##VIDEO ID:GzizxM7PSLc## all right can everybody hear me all right hey everyone my name is Jeff sler I'm Council for the school district it's a pleasure to be here uh in person with y'all today I think I've attended one of these bargaining sessions earlier but I might have been the the man from Oz on that one up on the up on the screen there so it's nice to be in here person with y'all it's nice to meet y'all in person uh it's a pleasure to be here today so I'll just uh start with introductions and I'll let our team introduce ourselves I've already gone so I'll start over here on my left Julie cessa assistant superintendent Human Resources card Morris assistant superintendent of Finance good evening Kathy josi director of student services good evening Lisa Estes assistant superintendent of student Support Services hi Don Calderone director of risk management and employee benefits good evening Jeff Raymond director of talent acquisition and HR operations our College coordinator Martin County Schools happy holidays everybody pad Holtz MCA Susan Rayo MCA Alec McIntyre MCA Gary Simmons Chief negotiator for mcea from FAA Matt theal president mcea Lonnie B mcea and Kim love mcea and if yall allow me I just want to say a few uh quick words to get us going and then certainly I'll turn it over over to to you Gary and your team uh you know I've I've talked to Terry I know he's been here bargaining with you throughout the the process and I've I've watched uh some of the bargaining videos and certainly got with our team and certainly seems like uh a lot of good work's been done uh and we're here again to kind of uh discuss the issues and see if we can come to a resolution on what we're we're at loggerheads on and uh you know I don't want to go through all the nitty-gritty of the of the last offers I I've understand the the Union's uh last offers the option one the option two and the option three um with option one being uh and you know you'll for you'll forgive me if I'm I don't get it exactly right but 275 to uh the Western Zone folks and grandfather Western Zone folks grandfather Western Zone folks and then 1% across supplements option two being the 75 to everyone uh there in Western Zone uh my understanding is we've come back the board came back with a salary proposal um to distribute that 28,000 or so uh in the raise pool to everybody across the the bargaining unit and I understand certainly that the the the district has uh made it known that supplements are something that we could look at and kind of have an intentional look at and Cly go through the bargaining process uh process on that obviously we're we're at in pass uh right now and I think from our perspective um you know we're here again to to to talk and see if we can come to a resolution on these issues and and get closure on the contract and it's our expectation um that you know you know you all would have some type of counter to that last proposal that we had today um in terms of the distribution of the 28,000 on salary to folks uh um throughout the bargaining unit uh I know we're we're at loggerheads on some language issues too and I think you know the Western Zone issue is kind of tied into the supplement issue I think You' probably agree with with me on that area a little bit you know they're kind of it's a supplement right but and there's a language issue that's a component of that so that's something to work through as well I will say though that as part of this also we are uh at issue uh we do have an issue we do have a dispute we have kind of a again at Lo at logger heads on the on the leave Provisions that we've proposed uh in article 11 uh related to presidential leave I believe our last proposal and that was session 12 Julie we sent over we had a couple of Provisions struck and uh you know my understanding is there hasn't been a lot of discussion on that uh we'd like your all your thoughts on that we'd like if you have some proposed language for us to consider if you have some discussion points for us to consider on that and I understand the Union's position well I understand it to be the Union's position that that issue that language issue that we've proposed to you all is a permissive subject of bargaining and I think you know from from our perspective I'd like to understand maybe a a little bit more of why y'all feel that to be the case why y'all feel that to be a permissive subject of bargaining um if you could share that with me you know i' I'd appreciate knowing why the union takes the position that um that's not something that needs to be discussed and I'll turn it over to y'all um and I appreciate you listening to my my Spiel and again it's a it's good to be here and good to see you all in person thank you so much cheff um I want to tackle the the um open items from the district's perspective um first so when we're when we're talking about the president's release language we're talking about language that has been in a collective bargaining agreement for over three decades um in those three decades the organization has expressed an interest to utilize the language that was negotiated and in our contract for over three decades two times in those 30 plus years um we've made it incredibly clear at the beginning of the bargaining session that we had no interest or or desire to explore pulling out any of our our leaders on leave um anytime in in the near in the near future with respect to it our position of it being a permissive uh subject of of bargaining our position is is born from the reality that this language is affecting one person out of the entire bargaining unit and um this is coming freshly off of of an arbitration decision and which was beneficial to our bargaining unit members um highlighting that mca's interpretation of the way that that language should be implemented was correct and this is a um a process in which we still we win but we still lose because the board wants to take it away from us despite the fact that we were successful in our interpretation in the um arbitration case so we don't see um why that there there's an immediate need to remove that language um we've had discussion the board isn't interested in in a modified version of of the