1. June
12,
2012
Brenda,
Here
is
some
specific
feedback
from
the
Board
of
Education
and
some
challenges
that
need
to
be
addressed,
in
no
particular
order.
Please
note
that
these
are
their
highest
priority
items.
Using
Pay
for
Performance
dollars
for
a
raise,
ongoing
or
one-­‐time,
is
a
problem.
It
depletes
the
pool
of
$4.2M
dollars
by
approximately
half,
greatly
minimizing
our
ability
to
make
progress
towards
the
Strategic
Plan
goals.
From
our
original
proposal
on
April
11:
Reengage
pay
for
performance
–
use
money
to
pay
great
employees
to
build
out
the
system
in
FY
2013.
Start
pilot
with
limited
group
of
new
hires
in
FY
2013.
Pay
employees
for
professional
development
associated
with
strategic
plan
and
pay
for
performance.
Transition
the
money
to
full
pay
for
performance
–
phase
in.
We
want
to
reengage
P4P,
in
the
form
of
funding
National
Board
Certified
Teacher,
Master
Teacher,
Site
Based
Responsibility,
Skills
Blocks/Personal
Learning
(Growth
and
Development)
Stipends
and
District
Responsibility.
With
the
suspension
of
Outstanding
Teacher
and
the
Group
Incentive,
we
will
have
the
flexibility
to
fund
additional
learning
opportunities
for
staff
and/or
a
limited
pilot
of
the
Pay
for
Performance
plan
we
are
developing
through
the
collaborative
work
around
Career
Ladders
and
the
other
associated
pieces.
Dues
Collection
DCFT
tentatively
agreed
on
the
issue
of
dues
collection.
In
fact,
we
understand
that
you
already
have
a
process
underway
to
collect
outside
of
a
District
payroll
deduction.
However,
the
statement
that
the
DCFT
wants
to
“reserve
the
right
to
take
legal
action
outside
of
this
if
we
so
feel
necessary”
is
troublesome.
(Session
5
audio
on
June
8,
2012
at
approximately
45:00)
DCFT’s
statement,
when
asked
about
the
dues
collection
in
the
recent
article
in
the
Colorado
News
Press,
was
“Though
the
Union
conceded,
Smith
said
it
retains
the
right
to
take
legal
action
on
the
issue
of
dues
deduction…”
(Colorado
News
Press
June
8,
2012)
These
statements
about
taking
legal
action
on
contract
items
to
which
DCFT
has
“agreed”
indicate
that
there
really
is
no
agreement
on
these
items.
Exclusivity
is
“non-­‐negotiable”
As
discussed,
we
want
to
change
the
language
on
page
3
of
the
current
CBA
to:
II.
RECOGNITION
A.
The
Board
recognizes
the
Union
as
the
exclusive
a
bargaining
agent
for
the
unit
of
teachers
its
members
as
herein
above
defined,
for
the
purpose
of
bargaining
on
the
following:
On
Friday,
DCFT
stated
“this
part
is
non-­‐negotiable”
in
reference
to
the
above
recommended
change.
Furthermore,
DCFT
stated
that
“we
as
an
organization
will
not
negotiate
ourselves
out
of
a
contract”.
(Session
1
Audio
on
June
8,
2012
at
approximately
11:20
–
12:10)

2. To
be
clear,
we
are
asking
for
choice
for
our
teachers…you
are
asking
for
a
monopoly.
When
asked
about
other
collective
bargaining
agents,
you
stated
“No
language
needed.
In
accordance
with
Federal
law,
teachers
choose
their
own
collective
bargaining
agent.”
(DCFT
Bargaining
Offer
–A
Summary
of
Negotiations
on
May
9)
It
is
counter-­‐intuitive
that
as
a
teacher
I
have
a
right
to
choose
my
own
collective
bargaining
agent,
but
as
an
organization
we
only
recognize
one
organization
as
the
“exclusive”
bargaining
agent.
We
are
asking
for
flexibility
and
choice
for
all
employees.
No
Disruption
to
the
educational
environment
–
the
Union
will
not
spread
misinformation
about
Board,
Superintendent,
District
Leadership,
or
other
District
matters.
Recent
evidence
suggests
there
is
an
apparent
disconnect
between
“what
you
say”
and
“what
you
do”
regarding
your
commitment
to
the
repair
and
improvement
of
the
climate
and
culture
of
our
District.
The
language
that
has
been
proposed
by
the
DCFT
as
an
addition
to
the
CBA
is
a
good
start:
Q.
WORKING
CONDITIONS.
The
DCSD
and
DCFT
understand
that
positive
working
conditions
are
important
for
both
teachers
and
their
students.
To
help
foster
a
work
environment
conducive
to
student
learning,
both
parties
agree
to
work
on
the
following:
 Improve
the
culture
and
climate
of
DCSD
by
collaborating
to
determine
appropriate
standards
for
working
conditions.
 Improve
communication
and
distribute
accurate
information
within
the
District
and
between
the
District
and
the
DCFT.
 Review
and
find
ways
to
reduce
class
loads
and
case
loads
in
order
to
improve
certified
employee
and
student
contact
ratios,
which
improve
student
learning
and
outcomes.
 Review
ways
for
certified
employees
to
be
more
involved
in
decision
making
at
sites
and
across
the
District.
