Do you Want to Keep the 37.5 Minute Small Group Instruction Sessions?

Randi reported at tonight's executive board that elementary school teachers are leaning toward wanting to keep the 37.5 minutes of extra time for the small group tutoring and they do not want to see it eliminated next school year. Is this true?

ICE would like to hear from members from all divisions (elementary, middle and high school) on how you would like the time used.
Please tell us the type of school you work at.

1. Would you prefer six hours and fifty minutes in an eight period day Monday through Friday with no 37.5 minute small group instruction sessions?

2. Would you rather have six hours, fifty seven and a half minutes Monday to Thursday spread into nine periods with the 37.5 minute small group instruction sessions and six hours and twenty minutes on Friday?

3. If you are in a seven period elementary school, would you prefer six hours, fifty-seven and a half minutes Monday to Thursday with the 37.5 minute small group instruction sessions and six hours-twenty minutes in a seven period day on Friday.

We would like to hear many comments so we know what to push for when we meet with the leadership.

Thanks.

The New Contract: One Month of Hell & Counting!!!

 
How much more can we take?
 
By Camille Johnson
Humanities and the Arts High School
 
Randi is not a real teacher, so she would not understand the enormous impact of what she gave away in our current contract. Because she accepted  an  extra 37 1/2 minutes small group instruction period and a plethora of other givebacks for mere pennies,  we are now suffering the ill effects of it in the classroom on a daily basis. 
 
In my single session high school, teachers are doing the mandated tutoring during period 1 which means that we start work at 8:05 A.M.

For the professional activity period, many teachers have still another small group instruction period. This then means that the teachers now have to teach their 5 regular periods per day  with up to 34 students in each class plus the mandated 37.5 minute period and the professional assignment, thus making it an interminable 7 period instructional day when it was five under the expired agreement.

To add insult to injury after teaching an arduous 7 periods, teachers still have to stay twice per month after school for an 8th assigned period in the form of Faculty and Departmental conferences.
 
The law of diminishing returns is totally in full effect, because there is no energy left for teachers to reflect on their practice or even to check homework, quizzes, projects or tests.  Consequently, a trailer-load of paper work lags behind which is a perfect recipe for hostility and burn out.  A hard working, conscientious teacher who cares deeply about students no longer has sufficient energy left nor the time to devote to do necessary outreach.
 
Therefore, there is less of an opportunity for teachers to conference with students, correspond with parents or to plan innovative and more creative lessons because we are simply over exhausted.  In addition, it will only get worse with the extended year as the 2006-07 school year will commence on the last day of August.

Randi Says We've Caught up to the Suburbs.

Is She Correct?

We Don't Think So!

By James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica H.S.; H.S. Rep, U.F.T. Exec. Board

In her "city schools" column in the February 16, 2006 NY Teacher, UFT President Randi Weingarten stated, "At this point - after decades of trailing behind - we are roughly comparable to the suburbs in both time and salaries." Randi says we've caught up to the suburbs thanks to the last two contracts she negotiated where we traded working extra time for money. Is Randi accurate in saying, "So we have caught up in salaries"? We don't believe she is but we could use your help to confirm.

New York City teachers will have a starting salary as of October of 2006 that will be $42,512 and the top salary after 22 years of teaching will be $93,416. Is that comparable to the suburbs? A quick look at the Contract from Copiague on Long Island shows that for the 2006-07 school year the starting salary will be $46,206 and maximum after fifteen years will be $100,598, $103,848 after 22 years and $109,848 after 26 years.

How many days does a teacher in Copiague have to work in a school year?

183!!

With the longer year in our new contract, NYC teachers will more than likely work over 190 days in 2006-07 when the calendar is finalized.

More than 190!!

In Copiague's neighbor Farmingdale where they are working under an expired contract, top salary last year was $104,148 and they also work 183 days. When they obtain a new contract, I'm confident that their salaries will go up and by next year Farmingdale should again be miles ahead of us. Granted, teachers in many surrounding districts need to obtain more credits to get to maximum than we do but they still make more than we do at virtually every level, particularly in the middle years (Copiague-MA+30, 15 years experience salary for 2006-07: $93,101; NYC-MA+30, 15 years experience salary for 2006-07: $79,763)

While we're comparing, Farmingdale teachers are entitled to 14 sick /personal business days per year and in Copiague they get 12.

Thanks to our Unity/UFT leadership's negotiating "skills", we still have a grand total 10 sick/personal days each year and we will almost certainly be working over 190 days next year compared to 183 in many suburbs. So we will be working almost two weeks longer for less money and fewer sick days but we have caught up to the suburbs. Only in Randi's world.

We compared ourselves with Copiague and Farmingdale because these are not wealthy areas. Copiague in particular is a town on Long Island that does not have a huge tax base.

What about other surrounding school districts? If anyone wants to show us the salaries, days of work and sick time for other suburban districts to show that Randi is right or wrong in claiming that we have caught up to the suburbs, please post the information in the comment section or email us at ICE.

Finally, we toil under the most abominable teaching and learning conditions in New York City (highest class sizes, most overcrowded schools, most unsafe and in many cases dilapidated buildings with the worst access to books and other materials) when placed side by side with the suburbs. Randi has done nothing to improve these conditions in the last two contracts. In what surrounding district do they have 34 students in a class like we do in NYC high schools?

None that we know.

Extra Time Hits Home; Register Your Experience

Reports are coming in from all over indicating that the extra time has been run rather poorly. We have reports that in some schools students didn’t show up while in others not enough supplies or materials were provided. We would like to get your experience, especially those of you in our leadership who are not in schools. How did you use your extra time?

But They Told Me That I Could Remove this 1962 Letter From My File!

Contract implementation woes continue as the DOE demonstrates that what appears teacher friendly in the contract is, in essence, an illusion. Remember when our trusted UFT Leaders told us how we “won” the right to have derogatory material removed from our personnel files that was over three years old?

Great win, right?

Wrong.

As appears in the following memo to principals by the DOE’s Labor Relations office these letters will not be destroyed but will be sent to another office. Isn’t it wonderful how great this new contract is at protecting our rights? Thanks, Randi.

Here is the text of the memo:

UFT Contract Implementation: Guidance on Material in File

As you are probably aware, the new collective bargaining agreement with the UFT has eliminated material in file grievances and gives educators represented by UFT the right to remove material in file after three years if they do not lead to further discipline. This provision takes effect immediately. If you receive a grievance challenging any material in file, e.g. an unsatisfactory observation or a disciplinary letter for attendance problems or misconduct, you should respond to the chapter leader that you will not hear the grievance, but the staff member may append a written response to the letter before it is placed in the personnel file. With a few exceptions, only material in file arbitrations scheduled for January will go forward and any material in file grievance currently at steps 1, 2 or 3 will be discontinued.

