I have been away and not had the time to write more. I am sure I will have more to say after tonight’s board meeting.
Eric

First the facts. As Board President a few years ago, I did answer a query during the annual budget process by saying it was standard practice when in contract negotiations (that had not yet been finalized) for Boards to include in their proposed budget amounts that would fund estimated costs of a new agreement. These estimated amounts were ‘hidden’ in the budget figures, so as not to reveal publicly, information that could disadvantage the Board in the ongoing negotiations. That was true … in normal negotiations.

But, as in most things in life, the application of the rule depends on the context of the situation.

Neither the current teacher negotiations nor the budget process for 2010-11 is a ‘normal’ process. The teacher contract negotiations ceased being a ‘normal’ bargaining process when the Board, fifteen months ago, unilaterally decided in the middle of bargaining to abandon the normal bargaining model of closed bargaining and decided to conduct bargaining in public. One of the effects of this was to force the teachers to respond publicly. Each side was forced by the process to make publicly the strongest arguments possible for their positions and to publicly denigrate the arguments of the other side. What had been closed negotiations became, instead, a public battle. The result was each party lost any negotiations flexibility because of the stigma attached to backing off their own public arguments. comprosie became must less – if at all – possible. As a result, the Board subsequently rejected a ‘Compromise’ solution put forth by an experienced, knowledgable and impartial state arbitrator.

The budgeting process for the 2010-11 budget also lost its ‘normalcy’ when the Board last Monday made the process part of its collective bargaining strategy. It made the budget adoption meeting part of collective bargaining by announcing at the meeting that they would hold off on adopting a proposed budget for one week in order to give TASH time to accept the Board’s demand for a freeze. They made it clear that failure to accept a wage freeze would result in a 2010-11 budget proposal which would contain job cuts and other pain for the teachers and the community. This public ‘take it or suffer’ demand by the Boartd meshed together the collective bargaining process and the budget adoption process in a way which made the budget process also not ‘normal’.

Therefore, in my opinion, by insisting on a public negotiations process in which the public would be entitled to all necessary information and by using the public budget process to pressure teachers to accept their contract demands, the Board opened the door to the public asking any and all questions regarding the contract negotiations and the proposed budget… including the one I asked.

Firstly, I called Mr. Tice’s comments to the Board “remarkable”.  I am sure he has his reasons for his new position.  A debate about whether a hypocrite can make valid points I will leave to others.

Secondly, I am quite sure that no Board wants to go into any Budget election with an unsettled contract and certainly not for two consecutive years.  The Board has not done a great job allaying fears and reassuring the public and we all know that they are still negotiating with the teachers, but this is a far cry from your suggestion that the Board’s ability to effectively manage the affairs of the district is in doubt because of this slow and unresolved contract negotiation.
Why not debate the wisdom or lack thereof of holding to an offer that they believe to be fair?
Why not discuss the sustainability of the teachers demands over time.  Why not consider the merits of a Board that believes the District can not afford more than they have offered.  Assessing the details in the negotiations is not our business but assessing and understanding many many other affairs of the District and the Board’s effectiveness are and would be a welcomed and substantive discussion to have.