##VIDEO ID:EvO25mLKfM8## welcome everybody again seems like we were here just yesterday um I know we all know each other but for those that are watching may not know everybody who's at the table so I think it's always good to go around and introduce ourselves uh so I'll start my name is Terry Harmon I am Council to the school district uh here serving as negotiator and to my left Julie assistant superintendent of Human Resources Sherry Richardson director of Professional Standards employee relations Carter Morrison assistant superintendent for finance Jeff Raymond director of talent and HR Lisa Estes assistant superintendent student Support Services Don Calderone director of RIS management and employee benefits Daniel Moore director of curriculum and instruction mark C coordinator Mark County Schools pad Holtz MCA suan Ray MCA Alec McIntyre mcea Gary Simmons Chief negotiator for mcea FEA Matt feal president mcea Lonnie B MCA Kimberly Love mcea again welcome everybody I've um made some notes about what I think some of the issues that we've got on our flight today to address um and I'll see if you'd like to add anything to this to make sure I didn't miss it um I think the first we'd like to is present a response to the proposals that you had passed across the table last week on articles 13 and articles three I had mentioned to you that we had anticipated opening up and making proposals as to articles two and 11 and we did uh so we'll pass some across when we get to that point um obviously I think at that point you'll want to take some time to look at what we presented uh and then we've got two M us on a couple of different topics that we'll pass across maybe later more towards the closing of the session we figured we would first address um the issues that are I guess you would call it old business from the last meeting is that sound okay for now okay so I think the first we have yes okay so we do have copies we'll pass out there with us and I think we'll start with Article 13 yes than now that it's been passed out obviously you'll want a chance to read it but I'll just give you kind of a an overview um I know with the Article 13 proposal that you had passed across the table uh included a proposed increase to the $6,500 that the board contributes to to uh individual employees and then an increase in the spouses provision from 13,000 to 18,000 and then one other provision as it relates to Insurance increases um we had an opportunity to really dive into that and we had some pretty meaningful discussions about some of the comments that you had made um that supported why that language was being passed across the table um we had some again some pretty pretty in-depth discussions about this and I think where we are from the district's perspective is yes we acknowledge there have been increases of insurance they are continuing to increase uh and it is something that I think we would like to look at Insurance the plans uh to see if there is a more of a long-term fix our concern with changing the CBA right now was it is a quick fix but we wanted to be able to really dive in with what we have available now gather some more data and engage in some collaboration at the table to try to find out what might be some more long-term solutions to some of your concerns that you raised and then just to see what other options are out there but what we did not want to do was just kick the can down the road and say hey we'll look into this which we will but also to try to do something in the meantime and so what we came up with was this proposed mou um that would provide for up to $500 supplement to certain members that are included within the bargaining unit and we've tried to Define which one which groups of those members would be eligible for this $500 supplement would be those members who are enrolled in actively working during the 2425 school year in either an HMO or a PO but not the high deductible Health Plan those members that are part of the high deductible Health Plan the board is already contributing I believe $750 towards a health savings account and so this that's why we did not specifically include them within this group the way that it's drafted now and our our what we tried to convey there with the monthly payments um just so you can understand the concept was if you are an employee on July 1 and you are enrolled in an in an HMO on July 1 and you stay with the district all entirety of your contract through the school year you would receive the full $500 you would receive that monthly amount but you may have members who are hired in January who are only in there for a six-month period of time those would get the same amount as somebody hired at the beginning of the year they just wouldn't be eligible to get up to $500 because it would be however many months they were employed so that's why we kind of broke it out so everybody's getting kind of the same benefit when they're enrolled in the plan regardless of when they start their contract year um and then again our hope would be that we can do a deeper dive into health insurance as a whole so that would be our counter to article three and then I'm sorry 13 I said article three on article three I don't even need to pass it um that was the provision that I believe you had passed across about arbitration and doing a essentially I think a prevailing party arbitration piece um we are not in favor of that I do not have a counter of that um but I have an explanation of why we are not interested in that I I sensed from maybe the comments that um Gary that you had made that you know you went through an arbitration recently and we're prevailing and there should be some skin in the game I think you may have said that but if I'm I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but basically the idea there was more of a reluctance to go to um arbitration if that's a potential outcome of it right a party has to pay the other side's attorney's fees and we talk through that and I think from our perspective that is already built into the contract I mean it already although it's not a prevailing party it the language right now already has both parties going into an arbitration with the understanding it's going to cost both of us so that should be an incentive in and of itself for us to try to fix things here in set of at an arbitration there are some other nuances that I think doesn't make it plausible for instance what is a prevailing party what if the arbitration is over a dozen issues and one party prevails on eight of them and one party prevails on four of them how are we going to go in there and determine who the prevailing party is and we're going to be spending more money to see who gets money and we just thought that that would really just complicate the arbitration process process and and really we think it's already got that um parachute in there that would try to keep us from having to go down that route um so that is our I guess you would say our counter but it's it's really we're just not interested in changing that language to a prevailing party fee well my response to that is is that that's not an issue that I'm I'm willing to sit here and delay getting our our members compensated over but I would just say on the record if that's the position that the school board would like to take then I would encourage them and invite them to move expeditiously with with matters of of grievances as the way they did with with um the salary proposals this year round so if that's the the position then I expect that both parties are going to be fiscally responsible and only take absolute necessary cases to arbitration but I would just want to expedite uh those processes because it just takes an incredibly long time um to resolve grievances in in this in this district and I in my experience it's just been the longest um to to resolve a grievance so that was the spirit but it's not it's not an issue worth worth um going over or or delaying um moving forward in in negotiations so um understood and accepted and then we've got articles to present um we'll start with articles just going order article two thank you we'll pass those out yes I easier thanks give you a minute to look at it before I start talking this time the changes should be lines color coded them starting on line 111 there's a change on 128 yes it's in our binders in session and the so the explanation