As a part of the agreement, any letter placed in a teacher’s or other UFT represented employee’s personnel file: 1) which is 3 years old or older and; 2) has not been used in a disciplinary proceeding (3020-a charges, discontinuances or U-ratings), shall be removed from the employee’s file. Three years is measured from the date the letter was placed in the employee’s file (which should be the date the employee signed the letter or administration indicated “refuse to sign”). Note, the rule regarding removing letters from the file after three years does not apply to non-UFT titles, such as school aides or family workers.

Teachers or other UFT represented employees who wish to have a letter removed from their file pursuant to the new agreement should follow the current procedures for viewing their personnel file by making an appointment with the principal or his/her designee when the principal or designee is available. The employee will be permitted to view his/her personnel file in the presence of the principal or designee. Employees may identify any letter that has been in their file for 3 years or longer (e.g. by marking it with a Post-it). The supervisor should remove the letter from the file if he or she knows that the letter has not resulted in further disciplinary action, such as 3020a charges, a discontinuance, an unsatisfactory rating, or a suspension and confirms that it is 3 years old or more. Copies should be made of all the documents to be removed and the employee should be given the originals. The records will be kept in a central repository and maintained under the control of the New York City Law Department (see instructions on shipping the letters to the repository below). They will be used solely in defense of the Department of Education or the City of New York in litigation or administrative actions and as otherwise required by law, and DOE supervisors will not have access to them. The records will be destroyed 6 years after an individual retires, resigns or terminates. If the records are accessed, the UFT will receive notice.

If the supervisor does not know whether the letter resulted in further disciplinary action (e.g. if a principal is new to the school), s/he should inquire of his/her regional counsel so this can be investigated.

Although material in file grievances have ended, principals should, as good management practice, continue to follow the guidelines in the Office of Labor Relations “Labor FAQs” for letter writing. For example, you should meet with the employee prior to writing a disciplinary letter or lesson observation to discuss the issues prior to coming to a conclusion. Please see this section of Labor FAQs on letter writing by clicking here.

For general inquiries contact Dan McCray (dmccray@nycboe.net) or David Brodsky (dbrodsky@nycboe.net) with the Office of Labor Relations.

Instructions on Shipment of Documents

Copies of the file letters should be placed in manila folders with the employee’s last name, first name, social security and file number, district number and school name and number. If there are more than 50 folders at a site, they should be placed in a box, which you can order by e-mailing Angie Russo at arusso4@nycboe.net. Each box should have an official archive label on it listing the contents by teacher file number. You can obtain the labels from the DFO Web Site at http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/DFO/BusinessOperations/DoeRecordsArchiving/Default.htm. The regular vendor for inter-office mail, Deluxe Delivery Services, will pick up all boxes and file packages for delivery to the central repository.

Unity/UFT Leaders Exposed on Pensions;Unity Supplemental Pension Bill Ignores Current Retirees

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica HS; UFT Executive Board, HS Rep

A Variable Supplement Fund (VSF) distributes excess earnings in pension funds back to retired members. Money in our pension funds is invested and if those funds make better returns than expected, the extra money now goes back to the city. The Police and Fire Unions negotiated a VSF years ago. In addition to their regular pension, retired police officers and firefighters receive an annual supplemental check from excess pension fund earnings.

This year a retired police officer will get approximately $11,000 from the VSF. Meanwhile, retired teachers have to wait five years after they retire to collect the much touted Cost of Living Adjustment which was passed by the State Legislature at the beginning of the decade. The COLA will pay retirees only $180 to a maximum of $540 annually, a small fraction of what the retired police officers will receive from their VSF. As prices continue to rise, the COLA is a meager pension supplementation.

Several years back, UFT President Randi Weingarten said that if another Union wins a VSF from the State Legislature, then we would push for one also. Soon after, the Corrections Union had a VSF passed by the State Legislature and signed by Governor George Pataki. The UFT now has a VSF bill we are asking the Legislature to support. However, the bill is written in such a way that if it were to become law, only people who retire after the legislation is passed would receive the supplemental checks each year. Currently retired UFT members would receive nothing and be stuck with the "Diet COLA."

Opposition members at the Executive Board have continually pointed out the flaw in our VSF bill and we have been attempting to persuade the UFT to rewrite and reintroduce the bill so that all retirees, current and future, would get a supplemental check through a Variable Supplement Fund. We tried this again on January 30, 2006 but Unity won't listen to us and continues to push a flawed bill that would not help current retirees.

This leads to the question: Why are retired teachers the most loyal Unity Caucus constituency? In the last ten years Unity has pushed through a flawed COLA that results in pension checks lagging way behind the rate of inflation and now the UFT is supporting a VSF that would not benefit current retirees. Meanwhile, costs for health care continue to explode out of control. Isn't it time for retired teachers to start thinking about new leadership. They have nothing to lose. Pension checks are protected by the State Constitution so they are not jeopardized. The Independent Community of Educators fully supports retired UFT members.

1. The UFT should not support with COPE money politicians who are not protecting the interests of our members, active and retired.


2. The UFT needs to properly mobilize our retired and active members to work for a VSF for retirees, both current and future.


3. The UFT must draw a line in the sand and say no more erosion in health care benefits.

Inspiring Rikers Teacher Runs Afoul of Jail's Rules

By MICHAEL WINERIP

Published: January 25, 2006, The New York TImes

JEFF KAUFMAN, a teacher at the Rikers Island jail, has a reputation as a good educator who cares about his student inmates. In 2004, without the aid of computers, his students finished first in a citywide stock market game competition against more than 50 high schools.

Jeff Kaufman taught at Island Academy, the Rikers Island jail school, for eight years. After a complaint from the principal, he was removed from Rikers and reassigned despite praise from peers and inmates.

Elizabeth Lesher, who oversees the competition, said that at most schools, "students gather around computers, research stocks via Web sites such as Yahoo Finance, Market Watch or Nasdaq and enter their transactions online."

"The classroom environment at Rikers was very sparse," said Ms. Lesher, a director for the Foundation for Investor Education. "No attractive bulletin boards, no computers with Internet access and no industry specialists visited the classroom to provide investment ideas." Mr. Kaufman's students relied on the newspaper and his class lessons. That, she said, "speaks volumes about the teacher. Obviously I was very impressed."

