UTN Members Reject District-Union Offer

Union members rejected a Memorandum of Agreement for a three-year contract this week, even though union management and the district had approved it on Jan. 10.  The MOA  outlined salary and step increases as well as the process teachers would need to follow to appeal performance reviews and evaluations. A pdf of the Memorandum is attached to this article.

If the MOA had been approved, teachers would have received no salary or step increase in the first year, 2010-2011, with a 1 percent  increase and half a step in the second year, and a .5 percent and the remaining half step in the final year.

Although the contract would mean a loss of two steps, Superintendent Marylou McDermott said on Friday that the proposal would have equated to an overall 5.09 percent increase including steps and compounding over the three year period.

All other wage rates, stipends, cash awards and longevity would remain at the amount in effect on June 30, 2010 for the term of the agreement.

Teachers  who receive an “ineffective” rating on their APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review) would have ten days to appeal in writing to the Superintendent’s designee who would have ten days to respond.  The affected teacher could then ask for a review by one outside expert chosen by a panel of three people selected by the District and UTN.

The Superintendent would consider the panelist written review recommendation based on the expert’s findings and would issue a determination within ten days. The decision would not be grievable, arbitrable, or reviewable.

According to a release posted on the UTN website, membership rejected the MOA by a nearly two to one margin on Jan. 24. “The membership of the UTN has spoken. This Memorandum of Agreement is not acceptable. More importantly, the disrespectful treatment of teachers, teaching assistants and nurses is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.”

The release refers to a number of instances of alleged disrespect, including a faculty member being “threatened with potential disciplinary action” days before the ratification vote and denied the right to union representation.  Another member who asked for union representation present at a meeting was allegedly told it would be “illegal.”

In addition, the statement says no Board members were present at the drafting of the MOA, even though Board President Stephen Waldenburg had said at the Jan. 9 BOA meeting that the Board would attend once a settlement was close.

“I’m very disappointed and saddened for the community,” McDermott said on Friday. “But I have to continue my focus on the children and moving ahead in these very challenging economic  times.”