because I think there's just two sections um on starting on line 111 was to try to incorporate the Lang anguage from the most recent mou on the western Zone to supplant the language that is currently in there um and I I think that kind of speaks for itself the one on line 128 and 129 I think probably requires a little bit more of an explanation behind it and the reasoning of why that's proposed um if you see right now the current language that is stated in there says if we're not able at this table to reach an agreement by July 1st that salary agree salary increases would be paid retroactively and our concern with that is it it doesn't really build in an incentive to move quickly for us at the table I mean and I'm not saying that's our desire or your desire I think your desire is move quickly through salary get it paid out quick I think that's our desire too I think we both mutually recognized this last week and got that done there's been some times I know I was involved last year where it was March April um so one of the reasons we put this in here was it's kind of a forced requirement for us to get this done because nobody wants to get to a point where it's February 2nd and what's in this happens and so it was a way to maybe force a timeline that is more expedited than what is currently in here the other thing too although probably not an impact on mcea but just in transparency as well is that the district is required to report salaries to the state by feary February February 1 so when the numbers for the district are reported to the state it's based on whatever the salaries are is of February 1 so if we haven't resolved then we're pres we have to give the state data that is not consistent with what the salaries actually are that's just a part of it but the main Drive behind this was a desire to really force a more expedited timeline on each other well I can understand and appreciate the the need for the board but I think that in order to find a way to expedite this process we have to be honest with ourselves in what's causing the delays so the real problem is that we can't make decisions in this room the way that we need need to make decisions in this room usually it's the district side that always has to go back to the school board to get their opinion or their response on that and this is completely separate and different from the rest of the negotiations that that I deal with in Indian River and in okobi this is the only one in which an executive session is required after each session so if they're proposing to to put a timeline all the way in February how many executive sessions are they will willing to have in a week because that's what the biggest problem is the holdup is the fact that it has to be an executive session prior to any discussion we have the ability to ask for a caucus just like we did in the first session and come out with a response and Ta on it you guys don't have that luxury so why is the timeline being proposed to us when you guys need the overnight let's bring it back the next session and give you a response we don't have to go to our membership and give you a response all of the decision-making bodies for MCA is right here at the table so I'm not comfortable with talking about moving a timeline because that would insinuate that we're part of the the delay and just like I came here today just as I came last um bargaining session with the intention to finish tonight so if you guys don't have the intention or the ability to finish tonight then I think that that's an internal conversation that you guys have to have to figure out how we can meet those February 1 deadlines cuz I meet a o October 31st deadline in my other two districts um with respect to salaries and I think that we can do the same thing here if we model what's working in those other in those other um counties and that's the school board giving their their parameters and letting you guys be your professional and and talented selves and come up with an agreement and let them vote on it after we come up with the tentative agreement it's like they ratified two times Terry so they ratify after every session to say what they going to agree with what they can't agree with then our folks ratify it during the the normal ratification process and then they ratify it yet again in a school board meeting so what they ratify in the school board meeting they've already agreed to read and contributed to each line that we tentatively agree to already so they're tentatively agreeing to something that they had their hands in the entire time so I respect the need but what what I would say is that we would come to every bargaining session with the spirit to finish on that day so the timeline isn't required for us I think that that's an internal situation that needs to be addressed on the school board side I respect your view of it but what what I think maybe you you may not appreciate on that side is specifically when it comes to salary when there are counter proposals made there are times where you make may make a counter proposal that for whatever reason may involve something that simply this group at the table can't decide because of the potential impact on the district as a whole and that would be really um I think shortsighted of us on our side of the table not to vet that through our um our CEO and if necessary to have an executive session to discuss that so I think that's just a function sometimes is when it comes to the money and how money is doled out and how budgeting is done it may just require more more conversations on our side than it may on your side I can understand and appreciate that too Terry but what this proposal is asking is that our bargaining unit members suffer a financial sacrifice if you guys need all of these extra sessions because we don't need it we don't need it I think that we've demonstrated and displayed in the last bargaining session that if a good deal is on the table we have the ability to call a 20 30-minute caucus consider those conditions and come back with a response so I don't think that it's fair for our targeting unit members to have to sacrifice getting retroactive pay over circumstances that's completely Beyond not only their bargaining unit um bargaining team control but it's out of their control as well we can't make the um School Board give you guys the the ability to make a decision here if if their rule is that you have to take it back that's their rule to take it back but I don't think that our bargaining unit members should suffer a financial loss if we get tied up in in um in a proposal and don't come to a an agreement so what I would say with respect to to that particular portion is that we have to handle that the same way that the board decided to handle ground rules we don't need to memorialize it let's just come to the table with the idea and the focus to get finished before February but I'm not comfortable with memorializing it because if if there's anything that happens that's beyond our control and it extends past February then our our bargaining unit members are going to take the financial loss and and the loss is only with them no one else bears that loss but them and I and and and they're not part of that process so I think that that's completely unfair to to make an agreement where their their money is is solely tied to how fast we finish and and just going over the parameters again we're here to finish like I'm hoping that we finish tonight well I will add this though um I'm not sure every time though that when in the past and I don't want to dwell on the past but it goes into why we proposed this I'm not sure I would agree though that every time sessions have had to be extended and I and I appreciate you've been at the table with this four years Terry years I've been since 22 intermittently mhm and and I would just say in my experience though I I would not agree that every time sessions have had to be extended out over a period of time that it was because the school board wanted to have a say in something well I will respectfully disagree I assumed you would but we've never asked to come back like they don't have anybody we don't have anybody to to throw the stuff around with like they call me Papa Smurf so we going to to these to to these meetings and and it's it's our Council that results in whether or not we agree to uh we agree to language