In 2003, Mr. Kaufman's students won a citywide playwriting competition. In 2000 and 2001, he arranged for the student chorus at Louis Armstrong Middle School in Queens to visit Rikers at Christmas and perform for his students.

Don Murphy, a fellow teacher, said Mr. Kaufman became so popular during his eight years at the jail that in 2004 he was unopposed in the election for union representative at Island Academy, the Rikers school, which serves about 1,000 teenage inmates.

David Lee, an inmate serving time for assault, who earned a General Educational Development diploma with one of the highest scores ever at Rikers, said no teacher worked harder. Mr. Kaufman made special arrangements for Mr. Lee to take college correspondence courses, spent his lunch hours tutoring him and then proctored each of the three-hour exams from Excelsior College.

In July 2003, Mr. Kaufman was off for the summer, but made special trips to Rikers so Mr. Lee could take his next college exam. "All the teachers were on vacation and school didn't begin until September," Mr. Lee wrote in a letter sent to this reporter from Rikers. "But Kaufman comes here to Rikers not once, but twice just so that he could give me the test on a hot summer day. He didn't have to come; he could have stayed home with his wife and kids."

"Mr. Kaufman wasn't only a teacher or test proctor," said Mr. Lee. "He inspired me to aim higher in life."

But on Friday, Mr. Kaufman received notice from his principal that he was no longer permitted to teach at Rikers.

His crime? "Undue familiarity."

Mr. Kaufman had given Mr. Lee his home address so the two could correspond by mail and try to arrange for Mr. Lee to take another of those Excelsior College exams while the inmate was in solitary confinement in the summer of 2004.

There is no allegation of anything improper about the content of those letters. Copies of 20 letters provided to a reporter by Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Lee mainly talked about learning. In one, the inmate thanked the teacher for sending books to him in solitary ("the Bing") and wrote that he was spending so much time reading, up to 12 hours a day, that he was getting headaches. "I don't mind being here at the Bing but I want to be able to take the test," wrote Mr. Lee.

Mr. Kaufman wrote back urging patience, saying that he was trying to work out arrangements with correction officials. "If your head begins to hurt from reading, stop. Your body is telling you it's enough."

How did school and correction officials know that Mr. Kaufman had given out his home address? Mr. Kaufman told them.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the Rikers principal, Frank Dody, sent out a security memo, in which he spelled out in writing, for the first time, what was meant by the prohibition against undue familiarity: "All contact with current/former students outside of the school area (home, upstate facilities) in the form of letters or phone calls must be authorized by the principal."

Mr. Kaufman read the memo, requested authorization and showed the principal a recent letter from Mr. Lee. Within days Mr. Kaufman was yanked from Rikers and placed in a holding room in Brooklyn for teachers under investigation.

Mr. Kaufman says he thinks the real reason he was investigated was that he had testified at a City Council hearing in December 2004 about how bad the Rikers school's services were for inmates being released. "That really upset Frank Dody," Mr. Kaufman says. "He wouldn't talk to me for months. He's using this incident to get me."

Mr. Dody said he was upset, but that's not why there was an investigation. He said that even though he had been principal six years and had only recently spelled out the rules in writing, anyone who had been at Rikers as long as Mr. Kaufman knew you weren't supposed to give out your address. "Teachers here have to live by the corrections rules," Mr. Dody said. "While the rules don't always make sense, even to me, they're in place for a reason, to keep everyone safe."

Mr. Dody acknowledged that the letter Mr. Kaufman showed him had nothing compromising in it. "From my reading of it, I didn't really see anything of any nature that would raise my eyebrows," Mr. Dody said.

Thomas Antenten, a corrections spokesman, said that once the principal made the decision to refer the case, officials had to investigate. "We take undue familiarity very seriously," he said. "Giving an inmate a personal address could lead to deadly consequences."

Inmates like Mr. Lee say Rikers has lost a rare, good teacher. "It was a wrong decision to demote Kaufman," Mr. Lee said. "I'm the one who initiated contact in order to see what options I had in seeking a better education."

David Lee was a 16-year-old junior with a B+ average at Francis Lewis High in Queens in January 2002. He says he got mixed up with the wrong people, and was at a Flushing apartment when a fight broke out and a man was stabbed to death. Mr. Lee pleaded guilty to first-degree assault in return for an eight-year sentence and is being held at Rikers pending the trial of a co-defendant charged with murder.

Within four months at Rikers, Mr. Lee took the G.E.D. In the middle of the test, he says, a brawl broke out and someone threw a chair at him, bruising a rib. Still, he comes from a family of good students, and even bruised, he finished with a top score. His younger sister, Sonia, is an A student in her sophomore year at George Washington University, and travels from Washington every other week to visit her brother in jail, bringing books he requests.

At the Rikers school, Mr. Lee became a favorite. He showed Mr. Murphy, the computer teacher, how to use several desktop publishing programs. He was given a job doing janitorial work. With Mr. Kaufman's help, he took three college business courses and got A's. Neither he nor Mr. Kaufman knew what material was going to be on the tests and which chapters to focus on, so Mr. Lee read everything. "I would read 450, 500 pages of a textbook from cover to cover three to four times so I would truly understand," he said.

AS Mr. Lee was about to take his fourth college exam, in May 2004, he was caught with 17 packs of Newports. Smoking was banned at Rikers in 2003; cigarettes are considered contraband. Mr. Lee said he was offered a "slap on the wrist" if he'd give up his supplier but did not. For each pack of Newports, he was given 15 days in solitary, 9 months altogether in a 6-by-9-foot cell.

Mr. Antenten, the corrections spokesman, said he did not know the details of the case but added that Rikers makes no distinction between cigarettes and heroin when it comes to contraband. "It can lead to disputes between inmates that have bloody consequences," he said.

Mr. Lee said the teacher's letters helped keep him sane those nine months. "Not only did Kaufman help me pursue educational studies, but he offered moral support through the letters," he said.
The illegal letters sent to Mr. Kaufman's home are often quite moving. A July 28, 2004, letter begins with Mr. Lee thanking the teacher for the latest package of books. "You want to know what's funny," wrote Mr. Lee. "Before I was incarcerated, I never used to really read. I could honestly tell you that I read less than 10 books during my life outside and it was during my elementary school years. I wouldn't even bother to look at the cover of a book if I came across one.

