7 thoughts on “Downloads

  1. You can still open your contract, talk about OPTIONS, and avoid impasse/imposition. FOR EXAMPLE:

    Memorandum of Understanding

    By way of this Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), the San Diego Education Association (“Association”) and the San Diego Unified School District (“District”) hereby agree:

    1. This MOU shall be in full force and effect commencing May 29, 2012;

    2. This MOU shall expire and be of no further force or effect as of June 30, 2012;

    3. The District and the Association shall meet and negotiate over matters within the scope of representation, as defined by Government Code Section 3543.2;

    4. For the term of this Agreement, the District shall not “declare that an impasse has been reached between the parties in negotiations over matters within the scope of representation” (see Government Code Section 3548);

    5. For the term of this Agreement, the Association shall not “declare that an impasse has been reached between the parties in negotiations over matters within the scope of representation” (see Government Code Section 3548);

    6. Modification(s) to matters within the scope of representation, as defined by Government Code Section 3543.2, shall become effective upon the execution of tentative agreement(s);

    7. Tentative agreement(s) shall: 1) be reduced to writing; 2) specify the modification(s) to be made; and 3) signed, but not executed, by representatives of both the Association and the District;

    8. Tentative agreement(s) shall be executed upon approval by both the District Board of Education and Association membership;

    9. Effective immediately prior to the expiration of this Agreement, all proposal(s) shall become null and avoid; and

    10. Effective immediately prior to the expiration of this Agreement, all Tentative Agreement(s) shall become null and void.

    Agreed to May 29, 2012 by:

    Bill Freeman
    Association President

    Bill Kowba
    District Superintendent

    • Anonymousme95:

      Please respect the blog. You posted this same message multiple times (we have only allowed one post to remain).
      This reads like it was written by an SDUSD lawyer. If so, it comes as no surprise that you wish to promote the idea that the District and SDEA can magically come up with a new method of negotiating an MOU or Side Letter without our wages and benefits being placed at risk. If this was written by a CTA attorney, we are even more horrified.
      We have also consulted negotiations experts regarding this issue and forwarded your post to them. Any discussions that results in an MOU or Side Letter dealing with matters within the scope of representation (such as wages and benefits) are necessarily negotiations! Negotiations about negotiations are still negotiations. In order to even get to the place of signing an agreement like this, then you have by definition opened the SDEA contract. If SDEA were to sit down at the bargaining table to cut a deal like this, the District could say we’ve opened our contract, take us to impasse, and impose.
      Again, this was verified to the SDEA Board last month by a CTA negotiations specialists. His advice to the Board was that IF the union had a relationship of mutual trust with our employer, it might be worth the risk to seek an agreement like the one you describe in the event that concessions were necessary (which they are not). But as the SDEA Board acknowledged, that relationship of trust is clearly not present here, with a District that admitted they’ve laid off 500 too many people but still won’t recall them because they want us to open our contract.
      It seems very unlikely that you spontaneously wrote this “draft” MOU just to post here. We hope this isn’t already a result of back room dealings between SDEA leadership, CTA, and SDUSD.

      • Admin, my posts were made where the relevant issue of opening the contract was raised. Because my post is relevant to these subject matters, I did post the same statement for informational purposes. That being said, I am not an SDUSD attorney nor am I a CTA rep. But, I am an organizer at heart and a damn good representative who enjoyed kicking some abusive employer you know what.

        I posted here because you and your members deserve the opportunity to meet this employer head on and hold it ACCOUNTABLE to students, parents, teachers, and the community by FORCING the employer to make its own concessions. With a closed contract, you are in a position of LEVERAGE. DO NOT allow this employer to scare you with the threat of layoffs. Going to the table and making public demands to the District that it change its practices of waste and inefficiency in order to benefit students, even before considering concessions, will make SDEA the winner to the public. That being said…

        First, your CTA staff is CORRECT, any discussion about concessions might be construed as possible negotiations over wages. Second, your CURRENT contract states that matters in the contract may be changed only by MUTUAL CONSENT (Section 36.3). Third, the side letter is NOT about concessions it is about the POSSIBILITY of considering concessions ONLY IF the District waives its statutory right to declare impasse. I am sure your CTA reps will tell you that the District cannot impose on SDEA the obligation to negotiate over wages, as the District has already agreed to wages for the duration of the contract and eliminated the duty to bargaing with the District over wages in Sections 36.3 and 36.5 of the contract.

        At the risk of sounding repetitive, I am trying to communicate a very clear distinction: there is a difference between 1) considering concessions; and 2) considering the possibility of considering concessions. With 1, the District could impose because you WOULD be negotiating over wages. With 2, the District could not impose because you WOULD be considering whether or not you will obligate yourself to negotiate and that is something that the District CANNOT impose on SDEA because it specifically eliminated the obligation to bargain in Sections 36.3 and 36.5 of your CURRENT contract.

        I ENCOURAGE you to continue with your movement to place pressure on this employer. With a reserve of over $90 million, there are options to consider other than laying off teachers. Deficit spending will, at some time, will need to come to an end. Has that time come? I don’t know. But, for you to be able to make an honest determination, you need to have speak with the employer and fight for transparency and accountability to the public and quality public schools a.k.a. teachers who dedicate themselves to public service and the education of students.


  2. One more thing, in answer to your question… Yes, I did spontaneously right the draft MOU. San Diego teachers are getting a lot of bad PR in the public right now, and you have the OPPORTUNITY to hold SDUSD accountable to students, teachers, and the public.

    With the budget and education being a issues of importance, refusing to engage the District is a wasted opportunity that can only make SDEA stronger. You should ENGAGE and FIGHT for quality education on YOUR TERMS!

  3. Thank you anonymousme95 for rsponsing to the inquiry I posted. I don’t know about negotiations but I DO know you are correct about the incredible amount of bad PR – and that as community members and union we need to consider the impact of that fact and how best to proceed.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s