December 19, 2016
The district and SCTA held their tenth meeting on December
19 to continue negotiations for a successor
contract. This meeting was held again at SCTA by prior
agreement to skip one rotation of locations.
The district presented its counterproposal for Article 11 (Safety
Concerns) which proposes new language to address restorative
practices that benefits students and families. Specifically,
the district’s proposal seeks to develop a site restorative
practices and equity team consisting of teachers, school
administrators, students and parents/members of the
community. The equity teams would assist with identifying
needs at individual sites supported with resources from the
Equity Office. The district also presented its
counterproposals for Article 8 (Transfers) and Article 9
(Leaves).
The district is currently reviewing SCTA’s January 12 fiscal
proposal which requests sizeable increases in compensation, as
well as other items. The district is conducting a total
“cost out” of each request to determine the potential financial
impact to the district, and its programs and services for
students and families.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on December 21
at the Serna Center.
December 12, 2016
The district and SCTA held their ninth meeting on December
12 to continue negotiations for a successor
contract. This meeting was held at SCTA by prior agreement
to rotate locations.
The district presented its proposals for Article 9
(Leaves) and Article 25 (Successor Agreement), in addition
to presenting counterproposals for Article 7 (Assignments),
Article 8 (Transfers), and Article 11 (Safety
Concerns). SCTA presented its proposals for Article 9
(Leaves), Article 12 (Compensation), Article 13 (Employee
Benefits), Article 15 (Substitutes), and a new article to replace
Appendix D (Special Education).
The district and SCTA reached a Tentative Agreement on Article 7
(Assignments), and mutually agreed to keep the current contract
language for Article 19 District Rights, Article 22 Professional
Growth, and Article 23 Classroom Teacher Instructional
Improvement Program. To date, the District and SCTA have
reached tentative and/or mutual agreements on 13 articles of the
successor contract.
The District is currently reviewing SCTA’s fiscal proposals with
the goal of reaching a fair and equitable agreement that protects
the interests of students, parents/guardians, unit members, and
the District.
The District and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on December 19
at SCTA.
November 30, 2016
The district and SCTA held their eighth meeting on November
30 to continue negotiations for a successor contract. This
meeting was held at the Serna Center by prior agreement to rotate
locations.
SCTA presented its counterproposal to Article 8
(Transfers). The district is currently reviewing that
counterproposal to ensure compliance with a recent law which
prohibits granting transfer priority to in-district teachers over
outside applicants after April 15 in any school year.
The district presented its counterproposals to Article 7
(Assignments), Article 11 (Safety Concerns), and Article 24
(Site-Based Decision Making). The district and SCTA
mutually agreed to keep the current contract language for Article
16 (Liaison Committee) and Article 21 (Organizational
Security).
The district also presented SCTA with draft calendar proposals
for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on December 12
at SCTA.
November 28, 2016
The district and SCTA held their seventh meeting on November
29 to continue negotiations for a successor
contract. This meeting was held at SCTA’s office, per the
agreement to rotate locations.
The district and SCTA each passed conceptual proposals regarding
special education and Appendix D in the current contract. The
district’s proposal includes updating the contract to ensure
compliance with legal requirements in serving students with
special needs and eliminating Appendix D. The district’s proposal
also provides paid training to general education teachers that
serve special needs students, which will benefit all students
served.
The district raised concerns with SCTA’s proposal which included
a requirement that a mandatory meeting be held with a teacher
before any incoming special needs students can be included in the
class. The district pointed out that such a requirement is
inconsistent with the law.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on November 30
at the Serna Center.
November 14, 2016
The district and SCTA held their sixth meeting on November
14 to continue negotiations for a successor
contract. This meeting was held at the Serna Center by prior
agreement to rotate locations.
The district and SCTA signed Tentative Agreements for Article 3
(Effect of Agreement), Article 6 (Evaluations), and Article 10
(Personnel Files). The district also presented its proposal
to revise and update Article 14 (Personal and Academic Freedom),
consistent with Board policies/regulations.
SCTA rejected the district’s proposal to revise Article 24
(Site-Based Decision Making), which included the establishment of
a Collaborative Assessment Team to support teaching and learning
for all of our students by creating a comprehensive and balanced
assessment system.
SCTA also rejected the district’s proposal to establish a Visual
and Performing Arts Advisory Committee to draft a Strategic Arts
Plan to increase access to the Visual and Performing Arts (Art,
Music, Theatre, and Dance) at all SCUSD schools. SCTA did
not present any new proposals.
The district also proposed to schedule a meeting with the CECHCR
Project to receive preliminary information of their study of
district health benefits plans to identify potential savings by
reducing costs. SCTA stated its preference to hold a
telephone conference but was “open” to an in-person meeting with
the district and project coordinator. The District will work
with the project and SCTA to schedule that important meeting.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on November 28
at SCTA.
November 9, 2016
The district and SCTA held their fifth meeting on November 9 to
continue negotiations for a successor contract. This meeting was
held at SCTA by prior agreement to rotate locations.
The district reported that the CECHCR Project study of district
health benefits plans, to identify potential savings by reducing
costs, is moving forward as planned. All necessary information
has been released for the study and the project’s coordinator has
proposed dates to present their initial analysis to SCTA.