or something like that so it's it's not a requirement I don't need to go to my numbers guy I think that um working with with Mr Morrison over the past um four years we've we've been able to eliminate that part to speed up the process right so just like last week with the way that that the um Excel spreadsheets are are created it greatly reduced the time and eliminated the need for us to bring our finance guy into to crack the numbers etc etc so that part is eliminated everything related to salary because of the talent and the skill set that that you got right here at the table we're we're very easily able to to respond to a counter without having to say all right guys let's end the session and come back so I don't anticipate in this session or any future sessions where we're going to need need to break and come back and give you a response all we're going to be asking for for from this point forward is a couple minutes to caucus and then when we come back with that caucus if we need to create a counter proposal maybe we need to come back but it's just depending on how long you want to want to wait because we could create a proposal back there too and and finish these sessions at at 8 n o' that's our commitment to get it to get it done okay ter Terry I don't want I don't want to beat a dead horse but my my question is why isn't taking care of their employees in a timely manner enough of an incentive for the board to to get deals done in in a reasonable amount of time I think it is I think what motivates this is the desire for both parties at this table through that language to be bound to get this done and I think that's where Gary says I respectfully disagree I would I would and you do too but I I will I will I will disagree with that because um we we are bound um because we're we're not some outside entity that that comes in and negotiates on behalf of 1200 teachers in this District we we are the teachers of this district and we're bound um to to our colleagues to our co-workers to our friends and and our families and we are 150% committed to making sure that our friends and our colleagues um in our classrooms every single day have the best quality of life possible and we come to the table with that goal in mind every single time every single time but I just we don't we don't need a February 1 date to remind us that that that's of who we're fighting for it was just one other point Alec if if you will Alec is um um this is his first year on the bargaining team but he's very been he's been very involved in this process um over the past couple of years but Alex had something you wanted to share um yeah just had a thought wanted to share um in the debate about whose uh fault it is um in regards to this the February 1st um it doesn't matter I I think the point is that there can be no Financial penalty for members of the bargaining unit when it's something out of their control absolutely absolutely so we we went to that one but we didn't discuss um the previous the previous the Western Zone yeah I want to have a a discussion about that real quick so just going just going through through this uh this proposal would make um a western a flat 3100 uh Western Zone supplement as outlined in our appendix B2 the only issue with that is that if we would agree to this then we would have um a certain percentage of our bargaining unit members that would take a financial deficit on this because um they you you do have the the 1375 that they were that they were getting so um with that 1375 in the 2000 that they were getting before that's 3375 and we're asked to to agree to 3100 so how am I going to explain to bargaining unit members that with the stroke of a blue pen they lost $275 I think what you would explain to him is that pen stroke happened in January of 2023 uh would just agree with you know I'm going to disagree with that I know you are I'm not even going to go down that it I mean it says the terms and conditions of this memorandum are meant to supersede supplant and replace all language contained in the CBA contained in article 2.4 Point e so I know there's a we can dispute that but I think our view is January of 2023 it was agreed upon that but that had a Sunset date Terry like I'm I didn't start doing yesterday Terry come on we didou theou has a Sunset date so you can't apply the terms of that for after the sunset date has has taken place so I I mean if that that's what delays this process that that's exactly what delays this process come on man I'm not even going to dwell and spend time on on that one that's an emphatic not with that um where is theou sub Sunset though what do you mean in the language of theou so if the did in Sunset then what's the need for for this I mean we've already incorporated into well the need for this is we have an arbitration over this piece over an argument over this issue and so if you look already I believe in appendix B that $3,100 is already in the CBA as the supplement it's just this language referencing the $3,100 supplement is not in here so I guess it kind of goes back to the pending arbitration that's been filed you've got language in the CBA saying one thing and then anou amending it the theou amending it took place after the grievance was filed on on on the western zone so so the reason why we continued is because when you did file theou the same issue that I'm presenting right here on the microphone still existed that that 3100 still left our grandfathered employees $275 short so if you'd like to make a counter proposal no I would like to keep the language the way that it is that's our counter got anything else before we move on to no I mean and if if that didn't go for wasn't clear for the for the other one for the February 1st that it I just want to reflect for the record that we disagree with that and and we have no appetite to change that that language at the time so if there's a continuance of 300 $3,100 and our members are still getting $275 short and we still have a problem and I'm glad that I know that before we signed anything okay next is article 11 I just need a moment to grab something to all right let just making sure I got all my stuff organized okay if you've all got it in front of you I can move on now start so on article 11 start with line 44 which is personal leave um what our intent here was if you see there the current language that's been struck through the first sentence speaks to uh the idea that personal leave requests shall not be approved for any day immediately preceding or following a paid holiday um we had some discussion about I guess they're not there being some prior disagreement or issues related to what paid holiday means whether that's a Sunday or is that just a paid holiday and what what we got to when we were trying to come up with a way to maybe clear that up and what that meant is we reverted back to the idea that look I if if a principal can manage the workforce and have coverage for classes and make sure that students are taken care of there should be some discretion for the principal to be able to Grant personal leave requests for days immediately preceding paid holidays you know if a paid holiday is a Monday and you want to take Friday off and your principal says I can cover this I won't have an issue doing this then we would give the principal the discretion to be able to do that so our approach to this instead of getting in defining what um paid holiday is or is not we just wanted to go more to an approach of leave it up to the principal to run the school and deal with granting or denying leave requests and not making it restricted the way it was before um or I think I put principal or design just in case somebody else maybe is at the School site the one that might be doing that and then all the way to page page lines 260 to 263 and 289 to 295 which are for the camera just in case article 11.2 paragraphs F and I um they're both stricken through give the X explanation of why I don't think we got to go through that although I'm sure it's not a surprise yeah we will have to go through that um all I would point out to is that the CBA in article G already contains language for leave without pay that's open to all members of the bargaining unit um and based on just the continued issues back and forth on those that was our proposal on on really I and a little bit of f yeah I think that's it on our language