the leave language it's remove the president's leave option and move the option of someone to take a year to to work for the association or to run for um a public office and I just think that that's very very unfair that our board is taking a position that none of the employees in this County can utilize the language that we've negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement if they have aspirations to run for a political um position so I just think that that's not an immediate priority it's not a um an action that that we've decided to act upon so we don't understand why why it's a an issue that's still open on on the table the second issue that that we have I believe that first first your um your summary of of the Labor's position that was was pretty much on on point I don't have any any um corrections to make on on that one the option one is as you explained 275 to 20 of our um grandfathered employees with the 1% increase to everyone else and then the second option was born out of the discussion of having a harmonious Western Zone supplement so that's where where um our option two came from now and option three is obviously the the impass proceedings on November 18th we had an opportunity to have a pre-mass conference uh just to explore the issues that were still on the table and and one of the things that I know everyone else wasn't there but um myself Matt Julian and Terry were present and one of the things that the magistrate said in that in that hearing that um I know definitely our side pondered from the no November 18th to the present he said and I I want to try to get it um as verbatim as possible but he said that I believe that both parties have the recipe to make an agreement and avoid impath Julie do you recall him saying that in that here we recall something similar but not the word recipe hard work yeah the yeah we we've done the hard work it everything was in place to make an make an agreement so I'm summarizing what he said and that made MCA go back and look at at our proposals and and the last proposal that um that the district made and what we wanted to we don't believe that utilizing the remaining money in the raise pool to just increase the across the board raises um is a very very beneficial usage of of of that money and it made us look at at what one of the the um subjects that we were initially trying trying to to iron out and MCA believes that if if we're not going to utilize or the the board isn't doesn't um have an appetite to utilize the remaining money in that raise pool to address supplements or address um the Western Zone situation then why don't we utilize the rest of that money to soften the blow on um health insurance on a health insurance uh supplement when we look at the the chart for um the health insurance supplement when we agreed to the $600 um medical $600 Insurance supplement we still had a couple of groups that has over $1,000 um as a net increase to to the employee specifically under the HMO plan the employee plus family still $1,387 um cents that's uh tabbed as the net in increase to the employee with a per paycheck increase of $432 and then the two Martin County School Board employees plus family has um a similar amount $138.99 so what we wanted to to look at and can I steal this for one second this was this is the Char refer I'm looking at Don to see if he has yeah I have the spreadsheet do you okay great Carter has it so we wanted to take a look at at that to see how we can utilize the money in the raise pool and soften up that net increase yes please thank you so much to soften that net increase to some of our our employees do you have um the employee plus spouse employee plus children they still have over a $500 net increase the employee plus spouse is almost $600 a $600 net increase so what we did was we wanted to see if if a discussion could be had about focusing that money into into um the insurance now this is just the framework of of what we were able to figure out that was fiscally responsible and it fell in line with the amount of of money in the raise pool so what we what this plan what this proposal is is um stating is that the grandfathered employees and the HMO and the ppos um their their medical insurance supplement would remain $600 uh it'll be 615 to those rolled in HMO e only and the reason why is because that's the bulk majority of of um the employees that fall into that into that bracket they utilized a vast majority of of the money but we we didn't want to leave them out as well although 91% of of of the net increase to them is is covered so we did give um $15 more to to the individuals in that group but then it's 40 a $40 increase from 600 to 640 to the remaining plans in HMO that's the employee plus spouse employee plus children and um the employee plus family in addition to the m two Martin County school board members plus family and then 640 to all of the PO plans now again this isn't this is a a framework just to initiate the discussion on what that would would look like the financial cost to increase this would be $2,460 and with 28,3 $3.33 remaining in a raise pool we can um pay for this increase with that money in the raise pool in its entirety now not saying this exact version of this proposal this is what it would look like if the board is interested or has an appetite to discuss to discuss the shift this money towards um putting two Band-Aids on or doubling up the Band-Aid that we put on insurance and the in the um third or fourth uh session in in bargaining so this is what this would look like if if we shift our our um attention to the medical insurance supplement that would result in MCA pulling option one and pulling option two off of the table if we can come to an agreement on a framework of an insurance supplement increase and we can get an agreement signed off by the end of business tomorrow then mcea would be willing and able to begin the ratification process by starting to post these um tentative agreements at our school sites starting on Friday no later than Monday and those tentative agreements could remain posted Monday through Thursday and a ratification for these proposals can take place on Thursday or Thursday or Friday thus