However,
since
the
time
this
was
first
brought
up
as
an
issue
for
Negotiations,
there
have
been
several
instances
that
have
been
counter
productive.
Most
recently
the
“door
hangers”
distributed
in
the
community
regarding
budget
twisted
facts
and
the
threat
to
perpetuate
misinformation
at
a
recent
Open
Negotiations
session
from
one
of
your
team
members
to
one
of
mine…to
paraphrase
“I
think
I
will
send
that
article
out
to
all
teachers,
what
do
you
think
of
that?”
At
the
April
11
Open
Negotiations
meeting,
the
following
was
shared
verbally
and
in
a
PowerPoint:
District
Proposes
a
Healthier
Culture
and
Climate
to
Improve
Morale
(Quality
of
Life)
Commitment
to
the
attributes
of
healthy
organizations:
• Expectation
of
positive,
accurate
communication
to
schools
and
community
• Protect
the
educational
environment
• Commitment
to
freedom
and
choice
for
employees
We
are
committed
to
the
above
statements,
as
we
know
they
are
very
important
for
our
staff
and
students.
If
you
agree,
please
provide
specific
examples
of
the
actions
you
will
take
to
ensure
it.

3. A
3%
raise
(1%
one-­‐time
stipend
and
2%
ongoing
from
other
sources)
puts
the
District
in
an
unsustainable
financial
position.
As
was
shared
at
Negotiations,
the
1%
retention
stipend
(one-­‐time
dollars)
is
funded
in
our
budget
proposal.
We
realized
$6M
dollars
of
cost
of
business
savings
this
year,
and
would
like
to
use
$2.8M
to
fund
the
retention
stipend
for
all
employees.
There
are
“no
strings”
attached
to
this
retention
stipend
except
for
returning
contracts
by
the
June
15,
2012
deadline.
In
addition
we
have
committed
the
remaining
$3.2M
in
the
form
of
$50.00
per
student
back
to
our
schools.
The
$6M
dollar
savings
will
be
ongoing
in
future
budgets,
and,
as
you
know
we
have
used
the
recurring
$6M
to
reduce
the
reoccurring
budget
by
$18.1M,
so
that
we
can
recommend
a
balanced
budget
for
FY
2013
-­‐
one
that
does
not
rely
on
one-­‐time
money
for
on-­‐going
costs.
As
previously
outlined,
the
District
proposed
1%
ongoing
pay
increase
may
be
accomplished
by:
• Phase
Out
of
Longevity
• Phase
Out
of
Extended
Service
Severance
• Phase
out
of
KLA
(Certified
Only)
At
this
time,
based
on
your
proposal
last
Friday,
you
have
identified
very
limited
savings
toward
the
$2M
certified
only
cost
to
fund
a
1%
raise.
In
addition,
you
have
added
another
1%
on
top
of
the
District’s
proposal
offering
a
questionable
$1
M
to
$1.4
M
of
savings
from
those
long
term
employees
who
willingly
forgo
the
extended
severance
assuming
they
will
receive
the
2%
ongoing
pay
increase.
For
certified
only,
each
1%
pay
increase
has
a
value
of
$2
M.
Each
year,
somewhere
between
50
and
100
teachers
retire
at
an
average
cost
of
about
$2
million
each
year.
Assuming
this
trend
continues
at
the
end
of
FY
2013,
it
is
extremely
unlikely
that
anyone
planning
to
retire
at
the
end
of
this
fiscal
year
would
choose
the
2%
raise
over
the
severance.
The
average
value
of
the
severance
is
over
$38,000
for
each
employee.
We
would
not
see
any
savings
in
this
line
for
at
least
the
next
3
years
putting
at
risk
our
financial
stability.
More
specifically,
this
would
require
the
district
to
commit
to
and
recommend
deficit
spending
until
we
either
secure
a
new
revenue
source
and/or
cut
our
schools
to
fund
the
increase
–
exactly
what
happened
in
FY
2009
after
the
District
agreed
to
a
2.7%
pay
increase.
We
must
plan
ongoing
budgets
that
allow
us
to
live
within
our
means.
We
are
committed
to
finding
a
way
to
propose
a
1%
on-­‐going
pay
increase
for
all
staff,
so
we
need
to
work
out
the
logistics
within
the
three
variables
mentioned
above
to
get
there.
In
closing,
should
you
be
interested
in
improving
this
potential
CBA
package
for
the
BOE
to
consider,
I
can
be
available
to
discuss
it
the
week
of
June
25-­‐28.
I
would
be
interested
in
a
topic-­‐specific
session
to
improve
our
current
package…
focusing
on
the
above-­‐mentioned
areas.
I
am
thinking
that
2-­‐3
hours
with
extensive
front-­‐loading
of
specific
proposals
and
a
commitment
from
all
to
stay
on
task
would
be
necessary.
In
the
meantime,
the
Board
of
Education
shared
that
“Open
Negotiations”
can
also
include
the
passing
of
proposals
and
counters
electronically
as
long
as
that
information
is
posted
to
the
website.
If
you
have
proposals,
clarifications
or
improvements
regarding
the
above
issues,
I
would
be
happy
to
respond
as
necessary.
Regards,
Dan
McMinimee