"Now that I'm incarcerated, I treasure them. I'm not just talking about novels which enhance your vocabulary and reading comprehension but also self-help books. What I like about self-help books is that from reading just one significant quote which catches your eye, it could change your whole perception of life itself. From reading books you tap into the most brilliant minds of the present and past. In here they're like my most trusted friends."

At times, in the letters, Mr. Kaufman sounds like a stern father. Referring to the cigarette infraction that got Mr. Lee removed from the school and landed him in the Bing, Mr. Kaufman wrote, "We were all upset at your sudden leaving, but we have talked about consequences."

Mr. Kaufman, 50, said his background - he is a Cornell grad, a former police officer and lawyer for the indigent - makes him well-suited for teaching inmates. He will appeal the decision. "It's a place I feel I can be of most use to my students," he said.

In December, after spending more than two months in the Brooklyn holding room, Mr. Kaufman was sent to Queens Academy, where he is mentoring three new teachers. An Education Department spokesman, David Cantor, said Mr. Kaufman would soon be given a job teaching at an alternative high school.

Mr. Dody, the principal, said Mr. Kaufman's removal was solely a Correction Department decision.
But a November 2005 memo by the department's investigator, Capt. Matthew Boyd, indicates that the principal had a significant role. "Dr. Dody reports that he has determined that Mr. Kaufman's actions violate undue familiarity and I concur," the memo says.

Mr. Dody says he's not a doctor and the corrections memo is wrong.

Mr. Lee's younger sister, Sonia, wrote about his jail experiences in a term paper at George Washington that won a top a prize and was featured at a student lecture series. The paper includes the hardships her brother knew growing up, including the suicide of their mother, who suffered from manic depression. Sonia Lee plans to get a master's degree in public policy specializing in the prison system. Her prize paper calls for prisons that devote more resources to rehabilitation and education.

Delegate Assembly Misses Opportunity to Stop Improper Money Grab

The UFT continued to try to cover-up the circumstances surrounding their recent staff pay raise by declining to review the action and then “correcting the inaccuracies” that were leveled against them at the Delegate Assembly Wednesday night. For the most part delegates were very surprised that the leaders of our Union increased their own salaries without even mentioning it to the Delegate Assembly.

A motion to rescind the improper and unapproved action was made and did not receive enough votes to place it on the agenda. Feeling that the motion raised accusations that needed to be explained to the delegates, Staff Director Michael Mendel told the body, indignantly that there were several inaccuracies. It was clear that the staff was paid the increase before proper Executive Board approval was obtained. It was also clear that our leadership does not care how it spends our dues so long as it helps line their own pockets.

Randi, herself admitted to flagrantly violating Roberts’ Rules at least two times at the Delegate Assembly. It does not bother her or the other beneficiaries of our hard earned dues to violate our rules and Union constitution at least when it comes to these raises.

Do our leaders need salary increases? Should they be rewarded for increasing our dues, getting a weaker contract that we had and failing miserably in leading our school system away from the corporate mentality that is making teaching more like factory piece work every day.

Many of the recipients of the raise have already received their DOE salary raises. Are they working in the UFT subsidized cafeteria? Are they performing any extra duties that we are required to in order to obtain an increase in our salary?

Since we were unable to properly discuss the merits (or negatives) of a salary increase for our hardworking leaders I put it out to all of you.

Should our leadership get a 15% raise? If you answered yes, then, please provide some suggestions on the increase duties they should be required to do in order to obtain their increases.

If you answered that they should not get a raise please provide some suggestions on what they should do to get a raise.

We will endeavor to bring your suggestions to the next Executive Board meeting. I don’t know if we will be allowed to speak but we will bring your suggestions anyway.

UFT Leaders Play Take the Money and Run!

Unity Can't Wait so They Violate their Own Rules with Stealth Vote to Give Themselves a Pay Raise

By James Eterno

UFT Executive Board (Jamaica High School)

On December 19, 2005 the UFT leadership decided to have a secret vote so they could decree themselves a pay raise. UFT President Randi Weingarten would not allow any discussion by opponents of the salary increases. Weingarten went so far as to change the way that resolutions are voted on at the Executive Board exclusively for her money grab so that the opposition would not know when it was time to speak in opposition to the salary increases or vote against them. At the next meeting of the Board, Randi tonight had the nerve to state that the pay raise was approved unanimously by the Executive Board. Truth be told the opposition unanimously opposed the pay raise for union leaders and we were never given an opportunity to express our views on the issue.

At the December 19, 2005 Executive Board, there was a resolution to increase the pay of the UFT staff (president, other officers, District Representatives, etc...) "in the same manner as those negotiated by the UFT represented school system employees." What this meant was for the first two years that were covered by our new contract UFT officers, other teachers and others who work at the union full time and part time would have their pay increased by 5.5% in the first two years of the four year and 1/3 year contract and then in the final two years there would be a salary increase only with some undefined productivity changes.

What that productivity will be was left undefined but you can bet that it won't be to patrol the UFT cafeteria or to have 37.5 minute small group sessions at the end of the day tutoring ten people. It should also be noted that the increases are not for the hard working people of the UFT who are covered by other union contracts that are negotiated separately (employees who answer phones full time, handle security, work for the welfare fund, etc.) This motion to increase Randi and company’s pay was passed by the officers (AdCom) on December 19, 2005 and was sent to the Executive Board for a vote with absolutely no advance notice at the meeting that evening.

Instead of allowing a vote on the issue which was scheduled to be debated on the revised agenda as a special order of business on December 19, President Weingarten brought the issue up in a very brief segment during routine items when the Executive Board approves Ad Com (officers' meeting) minutes. The way the Executive Board operates is that the parts of Ad Com minutes that are scheduled for Executive Board consideration are pulled after approval of the minutes and then dealt with later as part of the special orders of business. The salary increase was on the Executive Board agenda as a special order of business. Who needs to follow procedures when Unity people want their raises before the holidays?

Randi talked for a minute about the pay raise during the routine approval of the minutes and then we voted to accept the minutes as we always do, fully expecting that this issue was on the agenda for later in the meeting as it was scheduled to be. However, neither Randi nor Staff Director Michael Mendel who took over when Randi left, ever returned to the issue that night. We all thought since time ran out but the pay raise issue and another matter were not dealt with that it meant they would be brought up at the next meeting. Well, we were wrong.

Apparently, our leaders who already have six figure salaries and double pensions (one from the DOE and one from the UFT that we pay for) couldn't wait for their money. They decided to change the rules, not tell anyone and then take the money. Why let a little thing like a vote get in the way of a pay increase?