satisfying the results of the ratification to give the school board and the superintendent the results of said ratification prior to the end of business next Friday before we go into the winter break so that's what we're proposing to not just blanketly accept this but just to shift the conversation to funnel that money from the supplements agree to fight for supplements on another day and to increase the medical insurance supplements the I think the benefit for shifting to the medical insurance supplement is that we have a little bit more time to figure out the logistics of it being that this medical insurance supplement will be um eligible for the members in a bargaining unit during the first payroll payroll processing period after March 1st of of 2025 so this isn't an immediate payout we can still flesh out and have time to figure out the logistics the logistics of of said payment and we just believe that this is a better usage of the money just by giving everyone in addition of $23 in um in the across the board raises I think we had an opportunity to do that uh when it was initially discussed and uh we just agreed to that the remaining amount wasn't significant enough to to Warrant exhausting all of the money in the raise pool just in across the board raises insurance is a very very um Hot Topic it touches a lot of our not just our members but the members in ask me as as well and we believe that this is a a happy medium we put a proposal forward for Western Zone and supplements the district put forward a proposal to increase across the board I think that that this proposal lands right there in the middle it takes care of a need and I think that it's a need that both of us have agreed upon that needed to be addressed at the very beginning of this bargaining session so at this particular time if there's not any questions uh if there's any questions we'll be more than happy to entertain those questions but um the the long and short of it is is that MCA is is making this proposal to shift the attention from supplements and Western Zone and shift towards um making our our insurance agreement just a little bit more stronger and um lessen the impact of the net increase to still a nice sum of our our bargaining unit members just to clarify something in the handout this is the spreadsheet that was passed around with this that's it this is everybody in the pool including AB me everybody in the district I think we may have the breakdown for your bargaining separately so we have to right so verify being able to give you the cost out m without having them without having our bargaining unit members weeded out of it it just gave us the the confidence to be able to present this figure knowing knowing that it's a strong possibility that it's going to be less than what we've quoted so the figure to to do what this proposal is asking for um all of the ones on this master spreadsheet without it being taken out is $2,460 and I think the point that we were trying to make is that it falls within the lines of the money that's left in the raise pool okay all right we'll take a look at it when we caucus just to kind of sure get a frame of reference Gary I guess I got just two two or three quick follow-ups so you know certainly understand shift into the insurance component of it there's still kind of you know the Western Zone issue out there that's what your option one and two kind of recognize dealing with um not only kind of putting some of that money to folks in Western Zone but presumably you know what I interpreted those options ones and twos would be uh some type of modification to the language so we still got in article two article two uh we've still got that kind of issue uh at the Forefront okay can I interpret this to be that if this was something that we were interested in engaging that y'all would agree to the language that we've proposed in terms of what's in article two in the Collective barwing Agreement no I I would make that assumption what was said in our pre- impass hearing um and you can check with with your colleague with respect to that is that the reason the district or the school board opened up Article 2 is because it was due to a clerical error it's a clerical error that they were trying to to find I to to try to fix our position is clerical errors aren't negotiated at the bargaining table you open up an article when you're when you have intentions of changing the language in said article so in no examples and I I have um my current president former president sitting here in in in the audience we haven't found any examples in which we collectively bargained a clerical error so if if it's the district's position that the mo Moa supplanted Article 2 which is what was explained in the pre- impass hearing then why would we need to agree to language that you said we agreed to that supplanted it twice so I don't see the need for the article two to be opened if it's the district's position that it's a clerical error so is it your contention then that that is I mean it's a it's a provision concerning uh concerning pay concerning supplements I mean how is that not something that should be bargained I I guess I just don't understand that I mean when we change when we change um language in in those articles when we increase numbers to those supplements we bring it to the table to collectively bargain when we're changing them what the district is saying is that there's an error that the language has already been negotiated because the mo MOA that was signed in 2000 on on January of 2023 supplanted Article 2 so if it supplanted Article 2 why are we opening up Article 2 again if it's a complainant article to I don't understand why it's so controversial to just harmonize that language so why do you have to open it up to harmonize it it's got that it's internally inconsistent the language is internally inconsistent with the appendix so why would you need us to agree to something that you that your position is that we agree to it already why will we agree and ratify it yet again again help me understand that part and then I I can can entertain what is being asked of of us because it doesn't seem genuine it seems really really disingenuous