proposals well with respect to um to to INF I want to talk about I real quick if if any of my bargaining team um members feel differently feel free to to chime in but we we don't have any interest in in changing it we we have a responsibility as custodians of our collective bargaining agreement to make an assessment when um language is placed in front of us and that assessment is real simp simple does this strengthen our contract or does it weaken our contract and if this is a concern of of the school board let me put on record so it's it's clear we don't have any anticipation or interest in even utilizing this language for the very near future um our president our current president is in the classroom and we're trying the best that we can to to manage everything as it historically was we've we've had two years with our our president on on release time and we don't anticipate this being um an issue moving forward I'm not interested in in in taking any language out and the reason being is because I don't want to professionally be the the first Chief negotiator in the St in in the state to give away president release language that's just a a bad look professionally on on my side if if the board um wants to take it out then we have to figure out they're going to have to figure out a way to take it out without without us um agreeing to to take it out um there's not a plan in place to utilize this um in in the form of of I or in the form of of f um in in the near future so if that's a concern of theirs and and the spot that it puts the district in with with being the pass through and having the liabilities etc etc I'm saying on the record that that's not going to be an issue um for for the very near future um that that I can see so uh I just would would prefer that we keep our language um the [Music] same K can I say something about about I um and and G Gary is correct we we don't have a plan um anytime soon you know to to exercise this this language um but but I I will say this um our our members um deserve and our our teachers not not just our our union members but but all of our teachers um they they do deserve to have somebody dedicated full-time uh fighting for them 100% of the time um they've made that abundantly clear to me over the past year when i' when I've done my my school site visits um and and if they if they wanted um their president to to be released um then then um you know to me striking out this language um is is a is a clear message from from the board um um to to the teachers of this District that that they disagree with that that they don't deserve to have somebody fighting for them um and uh and I I I think that that's a real shame um because again I think it comes down to to a misconception um of who we are sitting sitting at this table um we are we are not some outside entity who who wants to fight um you know and and pick fights on things and make everybody's life miserable we don't want that our sole purpose is just the opposite to we will fight but our goal is to do what's best for our members and we are committed to that 100% of the time and if nothing else at least the president's lead language memorializes the fact that should our members want to have somebody outside of the classroom fighting for them full-time they deserve the right to have that and and just in in closing I would rather have it in place and not use it than to to eliminate it and then have a fight to get it back um boards change all the time right boards change philosophies change and I would rather have it in here and and if there's a need in the future to revisit the possibilities of of exercising this language we won't have to fight to get it back in the contract and then um ask to exercise that right so with all due respect I just think that we we would want to keep that language um the same for not just um president theal but for future presidents that takes on this huge responsibility of of leading this organization so I I'll say um one piece to that though there's nothing about striking this language that expresses the board's desire to prevent mcea from having a president serve in a full-time capacity you can do it you're doing it right now if this language was gone mcea can still have somebody in a full-time capacity doing that um and so no I I don't think striking the language is a function of the board at all trying to prohibit mcea from having somebody sit in that role I think the issue this this language over the last two two years has caused more grief at this table than a lot of other issues that we've had and it's language that applies to one person I think it might be the only thing in the entire collective bargaining agreement that gives special leave rights to a single person and when you implement that leave as an as as a school district it's for an employee to not work for you but to go work somewhere else they the employee can already do that you're you are working on behalf of another organization when you take presidential leave you are mcea yeah well I would disagree with I'm almost done I'm almost done and I understand that working on behalf of teachers is working on behalf of the district I understand that but there's a reason it's called leave and that means you're left out of your current position to go work in a different position all of that can still happen you can still have somebody lead that I think from the board's perspective though is having to Grant leave to a teacher one single person and then have to be the Fiscal Agent and be responsible for ensuring insurance coverage for that and a lot of the other things that go along with it it's better left out particularly when it would not otherwise prohibit mcea in any way from having someone in that role and and I can understand and appreciate that um perspective but the reality is is that this idea isn't mutually exclusive to Martin County this practice and I've said it on record numerous times I've sat in this position all all around the country negotiating contracts do you know how common a full-time released president is like it's not a foreign concept this isn't something that's mutually exclusive to Martin County this is a practice yesterday I was watching um the the news and it was a rally at at um UAW and the president is right there do you think that that president is is putting windshield wipers on cars during the day he's dedicated 100% to doing the work of that organization so in in the way that he remains a part of the bargaining unit because you can't be a president and not be in a bargaining unit that would be a violation of the Constitution and bylaws of every organization so in order to hold a position you have to be a bargaining unit member so I understand and appreciate it when we had these discussions I provided um copies of of at least two dozen other distri in the state that is exercising the same practice so I understand that that they have a problem with it our response to that is it shouldn't be a problem anymore because we don't have any intention on exercising that language in our contract in the near future I hope that that answer is good enough to um satisfy the the school board but asking us to take language out to to weaken um our contract is is a non-starter it we can only come to tent of agreement if both sides can see the mutual benefit of agreeing to it this only benefits one side so we we're not going to be able to give you a tentative agreement if that agreement isn't beneficially Mutual it's only a mutual to to the school board so I have a responsibility to say that on record that that suggestion weakens our contract and I I can't in in the right professional mindset to to agre agree to it I would have to respectfully ask to leave it as as is and give the school board um uh an opportunity to understand that it's it's not a a risk they don't have to worry about those concerns um we're we have our our president in the classroom and we're we're figuring out how to make it happen U to to benefit our our bargaining unit members um moving forward like like we have historically and Terry I think the fact that you that you think that this only applies to to one person um shows that that maybe maybe you didn't quite hear what what it was that that I was saying before um but but that's okay um I I think that that if if the concern is that this only applies to one individual in one