We informed Staff Director Mendel of how troubled we were that we never were able to vote on the pay raise issue in an email that we sent to him when we saw that the minutes of the December 19 Executive Board showed right in the midst of a bunch of resolutions that were voted on during the special orders of business that we voted for the pay raise. We raised more objections at the Executive Board Meeting tonight (January 9, 2006) and were given an opportunity to make a motion to reconsider the pay raise. How can we reconsider an issue that we never considered in the first place? The opposition members from the high schools voted unanimously against Staff Director Mendel's ruling that the issue had been voted upon. The overwhelming Unity majority that will gain from the pay raises of course supported Mendel. The opposition voted again to reject the minutes of the December 19, 2005 meeting as obviously flawed.

Unity leaders will use every trick in the book and even invent some new ones to get what they want for themselves. There desperately needs to be some accountability in this union or situations like this "Take the Money and Run" fiasco will continue and contracts for UFT members will continue to be sub-par.

WILL RANDI LEAD A UFT RETURN TO MILITANCY IN 2007?

WE DOUBT IT.

(Quotes from Randi's Dec 22, 2005 interview on New York 1 [not taken out of context for sure], the night the Transit Strike ended)

 
Davidson Goldman: But going back to Monday night when the transit workers were on the verge of a strike, did you ever say to him, "Hey Roger (Toussaint- TWU leader) don't do this; this is not a good idea; give it a few more days?
 
Randi Weingarten: Look, my conversations, both Brian (McLaughlin- President of the NYC Central Labor Council also on the program) and myself have spent a lot of time at the hotel, spent a lot of time talking to a lot of different people and we tried to play a constructive and also a supportive role.
 
Davidson Goldman: Did you support their (TWU) decision to strike?
 
Randi Weingarten: The issue here is the strike is over; the workers are back.  The workers had legitimate claims.  We have constantly said and I have constantly said that they needed fundamental fairness and that you need to have a process where workers can get to that.
 
(Later in the Interview)
 
Davidson Goldman: You run an 80,000 member union.
 
Randi Weingarten: 140
 
Davidson Goldman: 80,000 teachers and 60,000 non teachers.  140,000 members, plenty of resources, certainly more than the 34,000 member Transit Workers Union.  You've gone as we pointed out two and a half years most recently without a contract. Transit workers' decision to strike clearly could destroy the infrastructure at their union.  Courage or reckless?
 
Randi Weingarten: Look, I'm glad that the strike has been resolved.  I felt what Roger Toussaint did in the last couple of days...
 
Davidson Goldman: Was it courageous or reckless?
 
Randi Weingarten: ...in yesterday's press conference was terrific and I totally and completely understand their frustration.  My members feel the same frustration.
 
Davidson Goldman: But your members didn't go on strike?  Do they not have the guts to do what transit workers did?
 
Randi Weingarten: My members are having the discussion right now about whether we take a no contract-no work philosophy, whether we go back to that.  But the point is this.  Every union is different.  Every way in which we go about bargaining is different... (blah, blah, blah, Randi goes on about how TWU has legitimate complaints concerning 16,000 disciplinary measures against 34,000 members)
 
Davidson Goldman: I should know by now Ms. Weingarten when you don't want to answer a question, I shouldn't necessarily try again.

 
Why wouldn't Randi acknowledge that the TWU was courageous to strike?

Does anyone think she could lead us in a strike or even give us a credible threat of a strike?

Appellate Court Affirms Right to Union Representation During Disciplinary Interview

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a transit authority employee’s right to have his union representative present during an interview he believed to be disciplinary. In affirming this right Justice Cozier of the Brooklyn Appellate Court found that this right, first affirmed for private sector employees by the US Supreme Court in NLRB v. Weingarten (and referred to as “Weingarten” rights—no relation to our esteemed president) applied equally to pubic employees in New York.

On April 24, 2001 the New York City Transit Authority received a written complaint from one of its employees alleging that Igor Komarnitskiy, a fellow employee and member of the Transport Workers Union, Local 100 made a racial slur. That same day a supervisor requested that Komarnitskiy prepare a written memorandum, known as a G-2 form, responding to the allegation. Thereafter, Komarnitskiy requested and was allowed to privately meet with a TWU Shop Chair at TWU's office, wherein the TWU Shop Chair assisted him with preparing the G-2 form.

After Komarnitskiy submitted the completed G-2 form to the petitioner, the petitioner requested that he prepare a second G-2 form in the office of its superintendent based upon its concern that the TWU Shop Chair either prepared the initial G-2 form or influenced its contents.

Although Komarnitskiy requested that the TWU Shop Chair be present in the superintendent's office while Komarnitskiy prepared the second G-2 form, the Transit Authority denied such request, requiring him to prepare such form in the presence of management, without any union assistance.

On May 8, 2001, TWU filed with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board an improper practice charge against the Transit Authority alleging that the TA interfered with TWU's ability to represent its members in violation of Taylor Law § 209-a(1)(a) and (c) by failing to recognize the employee's right under such law to have union representation while being questioned regarding an incident which could result in disciplinary action. In response, the TA filed its answer, maintaining, among other things, that a union member has no right to have a union representative present when interviewed by a supervisor regarding an incident occurring in the workplace.

PERB found that the TA had violated the Taylor Law and found that rights guaranteed under Weingarten were equally applicable to public sector employees. Under Weingarten the Supreme Court found that the right to union representation at investigatory interviews was based on the basic right of employees to engage in union and concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. It is an unfair labor practice to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights.

The Second Department affirmed the reasoning in the PERB decision. The Court found that despite some cases holding that individual rights are not specifically protected under the Taylor Law the right of representation was basic to the Act.

The Transit Authority can seek permission to appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Contract Implementation Woes Beginning: Union and DOE Disregard Staff Rights

In blatant disregard of members’ contractual and democratic rights the Union and the DOE, in at least one district, has decided that they know better than the members in deciding how to use the 37 ½ minutes mandated under the new contract.

In a PERB complaint filed yesterday Jeff Kaufman alleges that in the Alternative High School District, the Special Rep and Superintendent fashioned a secret deal that prevented Chapter Leaders and UFT members the right to vote on whether they wanted to change the contractually mandated 37 ½ minute period. They decided that the election, normally required under contract rules, was not “necessary.”
The election, referred to as an SBO election, permits individual schools to modify contract provisions, like the 37 ½ minute period, in a way that better serves the school. Any modification requires 55 percent of school staff to approve it for the modification to become effective.

