For the latest news.

http://seamemberinfo.blogspot.com/

National City Teachers Vote To Strike

Members of the National City Education Association voted to authorize a strike on December 16. No date has been set as of press time for the strike to take place.

The vote was in response to the National School Districtʼs (feeder to Granger, National City Middle and Sweetwater High) imposition of a contract on teachers after failing to negotiate an agreement. The district declared an impasse in negotiations in March, rejected a compromise in June that had been created by a mediator, and imposed the new working conditions in July.

Issues the teachers were attempting to bargain were: six furlough days equaling a 3.24 percent reduction in pay, forced alignment of the calendar with that of the Sweetwater district, increase in payment of health benefits, class size, length of the contract, and transfer and reassignment procedures. The district did not bargain in good faith and did not attempt to reach a fair settlement with the teachers, but planned all along to impose the conditions they wanted according to the association.

National District drew fire from the teachers after sending out letters offering payment of $250 per day to substitutes in case of a strike. Normal pay is $100 per day. Linda Cartwright, association president, criticized the action in light of the districtʼs claim to a $3 million budget deficit.

Sweetwater teachers, through our Representative Council, voted to support National City teachers in the event of a strike. We will forego our Teacherʼs Day gifts and donate the money to the strike fund. We will also be asked to support them by going out to picket if the strike occurs. Be ready! We may need their support in the not- too-distant future.

At the SUHSD school board meeting on Monday January 24th, community members questioned the superintendentʼs decision to share our SUHSD sub phone numbers with National City.

We Gave Already...

by Colleen Cooke-Salas

When the District opened the 2011-2012 calendar

negotiations with SEA by inappropriately bringing a wage item to the table (four furlough days), you would at least expect there was some fiscally sound, data driven, number crunching reason for the four days. Some reason other than it was good enough for the administration, so itʼll be good enough for the teachers, too. But was there?

How could there be a fiscally sound reason when our current contribution is not even recognized? They FORGOT about our class size increase! They forgot to fiscally account for the 31:1 staffing ratio that extends past the term of our present contract and through June 30, 2013. They forgot about that when they calculated we need to accept four furlough days.

So how much is our contribution to the budget dilemma we face? In the ʼ09-ʼ10 school year, it was roughly $6 million and in each of the years ʼ10-ʼ11, ʼ11-ʼ12, ʼ12-ʼ13, it is about $9 million.

We canʼt forget. We see and hear it every period as we teach 182 students per day.

Yet in the Districtʼs 2010-2011 budget, our contribution to the budget reduction is only listed as $2.7 million. In fact, not once has SEAʼs full contribution been accurately portrayed to the school board in a budget presentation.

The Districtʼs numbers under-represent our contribution and they know it, so theyʼre winding up to ply you with platitudes. At every school board meeting we hear someone talk about how bad the economy is and how others are losing their jobs and taking pay cuts. As if that is reason alone to leap to the conclusion that of course we should be resigned to further cuts.

We are painfully aware of the current economic climate. It is our spouses and family members who have lost their jobs. We have become the sole supporters in our households. We are losing our houses and cars. We deserve better than the rhetoric of “but everyone else is doing it.” The District is hitching a ride on the coattails of the fiscal climate and they expect you to dutifully fall in behind them.

Donʼt buy into their scare tactic! Know the District CFOʼs stated goal to the Board: In these uncertain economic times, our goal is to increase the reserves.

We believe our goal should be to provide the highest quality education to our students.

Organizing 101:

Itʼs NOT “whoʼs going to bring the chips?”

BY LAUREN MCLENNAN MAR VISTA HIGH

Organizing is building a community around shared values and strategizing ways for that community to build power in order to achieve their goals.

Harvard professor Marshall Ganz puts it this way: “Organizers engage people in discerning why they should act to change their world—their values—and how they can act to change it—their strategy.”

As educators, we share values. We value the importance of excellent public education in protecting and furthering democracy. We share values about promoting equality and caring for young people and the communities in which they live. Our goals are derived from our shared values. For example, if we value fairness in how students are assessed, we may create a goal to make sure assessments are tested, results are examined, and fairness is assured. Our next step would be to think about what resources we have available to reach this goal, and then strategize ways in which we can apply resources to make this goal a reality. As a union, our main resource is people power. For this reason, many organizing activities involve the application of our collective power to achieve our goals.

So once we have set goals, how do we build power? We build power by consistently communicating with each other about our values, by spending time together refining our vision, and by regularly evaluating our goals. We build power through relationships. In order to maintain and assert power, we must be involved with our union at our sites, and with our union leadership so we can communicate effectively with each other.

Want to learn more about organizing? Come to an organizing meeting at the SEA office. We will meet on February 8, March 8, March 29, and May 10 at 4pm.

More to come in later editions- stay tuned!

President’s Message

SEA REJECTS FURLOUGH DAYS

BY ALEX ANGUIANO SEA PRESIDENT

Contractually, we are obligated to “sunshine” our bargaining proposal before May 1. The District has already sunshined its proposal; we have not. Our contract clearly states that our work year “shall” be 184 days. Bargaining on items other than a 184 day calendar will not occur before we sunshine our proposal.