when you when you when we come to an agreement on the salaries well not not if we come to an agreement on on a on an article we don't bring that very same article to the bargaining table the next year saying that we need a second agreement on on on that article it's your position that we've signed the Moa that that Mo MOA supplanted it so why would we have to open up article two take a look at your contract that we worked on take a look at the contract that you worked on go to appendix B2 when did we open up appendix B2 to change that from 2000 to 3100 what do we make that change I would refer that we also opened up item two e and item 2 G mhm at Session 8 so with regard to article two we opened two items not just one the second one was with regard to changing the date for the parties to reach an agreement by July 1 to February 1 removing the retroactive pay language yeah and we so that was the other item in article two so it wasn't just 2E we opened article two for those two items is what I would like to make clear right but what was what the district wanted to bring as an argument for impass was not that portion of it the only part that the district wanted to take the impass was dealing with article 2.4 under the the impression that it's a clerical error that's not my word that's that's the word of of the board that it's a clerical error and again we work on a contract and we upload upload a cont contract every year we address clerical Errors By identifying that it's a clerical error and we fix it what you guys are attempting to to do is to get us to open up Article 2 to change the language in the article when your position is flawed you're saying that the mo MOA supplanted Article 2 but yet you're opening Article 2 to change it to what you're saying that we agreed to already if we agreed to it already then why don't you guys just change it so you're saying that we we can Implement that you tell me I'm trying to get that from from You' already done so with appendix with appendix B2 we never opened up appendix B2 in this bargaining session nor last year's bargaining session yet B2 miraculously changed from 2 to 3100 didn't it or did it not when did we agree to change it to open up article B2 to change it from 3100 to 2000 but you're asking us to open up Article 2 to change to to make the same changes that you're outlining in the mo MOA as well so we didn't make we we didn't go through that process to open up appendix B2 why are you asking us to go through that process to open up Article 2 I don't see why it's so controversial if you if it's if it's if well we feel that clerical errors aren't collectively bargained so if you think that that we agreed to these changes already then why don't we change it like like we do every other agreement that we've that we've come to okay so you are not agreeing to that language change that the based on based on the district's position we've already agreed to that language that's you can't have it both ways either we agreed to it or we didn't agree to it your position in the pre- impass hearing is that the mo MOA that was signed in January of 2023 supplanted um and took the place of article 2.4 e that's the position that was presented to us in the pre-mass hearing that is no point to discuss it we negotiated it away and what we're attempting to do is to change those terms in the mo MOA so what we're saying is if if it's the district's position that we agreed to this language already why are you asking for us to agree to it a second time and ratify it yet a second time that makes absolutely no sense to me so either we didn't agree to it or we agreed to it only if we didn't agree to it would there be a requirement to reopen up that article make the necessary agreement and then ratify it again and presidential leave yall don't have any we haven't negotiated that there's no other version of of that language that the board is interested except for take it 100% out so we don't believe that that subject has has even been been bargained we have been told that the district has the desire to remove it in its entirety there's no middle ground on that so getting it removed in its entirety we have absolutely zero appetite for removing it in its entirety no Focus all right let's uh oh goad clarification I got to go some yes sir um on the insurance supplement just to have it under record so I understand what I'm doing correctly we've already agreed to the 600 right yes sir so by your mou where you say 600 to the employees on the grandfather HMO and popo plans that means that number doesn't change from already agreed toct that's correct 615 for those enrolled on HMO e only that means they get an additional $15 above what we have already agreed to correct and and the 640 to the remaining plans in the HMO the employee plus spouse children family to Martin County School Board family plus family they get an additional $40 correct and then where you say 640 to all other po plans it just means $40 to all the PO plans correct $40 additional from what we've already agreed to correct correct so make sure yep that that's exactly it yeah and Gary and Matt you guys are I just want stay for the record the grandfather HMO and poo plans that's what you're referring to to the employee plus family prior to 71220 enrollment okay that's correct knew that's what you grandfather weuse dat yeah CU we don't technically use the term grandfather it's that employee plus family prior to 71220 yeah well Don I didn't want to call you and tipped my hat so I just tried the best that that I can got I just want to make sure yeah but that that's exactly what what we're referring to in that in that line thank you so much for your clarification question all right anybody else all right let us uh take a little time and caucus and we'll talk about it sounds good back on so what should be coming around to you are two documents Amed which seeks to clarify make in is memorial $600 for employees we call what you're intending which are those employees that were on the plan prior to 71 2020 I refer Grand understanding who you're talking got you the 615 for those employ enrolled with the HMO employee only 640 for those essentially for all essentially what