individual role um you know as Gary said th this is common practice in many other counties there it's also common practice in a lot of those counties to allow for other executive board members to to be on leave as well so this doesn't just have to apply to one person in in one position I think that was all we had on that article but we do I think we'd like to pass these now I didn't know know how much time we'd have but we do have I think I'd mentioned there were a couple M I wanted to pass along as well this one we did the first one let's go this one first the one that's already signed yeah and I'm sure I'll let Carter take sure so take as everyone is aware or maybe aware I should probably say that we received our um allocations of Esser and ARP American Rescue plan monies um and those funds expire in September of this year about a month or month and a half away um unfortunately with the best planning that we did um over the summer we have an existing mou that was signed uh looks like October of 2022 which allowed us to pay our members $50 an hour for um summer school instruction um the way we read theou we believe that thatou will allow us to continue um my legal council has looked at the language and interpreted that what we would like to do uh for the school year through September 30 is to continue that um after school instruction um I'll kind of turn this over to Dan a little bit to talk about I know they're focusing on the middle schools and High School Credit Recovery pieces that they would like to pay your me continue to pay your members the $50 an hour on until um those funds are pretty much exhausted okay um another did you pass that one around so another that we have which would be a yeah that's that's existing one correct so we have another one did you pass on the extended one okay and I think with that is is really it's it's not a signature but it's is a more of a question is is your understanding that the same as ours we could continue on with the same yeah so in paragraph two mhm where it says this applies only to summer school and tutoring positions that are fully 100% funded through Esser Etc we believe that that language where it says and tutoring positions right allows us to yeah continue with that I I would share that same interpretation okay so the next mou I believe that is on its way around to you so same concept except that we um for those who may have been following the school board meetings the school board is desirous to have an instructional component in the extended day after school program so again what we're trying to do is utilize um the These funds that are left over from the covid dollars that expire in September however this one has a little bit of a difference so the compensation which is on lines 17 through 19 would be for $50 an hour gross before taxes for those who participate in the program however what we wanted to provide those teachers is a waiver for the tuition and the materials as an and as an as an added added incentive now the funds that we have we know expire that's the period of availability that's the Federal grant it expires on September 30 so what we've done is that we we did the math and say okay it looks like we're able to provide that incentive of the waiver um through September 27th excluding the week of this week I believe the the the thought process behind that I believe there was an announcement made already that this week would be waved anyway um the items that we're waving is the registration $8 per child enrolled the materials fee of $25 per child enroll and the tuition piece that gets you up to $55 per week per child enrolled so in plain English what that means is if you're a teacher and you're teaching in the program your CH and you have your child who goes to extended day then all these items that we listed here will be waved in Lang in section 32 through 35 what we've done is said okay we're going to give first priority to those teachers who are teaching in the program well we may have money left so if we have money left we're going to then go into your mbus who do not work in the program to also give them an opportunity to participate in the waiver of the up up to the maximum of the $55 per week per child enrolled so um outside of this agreement again this only covers the time period that the covid dollars are are are alive but I will say on record that we are working towards a situation where hopefully we can extend that for the remainder of the year but this I think is a good start um to get us along that road so that we ask for your consideration of thatou um for in order for us to utilize the covid funds extend the current one that we have and then also identify the um the ones for extended day um a question that you have not asked me what I'll answer anyway is that we are working with our asme leadership all also to provide after school busing um so that their members can also uh receive some money in their pockets as well so we'll be negotiating that and we've actually reached out to them and started having some conversations about that understood thank you thank you my computer so we'll we'll definitely um take this proposal into uh consideration when we go into our our caucus but again the the same the same responsibility um is is considered with respect to this we go in there and we decide whether or not this is beneficial and strengthens our our um contract or it's a detriment and I think that this one is is is a little bit obvious but we'll take the the due diligence to go through it make sure all of our teams questions are answered and we should be able to give you a response to this um this evening thank you before um I know we have we have a proposal to make but I would like to ask one clarifying question for um consider ation when we do go into our caucus to speak about the district's proposal on um counter Proposal with insurance theou yes please so my question is and I'm I'm not going to pretend to be a a subject matter expert on anything Insurance related um I just think that that's the beautiful part about um collaboration is that that um you don't have to force yourself to be the smartest man in the room when the collection of thoughts in the room makes the entire room intelligent so the question that I have or um the clarification that I would like to to um dive into is the board received our in our insurance uh proposal and we were reaching for the skies to to try to to fix the problem with respect to the the need for subsidies to offset some of these increasing costs my very simple question and um Don I know that you're the man when it comes to this stuff so I'm this question may be directly to to you um the supplement amounts that are are um presented in this proposal does that solve the problem so that we will no longer need subsidies moving forward to offset the increases well I don't have a crystal ball so um you know what we can tell you is that you know industry standard Across the Nation is medical costs increase 10% per year so obviously you know it's it's a national problem I what we're experiencing here is no different than if you were anywhere else private sector or public sector um like Terry said you know the $500 I think the way I can't speak for the board but I think their rational is is a couple of things one um if you combine the $500 with the 65 $100 that the curent the board is currently providing towards medical insurance that's it's $7,000 total for this year then also if you recall um in the spring um the board used some Co and Esser monies um left over um Mr Carter Morrison can um give me the exact amount but it was about $800 million right but per employee $820 yeah it's $820 so every single employee received um a one-time uh stien of $820 and if you go back to the March 19th uh board meeting where the board uh renewed the insurance um for the district that that money the purpose of it and the intent was to go towards the increase in medical insurance for this year so um I think the board is exhausting every single thing that they can can do for right now for the 24 25 year that we're in if you take a look at the $500 plus the 820 you know that's 00 the board is is contributing on top of the 6,500 for this year to you know I I I I get it insurance is expensive right so so I I understand the the 6,500 and and adding that five would increased it to seven but I think