BGSD, teachers still making no progress in contract negotiations

Posted

Superintendent says it’s time to ‘set the record straight’

Almost six months into the 2015-2016 school year, contract negotiations between the Battle Ground School District and the district’s teachers have still gotten nowhere.

On Jan. 29, district officials released a message to the community from Superintendent Mark Hottowe, along with a chart showing comparisons between the compensation proposals of the two different groups – the district and the Battle Ground Education Association (BGEA).

In Hottowe’s letter to the community, he starts out by saying that he has contemplated communicating his personal opinion surrounding the “stalled” negotiations between the school district and BGEA teachers. He stated that thus far he has refrained, in the spirit of not engaging in debate or argument, or making disparaging remarks.

Hottowe has decided, however, that he cannot keep quiet anymore.

“It has become clear to me that the union is not forthcoming with accurate or complete information that would allow a listener to fully understand why we have not reached an agreement,” Hottowe wrote in his message, a copy of which was emailed to The Reflector. “It is time to ‘set the record straight.’”

Hottowe continued by giving a summary of the negotiations between the district and the BGEA, stating that the district has been negotiating with the BGEA since the spring of 2015. Hottowe said the state legislature increased the district’s funding by $11 million, including a 3 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA) for state-funded staff, health and retirement increases, expansion of full-day kindergarten, class-size reduction, and increase to materials, supplies and operating costs (MSOC).

According to the district, the state allocated the new money to specific expenditures, many of which had requirements to access. In the end, Hottowe said only $1.56 million was available for discretionary allocation. Of these funds, approximately $400,000 was allocated to the Public School Employees Association to increase pay for classified employees in a multi-year contract. In September, the district offered $1.1 million to increase the salaries for certificated staff in time, responsibility and incentive (TRI).

This offer was made by the district in September. The BGEA did not accept the offer. Hottowe states in his letter that after further negotiations, the district increased the offer by an additional $1.1 million over two years for a total offer of $2.205 million in TRI time. Hottowe said that this additional $1.1 million requires the district to cut the current budget by $284,000 and next year’s budget by an additional $821,000 and “constitutes the the largest single raise of certificated salaries in recent history.” The BGEA again did not accept this offer.

Hottowe said that on Jan. 25, leaders of the BGEA submitted a proposal asking for a total of $6.1 million to meet their demands. He said this includes $3.7 million in additional TRI time, $1.1 million in “additional extended days,” $807,000 for longevity pay and $420,000 for additional primary school counselors. In addition, the BGEA proposal includes lower class size language.

“If we had the resources, I would gladly support the union’s current proposal,” Hottowe wrote. “Our teachers are worthy of every advantage we can offer. Unfortunately, if we made the decision to support this proposal, we would have to make serious cuts to a budget that barely meets our ongoing needs. I cannot in good conscience recommend this level of cuts to our school board, knowing full well the long-term financial damage this would have on the district’s ability to meet the community’s needs.”

Hottowe pointed out in his letter that the union is “fond of comparing us (the district) to Evergreen and Vancouver schools.” He said this comparison doesn’t work, as the Battle Ground School District is “unique.” Hottowe said the Battle Ground district has the lowest class size in the region, and that they have some of the best staffing ratios for special education, counselors, psychologists and nurses that are “well beyond the the state’s funded staffing levels.”

Hottowe said these additional staff members provide “outstanding” resources and supports for the district’s students and families that can’t be found in surrounding districts.

“This comes with a hefty $17 million price tag that comes directly out of local levy dollars,” Hottowe said. “The union wants to compare us to surrounding districts without regard to the fact that they do not have this heavy burden. To free up revenues that could be redistributed to fund the $4 million difference between the district’s current offer and the BGEA proposal would require us to reduce our unfunded staffing by almost 60 full-time teachers.”

“I do not recommend we cut current staff and supports to meet the $6 million request,” Hottowe continued. “Rather, I propose that we take responsible and appropriate steps forward, continuing to expand services, provide more educational opportunities and improve facilities while maintaining proper fiscal responsibility to our community.”

Hottowe ended his letter to the community by stating that he finds himself in an “uncomfortable situation.” He said that in his 40 years in education, he has always developed positive and nurturing relationships with staff and the community.

“I believe in solving problems, never walking away from an issue,” Hottowe said. “While I certainly may have had a few detractors, I have been known as a positive and effective leader with integrity, vision and passion for students and staff. I now find myself embroiled in a situation that goes against every fiber of my being. It is important for the community to understand that this ongoing conflict is not reflective of all teachers in our district.

“I am committed to our teachers and their great work, and I continue to advocate for them on a local and statewide level,” Hottowe concluded in his letter. “I do believe our educators need additional resources, but I will stand firm on the principle that I must take all aspects of our district and community into consideration when making major financial decisions. I look forward to a time when we can move past contract negotiations and get back into our normal routine.”

BGEA says district is trying to invoke opposition from community



Although Linda Peterson, current president of the Battle Ground Education Association, has said she can somewhat understand Battle Ground School District officials’ concern over being forced to cut the district’s budget to better compensate its teachers, she said she still believes the district should honor those teachers.