I firmly believe that it is the Districtʼs intent to impose their proposed calendar and wage reduction proposal upon us. Such an imposition would be illegal prior to a negotiated settlement on a successor contract, or after the School Board acts on a fact-finding panelʼs report. However, ignoring contractual language and violating state law during negotiations is a practice that the District has engaged in under the current administration. Once again, the District has begun the implementation of a strategy of getting to the table and declaring Impasse as soon as possible to be in position to impose a last best and final offer. School Services suggested this strategy to our District in the last round of negotiations. However, they clearly warned that such a strategy risked creating labor unrest. It is interesting that that School Services is not currently recommending that strategy. I guess the District did not read the latest memo.

In my last message, I reported that I would be asking our Rep Council to consider two “job actions” designed to support our calendar team during calendar negotiations. After a healthy debate, the two actions were approved by the Rep Council. I can not use the Districtʼs communication system to discuss these actions. Please talk to your site reps. Job actions are legal activities that we engage in to support our bargaining position. At times they are necessary when logical discussions fail. The District is currently failing.

The District has turned on its propaganda machine. It is just getting warmed up. The target audience is the community, the School Board, and us.

Donʼt buy their garbage.

On the Districtʼs website, they have posted their proposed calendar for community input. They did not post the four June 2012 furlough days that they proposed to us. The District is not informing the community that teachers will not have preparation time before school begins for students under their plan. Obviously, they expect us to work for free. They have also posted a document announcing the

formation of a budget committee. Although SEA has not received an invitation to participate, the Districtʼs website indicates that one is forthcoming. It will be my recommendation to the SEA Board of Directors that we not accept their invitation. The budget committee will be charged with suggesting where cuts are to be made. We have done our share to deal with the economy and will be doing so for two more school years.

We have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expires at the end of the 2012-13 that has increased our class caps and staffing ratio. The superintendent did not know the MOUʼs expiration date before the District proposed the furlough days to SEA. He was under the impression that the MOU expired with the expiration of our current contact, June 30, 2011. The negotiated MOU saves the district millions of dollars annually. It is absolutely mindboggling that the District proposed furlough days without knowing when the MOU expires.

Our contract is clear that our work year shall consist of 184 days. When we continue our calendar discussions with the District, we will only discuss 184 days. The Districtʼs response will be to spread misinformation and threaten us with layoffs -again.

Will the School Board be mislead by the District like they were last May, or did they learn that their actions were unnecessary? They were wrong and we were right. Please review my last presidentʼs message regarding the sixty plus temporary teachers that the District needed to hire. The majority of these teachers were hired after the start of the school year due to the Districtʼs crappy enrollment projection.

Once again, they will cite declining enrollment as a factor for their actions. Contractually, SEA has the right to consult with the District as to which postings will be offered to individuals returning from leave and individuals that are being excessed from their sites due to declining enrollment. When I met with the District to consult on this matter for the semester 2 posting, only one site principal had reported the need to transfer a teacher due to declining enrollment. It appears that principals are not buying the Districtʼs garbage. Neither should you.

Support your calendar team. Talk to your site reps.

Challenge To SUHSD Trustees:

 Do The Right Thing

Jane McGill, member of the Sweetwater Union District Proposition O Bond Oversight Committee, suggested board members recuse themselves from voting on contracts from companies and vendors who are donating to their campaigns. Though not illegal, one cannot help but notice the obvious conflict of interest. Where are the students in this equation?

Following here are Jane McGill's notes for the request she made to the board during open session on September 24. Just an FYI, the board scheduled the agenda items that Jane McGill was addressing for later in the evening when most of the public had left. Coincidence?

"Good evening. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Sweetwater Union District Proposition O Bond Oversight Committee for several years. This has been a wonderful opportunity to see various sites updated so that students in our district will be able to attend schools that would make any community proud. Also, during a recession it has poured huge sums of money into the local economy. I am delighted to see both of these things happening.

However, I do have a concern. It is one I have brought up before and it has become much more of an issue with the huge amounts of money being spent under Proposition O. At every board meeting millions of dollars are approved for various contracts and change orders. These contracts go to architectural firms and construction companies. When we voters approved this bond measure we expected the money to be spent totally without bias. I think it is inappropriate for board members to approve contracts and then take political contributions from companies that are involved with these contracts. I think all candidates for members of the board should decline all political contributions from firms that might be involved in work on the schools.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. I have seen some contribution records and I know two of the current board members have accepted donations for their current campaigns from these companies. This is a great concern to me. The people selected for contracts to work on our schools should be selected based on qualifications and the bidding process with absolutely no personal factors influencing the decision. If a board member does take funds from an architectural firm or contractor with any ties or even potential ties to the district, the ethical approach would be for the board member to refrain from voting on any issue that impacts that company in any way. Tonight that specifically applies to K1 on page 26 and M2 on page 27*. Will the members of the board take an ethical approach and pledge to refrain from voting on any and all issues that are related to their campaign donors?"

*No board members recused themselves that night.