the issue that we identified was a little bit further down in the original language where where it's multiplied the um 6500 time 2 gave us 13,000 and that was this the shortfall where we wanted to increase it so because um 13,000 wasn't enough so with the 13,000 and then this mou how does that how does this mou affect that group for for the 13,000 piece because I think the the folks that were at the 6,500 that wasn't the primary um that wasn't the major issue the major issue was was those that felt fell in that that um second group I think it was what was the the group specific gr those folks that were enrolled prior prior to 71 2020 exactly so um this this supplement would also um would go towards those employees prior the employees that are on the employee plus family prior to 71220 they would receive this as well the HMO the HMO and and just for clarification purposes I know um Mr Harmon um described this earlier but um the reason why the high deductible Health Plan is included is that they're getting an additional $750 towards the health savings account whereas those enrolled in the HMO po are not so wasn't the additional for the high deductible the $750 to get people to switch over to that plan wasn't that the incentive for the board doing it that's that was the discussion that was had if they could offer some money more people would switch over people on high deductible plans are also paying a lot of money per visit per doctor out of pocket right so that's the that's the definition of the high high deductible plan right so you got to reached right so um I think what the board has done additionally as well is that they they are very committed in offering a free employee only benefit package to our employees so the board is contributing actually above and beyond the $6,500 to offer that high deductible Health Plan um at zero cost so I mean you know there something has to be done long term here I think we all we all know that but um you know we've had an increase enrollment in that high deductible Health Plan I mean when we're out there talking to our teachers especially during Neo last week I mean the fact that we're able to offer a no cost benefit package including medical insurance that is something that none of our neighboring districts can offer even come close to whether you're in St Lucy or Palm Beach County so um and and we we we do a lot of Education to our employees to to make sure they're in the right plan not just because it's free but it's going to work for them so um to answer your question uh yes employees on that employee plus family prior to 7120 would would have access to this as well um and I think uh Matt what you had talked about um you know the board each year for the last four years has put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars um for that employee plus family prior 7120 I think the amount for this year is 323,000 so um you know they they are putting they're contributing above and beyond the 6,500 each year so this is just another way that they're doing that but no and yeah we we we acknowledge that and well I it was my if let me rephrase it was my intention to acknowledge that in in my remark uh last week if I if I didn't make it clear that that we appreciate that that contribution for sure and and as Gary pointed out Our intention of of increasing that second amount you know that higher than than that was to eliminate the need for them to keep having to go back and and do that again and again and again um this may it may be it may be premature um but but um Don are you thinking that that the insurance committee is the vehical or the the the place where we can start to have discussions on what a collaboration between the district and and the employees you know side kind of looks like yeah I mean I I think that we've always done that whether it was Julie leading it or myself the last two years I mean I think it it does lend itself I mean that's the point of the committee and you know the point of the insurance committee is not to um use it as a bargaining session to talk about you know what does it look like if the board contributes 7,000 or 7500 I mean you know we work within the confines of what we're able to do we are an advisory committee um I do think there's some value in that um but you know at the end of the day you know whether it's a board Workshop or you know whatever um those type of discussions that are greater than what we can accomplish there need to occur and welcome to be part of it as well as you and ask as well absolutely Don thank you I appreciate it didn't mean to put you on the spot but working with you for about two years I know that you're highly capable to answer these questions thank you so much much he didn't he didn't even break a sweat not a sweat thanks so much so I think we'll move forward with um the supplement proposal uh we can pass that around and then um have a conversation and then we can proceed to go into our caucuses okay thank you I'm I'm going to apologize in advance the uh the copy guy forgot to hit the color copy button on ours so it was me I'm the problem make sure you it um we're moving forward with the extended dayou to bring over M we'll discuss it in caucus we should have a response for you before we leave here tonight so what did I want to clarify what you just said was which supplement did you want ahead and pass around for Signature oh um no I was asking them to pass around yeah our propos do I need to clarify not of a lot of cells so um in a in a similar light to to the insurance discussion um our our supplements here in the district um haven't been updated in in more than a decade either um and you know there are some things like the insurance piece that aren't unique just to Martin County we know that costs are going up all over the place and and the reality of the situation is that um we we have teachers working to two three four jobs you know just just to make ends meet um you know and I I I think to to illustrate that point I think it was uh uh Carter's presentation during during one of the school board um during one of the school board meetings talking about how teachers can earn additional income by doing additional jobs in in the district um you know so so in that light um our our proposal is to to increase the amounts um of the supplements for both instructional and for for athletics I I wouldn't say all most supplements um for instructional and and Athletics um by 25% um to to give you guys a little bit of context and again I know that amount seems High um but when these amounts were fixed they were fixed when teachers salaries were $37,000 we came to an agreement last time one session um to raise starting teacher salaries to 51 you know 30 34 um that's a 27% increase from from 37,000 um so so we're asking for our supplements to be adjusted accordingly um that's that was that was the thought process behind those numbers um I did want to point out a couple of things um the maybe it's a little bit of wishful thinking on our part but the S the supplements on the in the middle column that are struck through that that that included a range um we eliminated the range and moved to to One Flat amount for for that um that was based on the the higher amount on on the Range um of course don't ask don't get right I mean come on um so um that's that's where that stood um I think if you guys look on page two um the star and the critical shortage uh supplement um my understanding based on our conversations um last year uh that those amounts are not set by the school board um that the critical shortage piece is a component that that is dictated by the state no oh I'm pretty sure that's what you guys told us last last year the school is dictated by the state only Indiantown Middle School is a critical shortage school and that is in provided even again this year in the agenda item when the board agreed to do a critical shortage for IMS again year we produced the doe documents attached to that board agenda item okay so that is the school and then um in the critical shortage inside the contract it is strictly at the board's discretion um what the amount is and um when they determine it but at this point in time we the board has gone with the FLD Doe's designation of IMS only and they regrafted that language based on comments and uh asks from your constructional members they changed it this year