The district presented its counterproposals to SCTA regarding
Articles 6 (Evaluations) and 7 (Assignments). The district
presented its proposals for Articles 3 (Effect of Agreement) and
10 (Personnel Files). The district also presented its proposal to
revise Article 24 (Site Based Decision Making), to focus on
establishing a framework for collaborative decision making that
benefits our students.
The district’s proposal includes the establishment of a
Collaborative Assessment Team to support teaching and learning
for all of our students by creating a comprehensive and balanced
assessment system. The district’s proposal also includes the
establishment of a Visual and Performing Arts Advisory Committee
to draft a Strategic Arts Plan to increase access to the Visual
and Performing Arts (Art, Music, Theatre, and Dance) at all SCUSD
schools.
SCTA did not present any new proposals.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on November 14
at the Serna Center.
November 2, 2016
The District and SCTA held their fourth meeting on November
2 to continue negotiations for a successor contract.
This meeting was held at the Serna Center by prior agreement to
rotate locations.
The District presented its counter-proposals to SCTA regarding
Articles 4 Grievance Procedure and 6 Evaluations. The
District presented its proposals for Articles 8 Transfers and 11
Safety Concerns. The District and SCTA also reached a
tentative agreement on Article 4 Grievance Procedure which will
help to resolve grievances more efficiently.
Specifically, the new language extends the time period for
holding a Level 1 meeting from 10 working days to 15 working
days, and establishes two fixed dates twice a month for such
meetings. The signing of this tentative agreement was
followed with jubilant applause by all in attendance.
The District and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on November 9
at SCTA.
October 26, 2016
The district and SCTA held their third meeting on October 26 to
continue negotiations for a successor contract. This meeting was
held at SCTA by prior agreement to rotate locations.
The district presented its counterproposals to SCTA regarding
Articles 1, 2, and 18. The District and SCTA also tentatively
agreed to new language in Articles 1 and 2, as well as a new
cover page, preamble, and to keep Article 26 “as is” with the
contract’s duration to be added at a later date. SCTA presented
its proposals for Articles 5 and 7, which the district is
reviewing.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on November 2
at the Serna Center.
October 17, 2016
The district and SCTA held their second meeting on October 17,
2016, to continue negotiations for a successor contract, at the
district office. The District presented SCTA with a proposed
agenda to guide the process which included:
- Ground Rules/Norms;
- Minutes;
- CECHCR Project Update;
- SCTA 2016-17 Proposals/District Response; and
- Confirm/Set Future Dates
The district presented a revised proposal of five condensed
ground rules which includes negotiating without personal attacks;
teams having up to “60” members during after-work hours, and up
to “12” members during work hours, without the general public;
and that all proposals be presented in writing.
SCTA did not agree or object to the ground rules. Although
SCTA continues to sidestep this issue, the parties will need to
negotiate a reasonable number of representatives for negotiations
held during work hours to reach a timely agreement. To date,
SCTA has only agreed to meet during after-work hours. The
district reserved its right to continue negotiating ground rules
before moving forward with this meeting.
The district proposed the parties keep mutual minutes as a
collaborative record of each meeting. SCTA refused this
proposal.
The district reported that the CECHCR Project study of district
health benefits plans, to identify potential savings by reducing
costs, is moving forward as planned.
The district presented its counter-proposals to SCTA which
included utilizing mediation as a pre-arbitration step to resolve
grievances amicably. Currently, mediation is available in
the contract as a voluntary option. Mediation utilizes the
assistance of a state mediator to resolve differences at no cost
to the district or SCTA, which can result in a binding agreement
between the grievant and employer.
Unfortunately, SCTA consistently disregards mediation opting
instead to prosecute grievances at arbitration. Arbitration
is a costly process that involves a formal hearing with lawyers,
court reporters, etc. Arbitration does not foster
collaborative resolution of grievances and often results in
unnecessary delay as both parties are left waiting for the
arbitrator’s decision which can take up to six months or more
after the hearing. SCTA rejected the district’s proposal.
The district also proposed to establish a committee comprised of
teachers, substitute teachers and administrators to develop
evaluation tools and procedures for evaluating these
educators. SCTA shared its interest in discussing this
proposal further.
The district and SCTA will reconvene negotiations on October
26.
October 11, 2016
The district and the Sacramento City Teachers
Association met on October 11 to begin negotiations for a
successor contract. This was the first negotiations session
and was held at SCTA’s office according to a prior agreement
to rotate locations for each meeting.
The district presented SCTA a proposed agenda, and its proposal
for ground rules (norms) to establish a mutually agreeable
framework during negotiations. The district notified SCTA
prior to this session of its intent to present written ground
rules and invited SCTA to present their own
proposal. However, SCTA rejected the district’s proposal and
did not provide any written counter-proposal for ground rules.
The district was notified prior to this session of SCTA’s desire
to expand the size of their negotiations team to
“60 members” comprised of unit leadership. However, the
60 were not all comprised of unit leadership but also
included non-employee members of the public. The district
expressed its concern that by law negotiations are not open to
the public and could not move forward without approval from the
Board. The District reiterated this concern when receiving
SCTA’s proposal information.
The district invited SCTA to provide a written proposal for
ground rules, and for negotiations that involve members of the
public, at their next meeting on October 17.