it breaks down so the document you have in your hand that is color okay was distributed at the last Insurance committee meeting which is a account of your members on the in various insurance plans as of October 1st so we tried to do some math and back into your $25,000 and if you look on the screen very do have a copy of this correct yeah we gave him this one oh you can give the other one I'll email okay oh I don't know did you give it to Trish to copy yes cop that's we'll make sure you get printed copy okay so you can follow me on the color copy that we have on the HMO plan 444 of your members getting $15 additional right mhm so that is $666 employee spouse on the employee on this plan is 35 and it's on your sheet receiving an additional $40 that BR us to 64 correct M so all I'm just accounting for is the additional at this point okay and employee and children on the HMO is 53 receiving $ additional 22 for employee and family receiveing additional $40 seven which is on the two mon County School District plus family and we have a correction that we need to share with the you with the um Union regarding that document that was handed out at one of our bar sessions and discussed at the health insurance committee which that 600 now becomes 1200 the two Family Credit so when you receive this you'll see right here I'll just show you how we corrected on that Master because it's so here in total we've got about 689 mbus right and I'm going to hand it over to Don to talk about the fact that you have 202 members that are in the high plan which the original excluded so if you look at the total count of your population you have 890 which 22 of our little under 17% of your membership which is small number in your proposal here um we are calculating approximately 380 we know that the raise tool is $28,000 and3 23 I know that my sleep and that leaves on the table approximately $ 14,623 32 so what we did was the same thing I'm email this to you okay what we did was we put in the same number same count but we also increased an HS added an HSA contribution for the folks who are on the high up plan and Don I'm going to turn it over to him to talk about what cost incre okay yeah so Gary um and team you we we looked at how much money was left over at from the 28,000 and since we have um contributed um you know to the TA the $600 and then we took yours and we just added the money that you wanted to to add to that and that that left the employees in the high deductible Health Plan um receiving nothing and so while the high deductible health plan for employee only coverage is $0 because the board picks up the whole premium for that um there are costs associated with the high deductible health plan if you are on the employee plus family employee plus spouse or employee plus children um and then additionally what we were thinking about is how we can help those employees um with their health savings account as well so um we thought since the high deductible Health Plan is so unique it has a health savings account attached to it rather than um just giving them $75 in the paycheck we can actually make a contribution to the health savings account to those members that are enrolled in the high deductible health plan on March 1st and the board will put another $75 directly into their HSA accounts so um if you take the 202 MCA members that are enrolled in the high deductible Health Plan times it by $75 it's an extra $5,150 which basically brings us to the total uh raise pool um actually a little bit over but Carter said that he'll um he he'll work it off but um so so anywh who but um we wanted to do something for everybody no matter what medical um plan you enrolled in and we felt like this was a really good way to kind of help everybody out it I appreciate your um explanation on on that Don and um I'm also appreciative that you all took the the initiative to address that group um we thought about that group in our proposal but because they weren't included in the initial proposal we didn't want to put something on the table that would break conversation so I think that that's a very very respect consideration that that you have made to address that that thanks and then um on the the hand out the color handout that was passed out it also shows um how much increase enrollment we've had in that plan by your your bargaining unit just from June so um for those that made changes during their open enrollment or those newly hired um into your bargaining unit um you could see October 1st um makes up all of those changes so you know an open rollment happens end of April changes go to AFF July 1st and then we do a bulk of our hiring for MCA during the summer their benefits typically go into effect either uh September 1st or or October 1st depending on their their first date of uh their first day of work but um you'll see um we had 148 MCA members enrolled in the high deductible health plan as of June 2024 and then in October it increased over to 200 202 so it's going to help out um a lot of of those employees thank you so much y yeah I've got yeah so we've got a counter proposal to you all and Trish will uh all hand it out and it's the memorandum of understanding that you all uh sent over just we've revised it a little bit right um and it accounts for that amount in uh the raise pool that was not accounted for um it puts that money to the $75 uh to the health savings account for those in the high deductible plan uh you'll see it in there reflects that mca's withdrawing options one and two and basically that were closed on supplements and also provides that the Western Zone language since it's tied to the supplement issue that we've proposed for on article 24e that the union agrees to to that uh language proposal that we've made um that resolves I think everything at the table except for presidential leave at this point but um that would cover supplements it would exhaust the raise pool uh the full entirety of the raise pool uh and it would uh change that language it would harmonize that language with the memorandum of agreement in uh article 24 yeah that that we we can stop at that point we were good up to to that but you're trying to slide this article to agreement in it