for 2425 okay I app I appreciate that that I that seems different than what we talked about when we were doing the SLP discussion last year but that that's okay so talking about the slps I just noticed that too um not sure the ink is even dry on the agreement yet and is it's your what was your thought process on going to 6250 well again um you know we're we're appreciative of of the fact that that the board was willing to to Grant this supplement um but uh we we did the math uh last year in in preparation for that and um you know 5,000 while while significantly greater than what it was um still doesn't still doesn't make it competitive with with some of our surrounding counties so the idea was um you know to to increase it to make it just a little bit more competitive and a little bit closer to to what some of those other folks are getting because I know some of our other other counties they're getting 10 maybe $15,000 or more um also have you guys put a cost to your proposal um we did not um but it wasn't for lack of trying um we we intended we intended to do this as part of last year's negotiations um and we submitted the public records request that's right the the appropriate public records request um specifically asking for that and um those amounts were not included in in that public records request in the information that we received okay um so so it again it wasn't wasn't for lack of trying okay um but yeah we we definitely thought about that for sure um and the other point that I wanted to make um with the exception of maybe the the the strike through at at the top of where it says B2 negotiated instructional supplements um and then the strike through for for the description of of B3 athletic supplements um we are not altering I I this format is reflective of what's in the contract but we did not not include the the descriptions of the supplements that are actually in the contract so we're not we're not asking to change any of the the other language that that's in there um I would have included that page for page um but uh formatting formatting proved to be a little bit challenging for for somebody like me who's not super techsavvy but to show you what I mean I think it's page 71 and 72 in the contract right oh so all the other language remains is just correct we're not we're not adjusting it we're just we just made adjustments to the to the Chart correct can I ask for clarification um I'm not certain what the director of student affairs is and if there's anybody currently that's in that position as a supplement holding that do do anybody on the other side of the see I am not aware I um you know I'm I'm sure I I know when we when uh the superintendent U would chose to to make payments to the folks um doing the the virtual schools they he he took those supplements from the computer resource section because those supplements were being unused so that may be a situation like like that um thank you yeah that that's that's that's the extent of our supplement proposal yes on to caucus come back how long would you like let's start with 30 minutes if if um it's longer than 30 then I'll text you I'll let you 6:13 I'm I'm gonna it's Friday I'm gonna wave I'm gonna wave I'm going to wave that rule today you're standing between me and happy hour 616 615 my my OCD doesn't work out for ready yep we back all right so um we're back on the record so I appreciate the opportunity to to caucus truly do does give us opportunity to do some of this this work so I have a couple of of um responses um I want to start with the American Rescue plan fun incentive for supplemental tutoring and extended day program mou we're inclined to tentatively agree to this proposal however there are a couple of clarifying questions with respect to the program solely in the spirit of being able to uh correctly articulate this to members of the bargaining unit who may have questions so I'm going to open it up to our bargaining team members who have um in questions and concerns with the way that this program will be implemented Sue do you want to go first okay so um the the last line the we know the funds expire on September 30th grade and then it's the or if when they are depleted prior to this date here's my question someone being hired for this program um they need to know like from start to finish how much they're going to make because it's not found money typically it's needed money so like a hey I took on the tutoring and now I can afford to buy that so will we be able to to like ensure that heyy you're taking this on and you're going to get paid $50 an hour for the next four weeks or is it going to be a sudden oh the money run out if you work you get paid that's obious go okay so the money's not going to run out suddenly and it's we're we've we've done the math and we think we're good through September 27th okay so if you once you're hired on and you're working you will get you're getting paid okay and that's clearly articulated to the folks out high that it they're they're getting hired at least through September 27th okay okay and and then um another question that came from the team was um do we know what what the selection criteria looks like to F for folks who participate or is that that's a Troy question to be honest with you not quite sure that's I can share um it'll be okay yeah and so obviously certified teachers and so we're taking kind of three-pronged approach and so um part of it's going to be credit recovery for students that are credit deficient part of it will be test prep act CLT boot camp um and then the other part is going be front loading and tuning for our students that are behind or deficient but are not credit behind um so those kids can have a better start to the year and so obviously the focus initially is going to be you know certification English language arts math um to focus on those test prep pieces and those Credit Recovery pieces but they don't have to be certified in the area to produce it and so really we're looking at what teachers we have available um we're hoping that you know we have enough to fill the spots that we have understood okay thank you and then I was just going to Echo that we would have to be an internal posting um and principles would have to interview for the position and to Susan's question um the principal would get a set budget amount for tutoring so when I was the principal I would know I could offer you up to three hours per week um times four weeks so okay um it just looked like there could change you know I would cost as much money because I don't have an extended day somebody else it's a is a more expensive higher so that changes so they would Bud the way I if I if I remember correctly sorry P if I remember correctly I believe it was 10 per site in the regular school year and four per site I believe for the extended day something like that so my question just from based on what you say because we're talking extended day but it sounds like credit recovery and making up classes more middle school and high school so does that mean the middle school and high school positions would allow those teachers to put because they don't have extended day there right that's just elementary school so that would allow those teachers taking those positions to put their students if they had Elementary age students into extended day I'm not sure I understand your question so if a middle school or a high school I I don't know where extended Day falls the extend we're thinking the extended day program so are we so the extended day program is only for elementary school students so if the tutoring is going on in a middle or a high school are they elig where does the extended day come in that's a good question I don't have the answer to that so and yeah and let me let me attempt to make a PO answer so if you are teaching in the extended day program then eligible for the waiver once you get your first prior you're the first priority so after the first priority is done if you are a a member of the bargaining unit and you have a child in extended day but yeah you're tutoring over here in Middle SCH your W your waiver is that line 34 okay okay you follow me now yeah I did but that's because we were thinking more of like on the elementary level of extended day and teach the idea is at the end of the day that all mbus would have access to the waver okay see what I'm saying but we want