SBO provisions have always been controversial since they permit changes in a Union ratified contract by a slim majority of staff members. In previous contracts a 75 percent, super-majority was required.
In their secret deal the Special Rep and Superintendent “decided” that the 37 ½ minute period was unnecessary in alternative high schools and forced those schools to accept the extra time added to each teaching period. A number of UFT members in at least two schools wanted the opportunity to decide this contract modification in the democratic process of an SBO election but were prevented from holding the election by this “deal.”

The PERB complaint which seeks immediate rescission of the secret deal alleges as follows:

1. On or about November 12, 2005 United Federation of Teachers (UFT) members ratified a modification of the collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the UFT and the Board of Education of the City of New York (DOE).
2. The CBA was ratified by the DOE on or about November 28, 2005.
3. The agreement provides, in relevant part, for a change in the way the school day is constituted effective February 1, 2006.
4. This change modified the prior CBA by providing at paragraph 7:
“1. Teacher contract Article 6 shall be replaced and amended as follows:
A. School Day
The school day for teachers serving in the schools shall be six hours and 20 minutes and such additional time as provided for below and in the by-laws. The gross annual salary of employees covered by this agreement will be increased in accordance with the salary schedules herein.

1. The parties agree, effective February, 2006, to extend the teacher work day in “non Extended Time Schools” by an additional 37 ½ minutes per day, Monday through Thursday following student dismissal. Friday's work schedule will be 6 hours and 20 minutes. The 37½ minutes of the extended four (4) days per week shall be used for tutorials, test preparation and/or small group instruction and will have a teacher student ratio of no more than one to ten. In single session schools, the day will start no earlier than 8:00am and end no later than 3:45pm.


2. Multi-session schools that cannot utilize the additional time in this manner due to space or scheduling limitations will have a 6 hour 50 minute day. “


3. During the ratification process the UFT engaged upon a campaign to convince its members that the then proposed 37 ½ minute period was not required to be a formal instructional period but rather a time when tutoring and small classroom instructions were meant for struggling students.


4. Shortly after the ratification of the CBA the DOE confirmed this interpretation by issuing through its labor relations counsel’s office, by Daniel Weisberg, an implementation memo which reiterated that the 37 ½ minute period was not for formal instruction and that formal lesson plans would not be required.


5. The CBA created three exceptions to this new 37 ½ period. For multi-session schools, schools with different start times for staff and students, the CBA provides that where this period cannot be utilized a uniform 6 hour and 50 minute day without the 37 ½ period will be implemented. Additionally District 75 schools (Special Education district) require a uniform 6 hour and 50 minute day without the 37 ½ period unless the principal and Chapter Leader (local UFT leader) agree to implement the 37 ½ minute period. The third exception is contained in the School Based Option (SBO) provision of the CBA.


6. The SBO provisions provides at Article 8 Paragraph 4(b) as follows:


7. “B. School-Based Options


8. The Union chapter in a school and the principal may agree to modify the existing provisions of this Agreement or Board regulations concerning class size, rotation of assignments/classes, teacher schedules and/or rotation of paid coverages for the entire school year. By the May preceding the year in which the proposal will be in effect, the proposal will be submitted for ratification in the school in accordance with Union procedures which will require approval of seventy-five (75) percent, and effective September, 2002, fifty-five (55) percent of those voting. Resources available to the school shall be maintained at the same level which would be required if the proposal were not in effect. The Union District Representative, the President of the Union, the appropriate Superintendent and the Chancellor must approve the proposal and should be kept informed as the proposal is developed. The proposal will be in effect for one school year.


9. Should problems arise in the implementation of the proposal and no resolution is achieved at the school level, the District Representative and the Superintendent will attempt to resolve the problem. If they are unable to do so, it will be resolved by the Chancellor and the Union President. Issues arising under this provision are not subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the Agreement.”


10. Upon information and belief no other modification of the CBA is permitted without UFT membership approval.


11. The undersigned is the duly elected Chapter Leader for Austin H. MacCormick Island Academy, a DOE high school located on Rikers Island serving incarcerated adolescents. Island Academy is a school located within the Alternative High School District. He is also a duly elected member of the UFT Executive Board representing all of the DOE’s high schools.


12. Chapter Leaders are charged with the responsibility of implementing the CBA at the local school level. Among the Chapter Leader’s responsibilities include implementation of the SBO provisions by conducting elections of the Chapter where modifications are agreed to by the Chapter Leader and principal. Should less than 55 percent of the local chapter not agree to the proposed CBA modification that modification is not implemented and the CBA provisions govern.


13. On or about December 15, 2005 I received an email from Marc Korashan, UFT Special Representative assigned by the UFT to represent all UFT chapters in the Alternative High School District, District 79. This email stated, in relevant part:


14. “D79 the schools that are multisited can be seen as multi-session and be allowed to go to the 6 hour 50 minute day. I disucssed this with the Superintendent and we agreed on this. These schools have small classes already and many have pm school where students can earn credits. They will get the most productive use of the time by increasing the day. This also does the least damage to the existing after school programs and the members earning per-sesion dollars for pm school. This does not require an SBO vote.”


15. Upon information and belief this “agreement” to deprive Alternative High School UFT Chapter Leaders and members of their contractual right to democratically decide what, if any, CBA modifications should be made at their respective schools.


16. Both the DOE and UFT had ample opportunity to modify school day schedules in the CBA which was ratified as evidenced by the District wide exception in District 75.


17. Several attempts were heretofore made to void the “agreement” entered into between Marc Korashan and the Superintendent, Timothy Lisante, all with negative results. These included requests to meet with the UFT President, Randi Weingarten and the Secretary, Michael Mendel.


18. This charge seeks the voidance of the “agreement” entered into between Marc Korashan and Superintendent Timothy Lisante and the restoration of the duly ratified CBA in the Alternative High School District.

No date has been set for further proceedings.

From the Teachers at Health Professions

To Transit Workers Union Local 100:

We, the teachers of Health Professions High School are in solidarity with the striking transit workers of TWU Local 100. We recognize that their strike is in the interest of the working class.

We would like to thank you for fighting back against fines, threats, and the power of the MTA, the city, and state governments. Thank you for, as Bloomberg says, “immorally and selfishly” breaking the anti-union, anti-working class, and unjust Taylor Law. By fighting for what is right, you illustrate the essence of justice and morality to all workers and students.

