The district has estimated that the new contract will cost about an extra $7.2 million. The three-year agreement covers last year, but does not give teachers a raise for that period.
Instead, it gives teachers a four percent raise for the current school year, retroactive to Dec. 18, and a five percent increase next school year if state funding for cost-of-living adjustment is 6.2 percent, which union officials project. The district also will pay 100 percent of employee health benefits and 80 percent of coverage for dependents.
 E-mail
the Editor
|
|