to make sure that those who are teaching in the program because it doesn't make sense for me to be teaching in the program and my child I don't have access to the waiver so we're giving you first preference then the money that's left then your situation if I'm tutoring a middle school but I got my kid my child in extended day then you are covered under line 34 okay follow what I'm saying okay I won't speak to the money or financial aspect of it but I will clarify that there are two initiatives going on from my understanding which is there will be tutoring going on in extended day programs and tutoring going on at the secondary level for the credit recovery and all those other pieces because we as a district are looking to put a focus on some academic and instructional components in the extended day program for the kids who attend so it's tutoring throughout Mak sense okay I I just there sounds like there might be a lot of moving parts to this and I think from from our side we would just ask that that whatever is presented to to the members um you know or to to teachers be be clearly articulated because it does seem like there's some fluidity there that folks are going to be concerned about yeah I think only learned about it maybe yesterday so I would expect a communication next week from each site that has the budget and the process okay thank you appreciate appreciate that yeah you guys are good to sign off on it all right yeah so we can do it we can um sign a tentative agreement on that yeah that's the right one this is the right one yeah can you thank you I'll sign it out to you all right all right so moving moving on the next the next thing uh we want to discuss is article 11 the provisions um just on on the surface um MCA doesn't have an appetite for the for the recommended changes in article 11 um I want to start with the personal leave proposal so the problem that we have and again I I just want to keep reiterating this so that um our responsibility as as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for bargaining unit members and well members of the bargaining unit uh thank you Carter for that realizing that that other way acronym spells out bums we don't use that anymore so we don't use that term as members of the bargaining unit um the issue that we have is is that we have to make a determination on whether the recommended change benefits our bargaining unit members or it makes their situation a little bit more complicated than the original language um had it so with respect to personal leave the concerns that we have with respect to the personal leave is that the approval or denial of requests for personal leave shall be based on the requirement of efficient operations of the district school system so this creates a a hurdle or a barrier for getting your excuse me personal days approved where it didn't exist prior to and then the second part of it says as well as considerations of what is fair to the employee so the employee is not involved in the decision- making of what is considered Fair that's solely determined by the person who is granting the personal leave uh request that premise weakens the language that is initially in place because the original language only has a few parameters and that's that you can't take a day off immediately proceeding or following a paid holiday so um we lose that language and then we gain language that has two additional know hurdles or parameters in it and then for that reason we would make a determination that this proposal would make our personal leave language um less beneficial for the bargaining unit members and more beneficial for um principles um we need to work diligently to make sure that our bargaining our members of the bargaining unit can take the opportunity to exercise the benefit and the right of personal leave that's afforded to them without um disrupting the operation of the district and um the shortage of substitutes and um the amount of people that we can recruit in into positions uh shouldn't have a the ability on a person to um take personal leave to go see their child graduate from from college or from a trade school or to to um go to a n's wedding or what have you so I I just think that agreeing to this language makes that right a little bit more complicated and 100% solely based on whether or not that school sight administer administrator would grant them the right to do so and it's going to be based on um efficient operations of the district and what's fair to the to the employee where one person is making that determination of what's what's fair so it's with that understanding that we would respectfully say that we believe the original language is more beneficial to our bargaining unit members versus changing to the suggested language that was proposed by the school board G I'm sorry to interrupting I just thought of something too um you know the the initial question or the initial or when it was initially proposed um you had said that there was um a continuing question of whether or not you can take a day off before or after um there's the I think that's largely been addressed because the district provided and we we passed it out to all of our faculty Reps for our faculty rep meeting um there's a a a district sheet that has the paid holiday on it and then on the left hand side is the preceding date and on the right hand side is the following date and it very clearly says which days you can and and and can't take off um and I I think that answers that point you know as well so so moving along through the article I think that in the initial presentation of of article 11 we we had a fairly um large amount of discussion on why we object to changes to F and I and I don't think that it's it's it's um a good being a good custodian of our of our time to rehash that yet again I think that we we made that a little bit clear in the first um when it was presented so in summary the MCA doesn't have an appetite for the recommended changes solely because those recommended changes makes our contract uh a little bit weaker and um as custodians of our of our contract and obligation to make sure that we're not giving benefits away it would be very very difficult to agree to that to those changes and um in article 11 moving on to article two article two I think we have um some areas to to work so um in the in the presence of of Tom I know that we don't have um a bargaining session scheduled for next week our next bargaining session is scheduled for 8:22 we have one for next week 15 okay 815 we have one for the 15th I don't have an invite for that yeah I don't I don't have an invite for that one when we get through bargaining we'll go off record and talk about schedule if that's okay yeah that's perfect that's perfect yeah I think I was skipped on it we'll check it I think I got 29th right I thought that was conflict we'll we'll we can Circle back on scheduling we'll figure it out so we'll bring we'll bring uh that back on next bargaining session a response to to the article two the article two proposals we'll bring a response to that in the next session and um the the truth holds holds um for the memorandum of understanding with respect to the medical insurance supplement we just want to take a little bit more time to Crunch to Crunch those um those those numbers so we'll be prepared to bring Article 2 and a memorandum of understanding for the medical insurance supplement on our on bargaining session on number nine I think that just leaves us with the supplement I think so and I think we're similar to theou that you just stated for the medical insurance just because of you know it's a pretty substantial proposal we do need time to go through that and and that by by all means that's that's completely understandable we know that that's a lot to to answer to in one session so that that's completely understandable and and and you know the other point too is that you know I think I think we're open to a discussion and a dialogue on that moving forward you know it doesn't have to be an all or nothing dialog on the NOP nothing else on our end to present I guess at this point all right so I think unless you do we could close and shut down and then maybe circle around and chat scheduled for anybody who doesn't want to hang out doesn't have to I don't know why I didn't get that one the um 14th one 15 yeah 15th I'm sorry 14 13 12