as a condition for us to to consider what we proposed like our proposal had no ties to anything else not even the options that we had on the table but to pull it away in an effort in an attempt to make an agreement we sitting here for over two hours to wait for you to work on a counter proposal and then you want to slide this in after your position has clearly been established that you opened up article two for a clerical error so you want us to collectively bargain cuz now you presented it as the changes that you're making to Article 2 so is it a change or is it a clerical error Gary you all grieved article 24e and said we were interpreting the language wrong you took that grievance nearly to arbitration saying that the folks right and you guys settled and said that our interpretation was correct right so the settlement that we made that was not in the settlement well that's a non-starter so we're back at the we're back at the beginning we're back at the beginning you all have that's very that's very very underhanded way to deal with the the well that's my opinion it's my opinion it's my opinion and I'm free to have my opinion what we came here it was in the spirit of attempting to get an agreement done and what you have done was take what we've worked on as an attempt to reach a settlement agreement and you're still trying to force us to accept your changes that you've adamantly even in grievance proceedings you never taken the position that theou replaced Article 2 so if you're saying that it if theou replaced Article 2 why do we have to agree to this again because it seems like the union has a different opinion on that you have said that we believe that it's clar it's not based upon not based upon my belief language it's not it's not based upon my belief it's based upon the actions that the school board has taken namely one in appendix B2 in the very recent version of this contract that Mo MOA is not in this contract and you've unilaterally changed appendix B2 without opening up B2 without getting us to tely agree to it without presenting it to our membership to vote you've presented you've made that change in this article already so why do you need us to make an agreement to change article two that makes absolutely no sense to me thank you guys it's been a wonderful evening we have to go to impass tomorrow morning but 2 hours that we've waited for you you just to come to the framework of an agreement for you to try to slide article two if that's what you feel about it take article two to to to impass why not why slide it in this agreement when we still have the option to go to impass if you if you believe that take article two to impass that's where we're at all right we're at there tomorrow this is an effort to resolve we'll see you there tomorrow we we've we've gave every opportunity to walk towards you guys and make an agreement and so did we all right well that you for the 2our wait just to try to to to slide article two I don't think that's fair I don't think that's fair I I think we have anything left to discuss Mr Slanker like we waited two hours and that's very very disingenuous the way that you're trying to and then you don't even want to have a discussion it's just slide at it and yeah and then you guys agree the article to and then it's all we'll have a discussion right now I introduced it yes our discussion is is that disc tying article to to this health insurance so what you're saying is is that we have to to settle to settle to your suggestion of changing Article 2 because that's exactly what it is like let's talk about it are you attempting to change Article 2 or is it a clerical error what is your position on it I'm going off what you guys said you presented it you have you seem to have a you seem to have an opinion on whether it's a clerical error do you believe that language article says $100 do you for everyone in Western zone I'm going to answer this question the question that you asked me you do not collectively bargain clerical errors Mr Slanker that's not you believe it's a clerical error you you present your team presented it as a clerical error this isn't my terminology the reason when we clarified the articles that are going to go to impass your side included article two and said that Article 2 was open because there was a clerical error that needed to be corrected so if you don't understand that talk to your colleague because he's the one that framed it in that manner that it's a clerical error and clerical errors doesn't change the product of of the language in there you're you're making strikethroughs in article two you're making strikethroughs in article two so if your position is that M that the mou that was agreed upon in January of 2023 supplants Article 2 then why can't you supplant it in in the contract without us signing off on it are you agreeing to that that it is a clerical error that why would I have to agree why would to bargain on that my question is I don't know youav your right to bargain on that my my response is I have no idea what it is because I'm going based upon the way you treated appendix B2 so did you open up appendix B2 and did we agree to switch appendix B2 from 20 to match the number that's in thatou 3100 it seems like the union believes that the language in Article 2 can be read in conjunction with the language in appendix B to permit an additional amount to certain members in the western well that would probably be the reason why you're opening it up isn't it well let's talk about it well I don't nothing to talk about either either we strike that language out of this mou and we have an agreement or you leave it in and and we don't have an agreement it's that simple I think we've done all of the the the movement on this you guys haven't moved at all we just came back with a reworked proposal that we produced exhausting $15,000 that we work two weeks on to prod not on Mr slinker I'm not going to continue this it's been a very long day we have a very long day tomorrow if that's what your final proposal is no thank you [Music] good if um if if this isn't any semblance then I just want to officially say on the record that we're are Journey all right I'll be waiting on the