************************************* * 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: For the District: HEARING DETAILS: David Boulanger, UniServ Director Steven F. Stitzel, Esq.

INTRODUCTION

The

South

Burlington

Educators

Association

(Association) is the collective bargaining representative for teachers employed by the South Burlington School District (District). the The District provides educational services for of South Burlington, VT, a community of

residents

approximately 18,000 residents located in Chittenden County

in

northwestern one

Vermont.

There and one

are

three

elementary in the

schools,

middle

school,

high

school

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 between 200-2011 was $63,457, which is the third lowest in Chittenden County, although the county is one of the more affluent in the state.
2

The Vermont Department of Education shows there are 204 teachers, but District Exhibit 11 reflects there are 252. 2

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 contract levels to those in in comparable communities, I make and the

language

comparable

communities,

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 any intent to negotiate by October 15 of the terminal year of this contract. The Board and the Association will establish a negotiating schedule for the successor agreement which will assure that if fact finding is necessary, it will be completed and the fact finding report received by June 30 of the final year of the Agreement. The Board and the Association will exchange proposals at the first meeting mutually agreed upon for such purposes. The Board and the Association will schedule such additional meetings as necessary to discuss all matters properly to be negotiated for the successor contract.

My recommendations follow the order in which the disputed issues appear in the parties current collective bargaining agreement. 3

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 other in writing of any intent to negotiate by October 15 of the terminal year of this contract. Such notification shall clearly 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 its intent to negotiate a successor agreement. The Board and the Association will establish a negotiating schedule for the successor agreement which will assure that if fact finding is necessary, it will be completed and the fact finding report received by June 30 of the final year of the Agreement. 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. The Board and the Association will exchange proposals at the first meeting mutually agreed upon for such purposes. The Board and the Association will schedule such additional meetings as necessary to discuss all matters properly 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 before did the not reach agreement on a successor As a

agreement

prior

agreement

expired.

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.

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 1) clarify the parties respective negotiations and developing a

to Article 2.1 that will: obligation for commencing

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.

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

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. concerned that the proposed language is In sum, I am 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 IV TEACHING HOURS AND TEACHING DUTIES

Current Contract Language 4.5 Duty-free Lunch. A duty-free lunch period shall be provided for each teacher. The teachers lunch period shall be continuous, and shall be at least as long in duration as the 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

the current language in Article 4.5: 4.4 Duty-Free Lunch. A minimum 3o minute duty-free lunch period 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. times, when it is difficult to meet However, there are 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 dutyfree lunch period. what impact the Further, it is not readily apparent 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

will be the same length as student lunch periods, and the Milton and Winooski teacher contracts provide for only a twenty-five here, which minute lunch period. District The to current provide language a lunch

obligates

the

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 school and middle school will have a minimum preparation period of one (1) class period per day. Each elementary teacher is guaranteed a preparation period whenever a special subject teacher, identified for the purposes of this section as art, music, and physical education teachers, is scheduled to assume responsibility for a class (normally five (5) times per week). Special subject teachers shall have preparation times each day, which is substantially equivalent to the elementary teachers preparation period. Association Proposal The follows: 4.8 Minimum Prep Periods. Each teacher will have a minimum Association proposes to amend Article 4.8, as

preparation period of one (1) class period per day scheduled during the student day. For elementary school teachers, the prep period will be equal in length to a typical special class (music, art, PE, etc.). The Union asserts that scheduling preparation time during the student day time would and ensure close proximity would time between improve at the

preparation teacher

instruction, Further,

which

productivity.

preparation

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.

10

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 subjects. periods must be scheduled around special

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 by this Agreement are set for in Appendix A which is attached to and made a part hereof. (1) The starting salary for the 2013-2014 school year shall be $42,545 and the maximum salary shall be $88,494. (2) The starting salary for the 2014-2015 school year shall be $44,203 and the maximum salary shall be $88,494. (3) The starting salary for the 2015-2015 school year shall be $46,038 and the maximum salary shall be $95,759. The Association teachers the acknowledges well when In that the to District comparable it is

compensates districts in

compared view,

county.

its

however,

11

important District

for to

attracting maintain

and its

retaining relative

teachers salary

for

the by

level

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 and South Burlington. property Further, for the

combined

school

municipal

rates

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. for the disparity is that in

It claims that the real reason there are a large who number are of

experienced

teachers

South

Burlington

being

12

fairly compensated based on their experience.

