The District handed out a document. Todd Bloomquist distributed a hard copy of a “White Paper”he had completed for both sides. This is the same document that was emailed to all of the teachers in the district less than three hours before the negotiation session. However, since the document was emailed to your bargaining team at the same time as everyone else, we were not able to review the information for relevance or factual accuracy prior to the meeting. Therefore, we had no discussions about the document during the negotiation session. If necessary, I will respond to the document at a future time. Todd explained that the state of Oregon expects to experience an economic downturn for the next few years. Todd also explained that the state would probably call for the district to reduce its current budget by about $1.5 million.
The MEA made a distinction between a long-term contract and a short term crisis. Your bargaining team pointed out that both sides were trying to create a contract that would serve as a template for many years to come. The District agreed with this statement. Your bargaining team also pointed out that the current contract has “re-opener” language that permits the District to temporarily renegotiate some portions the contract in order to meet an economic crisis. Once again, the District agreed that the re-opener language gave them the power to temporarily modify whatever contract we agree to. Under questioning by the bargaining team, the District admitted that their proposed changes in insurance and early retirement would not provide them with any short-term savings. Your bargaining team then stated that negotiating this long-term contract, therefore, should not be sidelined by a potential crisis that no one can predict.
The District rejected the MEA’s latest proposal.
The District did not offer a counterproposal. Despite the prior discussion on the separation
between the contract and the possible short term economic crisis, Todd stated that the District could not prepare a counter proposal until it received more information from the state in early December.
Both sides discussed the District’s current budget. The District said that it had budgeted a 2.5%
salary increase for the current year, but that it didn’t have money for either the 4% increase or
the two extra salary steps that we proposed. Your bargaining team asked the District how much the steps would cost, but the District did not have the information at hand, so your bargaining team asked that a calculation be made for the next meeting. Your bargaining team pointed out that the District has an additional, unaccounted $300,000 from the last fiscal year. The District admitted that our claim was correct, but that the money would probably be eaten up by the expected state-mandated budget reduction. Your bargaining team then clarified a few more budgetary issues before the meeting ended.
Both sides agreed to meet again in mid-December.
I realize how important it is for you to receive accurate and timely updates, and I will do my best to continue to provide them. If you have any questions, feel free to contact any member of your
bargaining team. We appreciate you input, and your concerns.
Respectfully,
Robert Young
President, Medford Education Association