While the strike will cause short term suffering for workers living in New York, it is a sacrifice that benefits and supports workers everywhere in the long term. The strike exposes the underlying problem of the working class’ eroding standard of living due to rent, gas, and food prices rising faster than our wages. Executives use the lowest wage they can pay one union to set the pattern of bargaining for future union negotiations; you are forcing them to raise the wage for all bargaining in future union negotiations.

Thank you, the transit workers of the TWU for not just fighting over the narrow demands of wage increases and pensions, but against dangerous speed ups, toxic work conditions, and the general interests of the working class. Your working conditions are our living conditions, because we must ride the transit system on a daily basis. Your solidarity across racial and gender lines will help all who must work for a living. When unionized workers’ rights erode, the non-unionized workers suffer even more.

Thank you for not “eating your young” so that only one section of the TWU benefits, and illustrating solidarity across age, time, and experience barriers. You are fighting to raise the future wages of our students, as the rights you fight for now will set the pattern of bargaining for them in the future. We will support you by joining your picket lines during our off hours, raising funds for your sacrifice, distributing this letter, and by raising awareness of your struggle among students, parents, and staff.

You are fighting to preserve the legacy of a union’s power by fighting for your own self-interests, as opposed to hoping for the goodwill of the MTA at the bargaining table. You said that “cutbacks means fight back” and you meant it. Thank you for being an example to all workers in this time of unions capitulating to the bosses’ demands and thus sacrificing our living standards. We thank you, support you, and are emboldened by your actions.

In Solidarity,

The Teachers of Health Professions High School
UFT Chapter

WHICH RANDI DO WE BELIEVE?

By James Eterno

The Fighter or the Appeaser

     Ever since the membership was convinced to accept a substandard contract that gives away many of our rights, the UFT leadership has been talking tough about the next round of bargaining coming ahead in 2007.  President Randi Weingarten has said that her goal is to possibly return the UFT to a “No Contract=No Work” policy.  That would mean the October 12, 2007 date when our current contract expires would be a real deadline.  There would be tremendous pressure on the city to negotiate a new contract with favorable terms for us because if the city would not settle the contract on time, we would be prepared to go out on strike.  (The Transport Workers Union Local 100 has a No Contract=No Work policy in dealing with NYC Transit.)  Randi is talking real militancy, right?  Well, maybe not.

     At the same time that she is telling us we have to be ready to have a credible strike threat and a meaningful deadline, Randi is urging us to send postcards to Governor George Pataki in which we urge the Governor to sign a Taylor Law reform bill passed by the State Legislature that would allow the city to delay for six months after the date that our contract expires.  Then, after the six months are over, the impasse procedure that leads to the same mediation and arbitration process that resulted in the horrific givebacks in the current contract (37.5 minute extended time small group instruction sessions, hall and cafeteria duty, longest school year in the region, loss of the right to grieve letters to our files) would automatically commence.  

In the last round of bargaining, ICE representatives spoke out strongly at the Executive Board against going to arbitration because we knew we would lose.  However, Randi ignored us back then and now she is asking us to lobby the governor for a bill that would get us to arbitration even sooner in the next round and lead to a further erosion of what remains of our rights.

     Which Randi do we believe?  Is it the tough talking Randi who wants a “No Contract=No Work” militant union?  Or is it the conciliatory Randi who wants us to push a bill that would allow the city to stall for six months after our contract expires and then sends us right back to mediation and arbitration where we will lose again?  Only in the bizarre world of the UFT could the leadership push militancy and conciliation at the same time.  Talk about a contradiction.  It leads me to believe that Norman Scott is right and the renewed militancy is a mere facade for the members and there is no true reform going on in the UFT.    

New Contract Demonstrates DOE Plan to Pit CSA Against UFT

The current confusion over the implementation of the new contract is turning out to be a first look at just how the DOE will cause principals to absorb all of the blame for the contract’s failure. It is no secret that by shifting an unprecedented amount of discretion to principals the UFT leadership will join in this attack. In the end, no doubt, the teachers and students will suffer.

Two cases in point.

Under the new contract many schools will be starting a 37 ½ minute period for struggling students. The contract states, quite clearly, “The parties agree, effective February, 2006, to extend the teacher work day in “non Extended Time Schools” by an additional 37 1/2 minutes per day, Monday through Thursday following student dismissal. Friday's work schedule will be 6 hours and 20 minutes. The 37 1/2 minutes of the extended four (4) days per week shall be used for tutorials, test preparation and/or small group instruction and will have a teacher student ratio of no more than one to ten. In single session schools, the day will start no earlier than 8:00am and end no later than 3:45pm.”

The leadership’s massive spin machine “sold” this provision to the membership guaranteeing that this would not turn into another class period. The most blatant signal that this is or is not a “teaching period” is whether a lesson plan is required and whether it may be formally observed. As to the lesson plan we were and are continually assured that this is not necessary. No quick answers on formal observations yet but it is hard to imagine how they could be permitted if no lesson plans are required.

Then comes the regional principal meetings in which regional superintendents throughout the city are ordering their interpretation of this period. Are lesson plans required? No, according to at least one regional superintendent.

“But what happens when I walk into a classroom and no learning seems to be taking place?” a principal asks.

“Ask for a lesson plan,” is the reply.

Another issue starting to boil came up in these regional meetings. Under no circumstances may any teacher opt out of the 37 ½ minute period. That includes deans, programmers and other comp time positions. Disruptive students in this period under this plan will, we surmise, be supervised by supervisors.

And we haven’t even discussed Circular 6R. Stay tuned. It gets worse.

Executive Board Report - December 5, 2005

It’s hard to believe that we are on the cusp of a new contract and there is little to do at the Executive Board. One report from districts and one resolution. Of course, there were questions and I took a point of personal privilege to indict the leadership on the way they have handled my case and my school’s chapter. (The sole report was a defense of my accusation).

First, the resolution. We unanimously agreed to support the graduate teaching assistants currently on strike at New York University.

Second, the questions. On October 6, 2005 I was removed from my teaching position pending an investigation to be preformed by the Department of Corrections. At the time I was assured by the Union’s leadership that a PERB charge would be filed with all deliberate speed.

I met with NYSUT lawyers and was assured that this matter has a top priority and would be brought to a hearing as soon as possible. A resolution by the Executive Board and then the Delegate Assembly was passed unanimously in my support and ordered the filing of the PERB charge.

By December 5th, almost two months after I was removed and assured that the charge would be filed expeditiously the charge was still not filed. I asked why not and miraculously the charge was filed today.