Similarly, a

it asserts that the South Burlington salary index is 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. 2. 3.

4

No step movement in 2013-14 Different percentage increases in the five left hand columns on the salary index, with no increase in the M+30 column A one-time cash payment for all teachers who would

During the parties negotiations the Districts salary proposal consisted of no step increases and no new money for salary increases. It presented this proposal for the first time the day of the May 15 mediation/fact finding. 13

receive less than $1,000 under the revised index to assure all teachers would receive some additional money and to offset the increased health insurance premiums 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. are Second, already so because well the teachers in in the top to

columns

compensated

relation

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 payment. compensation At the same in the form the of a one-time cash of

time,

lifetime

earnings

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

14

in light of current economic realities, particularly the most recent CPI, which is less than 2%. annual report reflects, it has already Further, as its 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 1)

analyzing the parties respective economic proposals:

the wages and benefits of similar employees in comparable communities; 2) the ability of the Board to pay in light of current index. The parties here have a fundamental, philosophical In the economic conditions; and 3) the cost of living

difference about what constitutes comparable wages.

Associations view, comparability should be determined by looking teachers to in the percentage wage increases received However, by the

surrounding

school

districts.

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

15

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-30Step 10 columns each year. Significantly, however, that In other words, the

had also been the case since 2006-07.

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 based system on their that places teachers on a

higher

step

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

16

are more teachers in South Burlington at the top steps of the right hand columns because of the vagaries of the South Burlington necessarily index mean and they their are longevity, which does more not than

paid

significantly

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, As well based on their #5

performance

and

experience.

Association

Exhibit

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.

17

This is not to suggest that the parties should not reexamine 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. dispute that the District faces Second, there can be no budget challenges and

uncertainties about future educational funding. in light of the relative standing of South

However, Burlington

taxpayers, the unemployment rate in the community, and its

18

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 However, that below average

salaries will increase by 4.8% in 2014-15. increase must be viewed in light of the

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.

19

ISSUE No. 5 ARTICLE VI SALARIES Current Contract Language 6.10 National Teacher Certification Teachers who possess National Board Certification as of December 1 of the school year will receive an annual incentive award from the District of $1,500. The Parties agree to appoint a study committee to review the comparability of advanced certification programs for Speech and Language Pathologists and Registered Nurses in light of the requirements for National Board Certification and make recommendations to the 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, and Speech and Language Pathologists (SLPS) who possess national Board Certification as of December 1 of the school year 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

20

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. whether an RNs

Therefore, has not been able to determine 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 certification. equivalent It is in to the a national teacher to

Districts

interest

encourage all of its professional employee to attain and maintain fields, national and the certifications in their would for respective provide that an

Associations and SLP

proposal to strive

incentive

for

RNs

goal.

21

Unfortunately, however, I am not familiar with the specific national certifications are available for RNs and SLPs or whether they are equivalent I to national teacher the

certifications.

Accordingly,

cannot

recommend

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 or other persons, if used in a formal evaluation, will be promptly investigated and called to the attention of the teacher will be given an opportunity to respond and/or rebut such complaint.

22

Association Proposal The follows: 8.5 Complaints. Any complaint regarding a teacher made any member of the administration by any parent, student other persons, if used in a formal evaluation, will reduced to writing, promptly investigated, and called the attention of the teacher. The teacher will be given opportunity to respond and/or rebut such complaint. to or be to an Association proposes to amend Article 8.5 as

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. complaints that Therefore, it proposes that all serious could have professional consequences be

reduced to writing. District Response The this District In opposes the the Associations view, proposal on to

issue.

Districts

complaints

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.

23

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. is how an administrator What is not clear, however, at the time he or she

knows

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 receives the subject a of a complaint could: an 1)

administrator

about

teacher

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, administrators category of I do agree with the Association that have fall that, into if the

receive

complaints that could

complaints

professional

24

consequences, basic principles of due process suggest that the teacher should to have written to the notice specific of them and an or

opportunity

respond

allegations

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 use his/her accumulated number of sick leaves days in excess of the leave allowed under the FMLA or VPFLA in the event of a serious medical condition affecting the teachers spouse, parent, child, or member of the immediate household . . .

