LITTLE ROCK — Representatives of hundreds of Pulaski County Special School District teachers pleaded with the School Board on Monday night to reject a recommendation to terminate their union-negotiated contract.
One by one, teachers stood before the School Board during a meeting that lasted well into the night.
After more than five hours, more than 25 teachers - some of whom represented groups of teachers from their individual schools - had expressed their feelings to the board before a crowd of as many as 400 of their colleagues,who were quick to applaud and cheer the speakers.
Some 620 of the district’s 1,200 teachers initially asked for hearings after receiving an April 26 letter from Acting Superintendent Rob McGill, telling them of plans to terminate the existing contract on June 30 and replace it with a contract July 1 that is based on school-board-adopted policies. Only one hearing was conducted Monday night, but any of the teachers who had asked for a hearing and desired to speak could do so.
It was the latest face-off between union members and the School Board since a vote in December to discontinue recognition of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers as the contract bargaining agent for contracts.
A Pulaski County circuit judge nullified that December vote because the district did not meet the legal prerequisites to end the contract. The board cast a second vote in April to sever the relationship, effective June 30, giving the district some time to get the personnel policies in place.
“Our current Professional Negotiations Agreement was not rushed, cut or pasted together,” teacher Judy Stockrahm told the board. “Twenty years have gone into it. Let’s not throw it out with the bath water just so someone can make a name for himself.”
“We want the board to follow the law and go back to the table to negotiate changes,” Stockrahm added.
The teachers’ association contends that the existing contract does not have an expiration date and remains in effect until a successor agreement is negotiated and ratified by the teachers and the School Board.
The initial speakers went through the existing 152-page contract, which includes a 50-page appendix, pointing out components of it that were especially beneficial to teachers and did not appear to them to be included in the proposed replacement policies.
Those existing contract provisions that were highlighted included a May 1 deadline for teacher evaluations to be completed, the right to accrue sick and personal leave time, the ability to use a standard student discipline referral form, the use of established teacher and administrator committees to decide on teacher training courses, the use of site-based management teams of teachers, parents and administrators at individual schools, and assurances of adequate equipment and supplies.
Cheryl Carpenter, a high school English teacher and coach, told the board that the proposed policies “lack substance and are woefully inadequate.”
Other teachers talked Monday night about how they personally benefited from the existing contract and the teachers’ association.
Teacher Kathryn Panora-Kish told how she and her family were threatened by someone she believed to be from her school. Her attempts to get help from administrators were not productive. She turned to the teachers’ association and within two days the Jacksonville police and theFBI contacted her.
“The union had my back, and I am still grateful for that,” Panora-Kish said.
Teacher Kristin Pope told the board that the dispute over the contract and the union representation is not about money.
“If it was about money, I’d be in a different profession,” Pope said, describing how she has saved her leave days in the event that she should need the paid leave if she should become seriously ill and be without special insurance coverage.
Pope also addressed comments by the School Board about teachers’ request to be paid for extra duties such as monitoring students in hallways, noting that teachers do many tasks voluntarily without pay - including grading papers and taking student calls at their homes.
Board member Danny Gililland, one of the four School Board members that has voted to sever the relationship between the board and the teachers association, told the teachers that he was not acting out of anger or vindictiveness but because he believes the district and students would benefit.
“I’m not opposed to going back to negotiations,” Gililland said. “But I’ve got to see some willingness from PACT to give us something from time to time.”
Gililland said the district’s attempts to get changes in the contract resulted in the association leaders ridiculing the district’s chief negotiator and accusing the district of “stripping” the contract.
Board member Charlie Wood also addressed the teachers, telling them that he believes they should be treated as professionals, just as engineers and lawyers are professionals and do not have union-negotiated contracts.
“Give us the opportunity to earn your trust,” Woods asked.
The hearing on the nonrenewal of the current contracts is part of a process required by the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, or Arkansas Cole Annotated 6-17-1501-1509.
Those statutes require the district to give notice to a teacher by May 1 if the superintendent is recommending that the employee’s contract not be renewed for the coming school year. Otherwise, the contract is automatically renewed for the coming year.
By law, the board must grant the hearings.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 05/18/2010