“If you look at our (the district’s) fund balance now, I remember our double levy failure, we had no fund balance, teachers had to drop TRI (time, responsibility and incentive) days,” Peterson said. “Over the years, our fund balance has risen, it’s better now than it’s ever been. Nobody wants it to get to the level it was at before. Nobody wants to not have a healthy revenue fund balance, but if you honor the teachers this year and look at our proposal and honor what we’re asking for, you will have every single teacher working twice as hard for our next levy.”

“We’ve done this together before, but the fact is that the money (the $11 million from state funding) came in and they (the district) decided how to spend it, and they did not consider any proposal coming from the teachers before they earmarked the money,” Peterson continued.

Peterson said she was confused and alarmed by the chart sent out by the school district on Jan. 29, comparing the two sides’ compensation proposals. She said she was confused after seeing it because she doesn’t know where the district got the numbers used, and she said the numbers are not accurate.

The chart shows the district’s offer of $1.38 million in additional TRI for 2015-2016, compared to the BGEA’s proposal of $3.35 million broken down into $807,000 in longevity, $420,000 for additional primary counselors, $1.96 million in additional extended days and $936,411 in additional TRI. This chart shows this as a $1.97 million between the two proposals.

The second half of the chart shows the district’s offer of $2.20 million in 2016-2017, made up of $821,000 for additional primary counselors and $1.38 million in additional TRI. The BGEA’s proposal of $6.16 million for 2016-2017 is shown, broken into $2.80 million for additional TRI in 2016-2017, $807,000 for longevity, $420,000 for additional primary school counselors, $1.19 million in additional extended days and $936,411 in additional TRI for 2015-2016.

A post on the BGEA’s Facebook page, posted the evening of Jan. 29, states that “Mr. Hottowe’s emailed chart has caused a great deal of confusion among BGEA members.” The post goes on to state that on Mon., Jan. 25, in response to members’ concerns about payroll schedules, it was decided to propose a new combination of TRI days paid quarterly and extended days paid monthly. Both would be protected under the proposed contract language. The post says the change does not alter the amount of new compensation for 2015-2016 in the earlier BGEA proposal.

According to the Facebook post, another question that has come up is how they got to a two-year proposal.

“That time-frame was first presented by the district when they divided our one-year compensation proposal into two years,” the post states. “The BGEA proposal for a second year would increase TRI pay by another 5 percent of your annual base salary per your placement on the state salary chart. It may be helpful to understand that all proposals given by the district have never gone above $1.3 million for 2015-2016. The amount set aside for educators in the second year is even less.”

More of the Facebook post reads: “Longevity, primary counselors and class size remain absent from the district’s proposal. On Monday, BGEA’s counterproposal again included those three items as well as the revised language on compensation. This proposal was presented to the district at 3:45 p.m. but not discussed as negotiations were suspended at 4 p.m. in advance of the 4:30 p.m. school board meeting. The BGEA negotiation teams’ expectation was the district would provide a response at our Feb. 12 negotiation meeting as per past practice and agreed upon norms.”

“Mr. Hottowe’s chart is designed to provoke opposition from the community by displaying the high price tag without any context reflecting the sheer size of our teaching staff. Battle Ground has 856 educators. Nor does it reflect the district’s rejection of longevity pay (rather than time) or primary counselors, which research proves is a necessary component in today’s schools. What Mr. Hottowe fully fails to include in his characterization of our proposal is smaller class sizes, which would be well-received by the community.”

Peterson shared that this was her first year as the BGEA president, as well as her first year participating in traditional bargaining, since the district had been using the Interest-Based Negotiations with the former superintendent.

“I did not expect that it would be this divisive,” Peterson said. “I had expected that the district, in light of the mistrust and the questionable retirement of our past superintendent, that the school board and our new superintendent would work to rebuild not just the relationship with the community, but also with BGEA. With the additional money that came in, I was very optimistic that the educators in the district would be part of the conversation. We were not part of the conversation in the beginning, we are definitely not part of the conversation now, I don’t understand that.”

Peterson said well over 100 teachers attended the Jan. 29 regular school board meeting and addressed the school board members and Hottowe during the citizen’s’ comments portion of the meeting. After the meeting, a message was posted by the BGEA on their Facebook page, critical of Hottowe and school board members. The post first states that Board President Monty Anderson “scolded” Stephan “Cash” Henry (a BGSD teacher) for telling Hottowe he was not a man of his word for not honoring his commitment to the social and emotional well-being of his teachers.

The post continues: “Mr. Hottowe is holding us hostage. He refuses to bargain Longevity, Primary counselors, and class size. He is stalling and keeping his teachers in an anxious state. He believes we do not have it in us as educators to increase our visibility, our voices, our concerns for our students. He is hoping to wear us down and prove we do not have it in us to continue to do the job of teaching and still make the needs of our schools and students known. I believe Mr. Hottowe’s dismissiveness is disrespect. You don’t show respect by wearing your teachers down to the point of submission.”

When asked if BGEA members had plans to vote again on a possible strike, Peterson said they have not voted on whether or not to strike again, and currently have no plans to hold a vote. She said this is because after talking with many community members and parents, those people were “blown” away by what was going on.

“We’re going to work on ways to get information to our parents (so they know what’s going on),” Peterson said.