Association Proposal The follows: 9.5 Catastrophic Leave. A teacher may request to use his/her accumulated number of sick leave days in excess of the leave allowed under the FLMA or VPFLA in the event of a serious medical condition affecting the teachers immediate family. Association proposes to amend Article 9.5, as

25

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. notion of family, it does make

In light of the modern 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 between example, that it could about lead how to it future applies. for disagreements Here, for a

the

parties

allowing

catastrophic

leave

members

of

teachers immediate family begs the question of exactly who

26

falls into that category. parties agree to

Therefore, I recommend that the that would broaden the

language

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 teachers Individual Professional Development Plan, or the strategic action plans of the District, or the professional development needs of the teacher as identified through the evaluation process in accordance with the following formula: the reimbursement shall be limited to three (3) credits per teacher per school year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) not to exceed one hundred (100%) percent of the U.V.M. winter three (3) credit rate; and said teacher has successfully completed the course with a transcript grade of B or better. The usual course approval process shall be followed. (3) The Board shall provide reimbursement in a total amount not to exceed Eighty Thousand ($80,000 Dollars during each school year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) . . .

27

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) for the purpose of reimbursing teachers for university or college graduate credits . . . The District proposes an $80,000 cap on tuition

reimbursement and proposes to limit tuition reimbursement to courses taken for graduate that credit. Although the

District

recognizes

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 fortysix (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.

28

Therefore,

the

District is a

believes reasonable

that and

cap

on

tuition cost

reimbursement

necessary

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

29

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 Development District, teacher. with Plan, the a or teachers the Individual action Professional plans needs of of the the

strategic

or

professional

development

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 causing would teachers preclude to reimbursement the cost in of those cases, the

assume

meeting

30

professional

development

needs

identified

by

District

administrators.

2.

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. believe money that a the problems does associated not the with However, I the an

recouping complete of

if

teacher

successfully convenience

approved payment. 3.

course

outweighs

up-front

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

31

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. District can face an unforeseen As a result, the 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, In three of the last five has exceeded will that see to cap. the them

which it claims is reasonable. years, however, to the District that

Therefore, available decrease

ensure

teachers funds

not

tuition

reimbursement I

available an annual

significantly,

recommend

tuition

reimbursement cap of $85,000, which is slightly above the average spent by the District during the past five years. I believe this it will provide the District unduly with the the

predictability

seeks,

without

limiting

teachers access to tuition reimbursement funds. Next, the Association seeks to increase the pool of money available for professional development opportunities

32

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 the District shall be the VEHI Dual Option Plan. Eligible teachers may elect single, two-person, or family coverage. The Board shall pay the following percentage of the cost of the VEHI Dual Option health insurance plan for the coverage selected in each year oaf this Agreement.

33

School Year 2010-2013

Board % 85%

Teacher % 15%

District Proposal The teachers District proposes to increase their the increase the

contribution

toward

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 Further, the District asserts that the easily be able to cover the $230-$606

in the county. teachers will

increase in health insurance premium contributions it has proposed under its salary proposal.

Association Response The increase Association in the rejects the share Districts of employee proposed health

teachers

34

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. that it is to Nevertheless, the District asserts to their expect share teachers of health in South

reasonable increase

Burlington

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

35

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%. teachers and

Under the Districts proposal, however, the 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

36

the

combined

effect

of

my

recommendations

on

the

two

issues.

ISSUE No. 10 ARTICLE XXII - DURATION District Proposal The agreement District be for proposes one year that the parties In its successor view, the

only.

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. the impact a Further, the District is concerned about sluggish and economy the will have on to Federal provide view, for

educational funding these for

funds public

states In

ability the

education. militate

Districts an

unknown

factors

against

agreement

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

37

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 In

stability and predictability of a three-year contract.

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 oneyear agreement. 2.1, the In ink fact, would pursuant not to the be language on a of new

Article

even

dry

agreement before they had to start the process over again. As the District health notes, care there and are some uncertainties funding. In

surrounding

educational

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

38

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, 2013 Newton Massachusetts

39