Bayless Teachers Protest as Negotiations Stall

Bayless School District teachers and their supporters gathered on Weber Road Wednesday night before the monthly school board meeting, sporting red National Education Association T-shirts and waving protest signs at passing cars. Their signs said “No Extra Pay, No Extra Day,” “Workers’ Rights Are Human Rights” and “185 for Bayless Teachers.”

The protest was prompted by a breakdown Tuesday in negotiations between the district administration and the Bayless Education Association (BEA), the district’s teachers’ union. After nearly coming to a workable agreement, the negotiations stuck on an additional professional development day being added to the calendar for the coming school year—bringing the calendar to 186 working days for teachers, compared to 185 scheduled this year.

“We understand there’s no funds, but if they can’t compensate with extra money they should compensate with time,” said a Bayless Elementary teacher who was out protesting, but who did not want to be identified.

The teachers’ union wanted to ask the board of education to revisit the 2011-2012 school calendar and allow teachers to submit documentation of six hours of professional development performed at home, in lieu of coming to one professional development day at school. The administration said that this was not possible, as the school calendar had already been set.

“We are just tired of it,” BEA President Gina McCullough said. “We don’t think they should arbitrarily change the number of days we work unless it is tied to salary.”

Bayless Superintendent Maureen Clancy-May said that the calendar had been 186 days two and three years ago but had been reduced this past year due to an oversight.

Both sides were clear that this would not affect the 175 days students are scheduled to attend class.

Before the breakdown over this issue, the two negotiating teams had worked out an agreement that included a 0.63-percent salary increase, with no step increase for experience for the second year running. The salary increase was designed to compensate for the 0.5 percent increase in the cost of the teachers’ retirement programs and the increasing cost of health insurance.

McCullough said the BEA believes that each additional working day should be matched with a salary increase of around 0.5 percent to cover the costs of commuting and being away from home.

The district, however, is struggling financially as assessed home values have fallen and state funding has dropped. District Chief Financial Officer John Stewart, who was at the negotiating table on the administration team, said the district has been forced to cut $1.1 million over the last two years from its total budget of $15 million. At Wednesday’s meeting, school board president Jeff Preisack said that the district would soon be asking residents to support a new tax levy to help the schools survive this shortfall.

“Our primary goal was to save jobs for all employees…We are fortunate that we have not had to lay off teachers like other districts. We haven’t had salary freezes like other districts,” Clancy-May said. “The fact that we can even provide some slight increases, I think that’s amazing.”

When the board of education meeting began, the junior high multipurpose room was packed with BEA members and supporters. More than the salary and schedule differences, the six teachers and community members who addressed the board said they were concerned with a lack of respect given the teachers by the administration.

“In terms of the raise, I’m not jumping for joy over something that will barely recover my retirement increase,” new BEA Vice President Matt Boyer told the board, adding that he puts a lot of his own money into his class. “We are here because we care… What we would like to see is that same thing from you.”

“We all agree that there is a definite lack of respect between the administration and the teachers,” McCullough said in an interview.

This is not the first time the teachers’ union and the school board have clashed this year. In March, before the negotiations began, the . The board did not change the policy, but in the end McCullough told the board Wednesday that the BEA was satisfied with the training they had received in interest-based bargaining and with the facilitator that had worked with the two teams.

Both sides of the negotiation told Patch that they were willing to continue discussions if the other side would return to the table.

“We are certainly going to hear what they have to say, and talk about it,” Preisack said.

The agreement must be approved by both parties in time to be passed by the school board no later than June 30.