The second question dealt with the way in which my Chapter was handled and is being handled by the Union in my absence. I designated two interim Chapter Leaders who have been in constant communication with me. The principal refuses to deal with me about Union issues. When I complained at a previous Executive Board meeting as to why my Chapter was being neglected by the Union, Randi ordered two District Reps, Marc Korashan and Rona Frieser to go to Rikers.

The reports I received about the meeting were appalling. The DR’s met with the principal without the interim Chapter Leaders (who knows what deals were made). When issues were raised concerning a major change in how staff gets to the school at least one member was told to change schools. This after working at Rikers for over 12 years.

Rona Frieser felt compelled to answer my allegations by reporting on a “wonderful” meeting she had with Rikers staff. The security problem was referred to the safety department of the Union and I was not allowed to ask questions of her.

At no time did the DR’s report to the interim Chapter Leaders or me about any of the actions they intend to take or the referrals they allegedly made. No plans to revisit or further report to Executive Board were made.

While I realize these issues directly affect me (and I am reluctant to raise them) I realize that there is no protocol or plan by the Union on how to deal with removed Chapter Leaders.

When a Chapter Leader is removed from a school the whole school is affected. The Union leadership’s complacency with dealing with this issue is further evidence of their disconnect with the membership.

Taking the Initiative in Labor Relations

If our past experience negotiating against a “formidable adversary” as our leadership calls Bloomberg and Klein produced a wholesale erosion of our basic rights as union members the interpretation stage of this new document will lead us further away from our professionalism and our right to be a positive force in the schools.

One of the most basic concepts in any negotiation is setting the parameters or playing field. Once you’ve set the boundaries for negotiation you’ve taken the upper hand. When the infamous “eight page contract” was announced early in our negotiations our leadership fought back proclaiming that our contract evolved from many years of negotiation and we were not scraping it.

Yet our leadership went ahead to fact-finding where the fact-finders set the parameters. We plunged forward and “used the fact-finding as a vehicle” despite the anti-union provisions called for.

Then came the contract with all of its provisions insuring that principals have complete discretion in most of the important issues in the school and eviscerating the grievance procedure not to miss potty patrol.

So the leadership’s public relations spin machine decides to find a myriad of ineffective ways to work around all of our givebacks.

Our leadership was out-foxed again. The DOE issued an implementation memo and set the parameters of negotiation yet again. Where is OUR implementation memo? Isn’t the contract half ours?

Our leadership, despite the years of experience in negotiation, approached and continues to accept the DOE’s lead. The DOE does and our leadership reacts.

When are we going to learn?

Shortest Executive Board Meeting Makes Up for Previous One

Reacting to the recent contract ratification debacle which caused some members to miss the opening kick-off of Monday night football, the Executive Board, Monday night, concluded its business in a record 20 minutes.

“I didn’t even get to finish dessert,” complained one disgruntled dissident.

Mendel distributed a letter written by Jeffrey Zaino, the Vice President in charge of elections for the American Arbitration Association, to try to provide cover for the charge that the ballot envelopes were translucent. Despite clear evidence to the contrary Zaino insisted that “the double envelopes….prevented someone who handled the envelopes from seeing how the voter voted.”

The Executive Board had no questions, no reports and considered only one resolution which, not to depart from past practice, elicited one disagreement.

The resolution called for the waiver of the dues increase, despite the alleged fiscal implications, from the retroactive monies we will receive on December 15th. When a question was raised about whether a resolution was necessary and whether this departed from past practice, Mendel stated that it was not unprecedented

An attempt was then made to amend the resolution to reflect this past practice and to prevent the current Union leadership from taking unwarranted credit for something that is always done; Jeffrey Zahler made a motion to table.

It appears that motions to table are becoming the preferred method of Unity Executive Board members to deal with issues that provide full disclosure to resolutions.

Needless to say the motion to table was passed and the resolution that will go before the Delegate Assembly will appear that Randi and her caucus are truly magnanimous.

Some members were seen taking cookies home. They made it home for the kick-off.

Living Under a Sellout Contract…Union Says, “Just SBO It!”

As the impact of the new contract slowly works its way through the schools it is clear that the pre-ratification spin can no longer be spun. Chapter Leader training is scheduled for the next few weeks in each borough. There are more questions than answers, as usual. And even if the Union takes the “aggressive” position it promises it will be hard to protect our members.

Here are a couple of examples.

Under the Circular 6R changes we are now limited to a “menu” of professional items and, of course, the dreaded administrative duties. The Union’s response…just SBO it. Like your principal will agree to forgo this wonderful opportunity to assign us to potty patrol.

The extra 10 minutes and the 37 ½ period at the end of the day….the Union’s response….just SBO it. Make it PD or whatever your chapter wants is the advice. Like we really have a choice.

Now, we are certain there will be Chapters out there with good working relationships with the administration who really can work out some of these things. But, don’t count on your arrangement either being approved or lasting very long.

Under our new contract there is no question that the DOE has the final word on these issues. We will have to learn to live with it.

And there’s more…how do you SBO “Letters to the File?”

New Contract Raises Puzzling Questions

Bob Reich writes in the current CSA News, the monthly newspaper for DOE supervisors, how the new contract will affect his members. He acknowledges that the UFT contract gives more power to the LIS and Superintendent and outlines how a letter to the file should be written since they can no longer be grieved.

Reich notes that administrators may now assign staff to a myriad of non-educational duties including cafeteria duty and bus duty. He cautions that supervisors should give careful consideration to the assignments and the number of staff assigned. “Your supervisor, the LIS the CSD Superintendent or the Regional Superintendent [will] hold you accountable for the decisions you make. A claim that insufficient staff assigned to a particular area (i.e. the lunchroom) resulted in a student injury could result in [an] action against you.”

Reich claims that the new contract gives supervisors the authority to place tardy employees on the time clock. He cautions, however, that letters to the file must be supported by timecards and the Cumulative Absence Reserve card.

The new letters to the file provision has created many unanswered questions. One of the first questions, which should have been dealt with in the contract, is the provision’s retroactivity. Reading the plain language of the provision gives no clue as to how letters which are now in our files more than three years should be handled. Randi, at the last DA, proudly proclaimed that they will all be removed but that is not clear.

What about currently pending Step II’s? Are they automatically converted to Step III’s?

The Union is sponsoring a Chapter Leader’s training on the new contract over the next couple of weeks. How many of our questions will be accurately answered?