South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report

7/27/2019 South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report

1/39

1

**************************************

SOUTH BURLINGTON EDUCATORS *ASSOCIATION, VERMONT NEA/NEA *

*and ***

SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT **

*************************************

FACT FINDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BEFORE: John B. Cochran, Esq.

APPEARANCES:

For the Association: David Boulanger,UniServ Director

For the District: Steven F. Stitzel, Esq.

HEARING DETAILS:

INTRODUCTION

The South Burlington Educators Association

(Association) is the collective bargaining representative for

teachers employed by the South Burlington School District

(District). The District provides educational services for

the residents of South Burlington, VT, a community of

approximately 18,000 residents located in Chittenden County


2/39

2

in northwestern Vermont. 1 There are three elementary

schools, one middle school, and one high school in the

District. Total student enrollment is 2,606, and the District

employs 252 2 teachers. The Districts 2012 Annual Report

Card reflects that student assessment results are higher than

state and national averages.

The parties began negotiations for a successor to their

2010-2013 collective bargaining agreement in November 2012.

Between November 13, 2012 and January 14, 2013 they met five

times but were unable to reach agreement on the terms of a

successor agreement. Accordingly, they proceeded to

mediation on January 29, 2013 but were still unable to reach

agreement. Subsequently, the parties jointly selected me to

serve as a mediator for a second round of mediation, and, if

necessary, as a fact finder. On May 15, 2013, I held a

mediation session with the parties that did not produce an

agreement, and I convened a fact finding hearing later the

same day. I have thoroughly reviewed the parties oral

presentations at the fact finding hearing and the supporting

documentation each submitted in support of their respective

1 The average household income in South Burlington between200-2011 was $63,457, which is the third lowest inChittenden County, although the county is one of the moreaffluent in the state.

2 The Vermont Department of Education shows there are 204teachers, but District Exhibit 11 reflects there are 252.


3/39

3

positions on the issues in dispute. Based on the evidence and

arguments presented by the parties regarding economic

conditions, comparisons of existing and proposed salary and

benefit levels to those in comparable communities, and

contract language in comparable communities, I make the

following recommendations concerning each of the issues that

remain in dispute.

RECOMMEDNATIONS ON ISSUES IN DISPUTE3

ISSUE NO. 1

ARTICLE II NEGOTIATIONS

Current Contract Language

2.1 Notice. The Association shall notify the Board of anyintent to negotiate by October 15 of the terminal year ofthis contract. The Board and the Association will establisha negotiating schedule for the successor agreement which willassure that if fact finding is necessary, it will becompleted and the fact finding report received by June 30 ofthe final year of the Agreement. The Board and theAssociation will exchange proposals at the first meetingmutually agreed upon for such purposes. The Board and theAssociation will schedule such additional meetings asnecessary to discuss all matters properly to be negotiated

for the successor contract.

3 My recommendations follow the order in which the disputedissues appear in the parties current collective bargaining

agreement.


4/39

4

District Proposal

The District proposes to amend the language of Article

2.1, as follows:

2.1 Notice. The Association or Board shall notify the otherin writing of any intent to negotiate by October 15 of theterminal year of this contract. Such notification shallclearly state the partys intent to negotiate and shall

contain substantially the following language: Pursuant to

Article 2.1 of the Agreement between the parties, the(Board/Association) hereby provides formal notice of itsintent to negotiate a successor agreement. The Board and

the Association will establish a negotiating schedule for thesuccessor agreement which will assure that if fact finding isnecessary, it will be completed and the fact finding reportreceived by June 30 of the final year of the Agreement. Ifthe fact finding report is not received by June 30 due todelays caused by the Association, teachers will remain onstep until 45 days after reception of the fact findingreport. The Board and the Association will exchangeproposals at the first meeting mutually agreed upon for suchpurposes. The Board and the Association will schedule suchadditional meetings as necessary to discuss all mattersproperly to be negotiated for the successor contract.

In support of its proposal, the District emphasizes

that, during the parties last round of negotiations, the

District wanted to add language eliminating automatic steps

if the parties did not reach agreement on a successor

agreement before the prior agreement expired. As a

compromise, however, the District withdrew that proposal and

the parties agreed to the current language in Article 2.1,

which is designed to ensure that the negotiation process is

completed and a fact finding report issued, if necessary, no

later than June 30 of the last year of the agreement.


5/39

5

According to the District, however, the Association has

protracted the current round of negotiations by delaying the

start of negotiations from September 20, 2012 to November 5,

2012. Therefore, the District is now proposing an amendment

to Article 2.1 that will: 1) clarify the parties respective

obligation for commencing negotiations and developing a

negotiation schedule; and 2) delay any step movement until

the parties have reached agreement or the District has

imposed a new agreement if the Association causes delays in

the negotiations.

Association Response

The Association opposes the Districts proposal to

modify Article 2.1. In its view, the proposal is a draconian

proposal that would punish the teachers if the parties are

unable to complete the bargaining process by June 30 because

of a perceived delay caused by the Association. It points

out that there are legitimate reasons why negotiations can

take longer than expected and it should not have to live with

the fear that the District will claim a legitimate basis for

a delay would jeopardize the teachers ability to receive

their step increases.


6/39

6

Recommendation

To the extent the District is proposing to clarify the

parties obligation to provide formal, written notice of the

intent to negotiate a successor agreement by October 15 of

the final year of the agreement, I recommend that the parties

adopt that modification. What the District is proposing is a

more formal process for commencing negotiations that does not

appear to affect the substantive bargaining rights of either

party.

However, I do not recommend the parties adopt that

portion of the Districts proposal providing that, If the

fact finding report is not received by June 30 due to delays

caused by the Association, teachers will remain on step until

45 days after reception of the fact finding report.

Although t is understandable that the District wants to avoid

automatic step increases if negotiations are not completed by

the end of the contract term, I believe there is an inherent

ambiguity in the language delays caused by the Association.

Under the Districts proposal, if the Association cancels a

negotiation session for any reason, even because of illness,

weather conditions, or legitimate scheduling conflicts, the

District could claim the Association is responsible for

delaying the negotiations. Similarly, if the Association is

unable or unwilling to agree to a proposed mediator or fact


7/39

7

finder, the door would be open for the District to claim the

Association had delayed negotiations. Finally, there may be

legitimate reasons whey the Association or the District might

want to obtain more information or to further analyze an

issue before taking a position at the bargaining table, which

could be construed as a delaying tactic. In sum, I am

concerned that the proposed language is fraught with

potential disputes about what constitutes a delay and whether

a delay has been directly caused solely by the Association

Similarly, I am concerned that those disputes could interfere

with the substance of the parties bargaining and lead to

potential grievances or unfair labor practice charges.

ISSUE NO. 2

ARTICLE IVTEACHING HOURS AND TEACHING DUTIES


4.5 Duty-free Lunch. A duty-free lunch period shall beprovided for each teacher. The teachers lunch period shall

be continuous, and shall be at least as long in duration asthe students lunch period in the same school. The school

district will make a good faith effort to provide teachers

with a duty free lunch period of at least thirty (30)minutes.

Association Proposal

The Association proposes to substitute the following for


8/39

8

the current language in Article 4.5:

4.4 Duty-Free Lunch. A minimum 3o minute duty-free lunchperiod shall be provided for each teacher.

The Union contends that this is a reasonable, humane proposal

that guarantees all teachers in the District have at least a

half hour for lunch.

District Response

The Districts position is that most teachers currently

receive a thirty (30) minute lunch period, and the current

contract language recognizes that goal. However, there are

times, when it is difficult to meet that goal at the

elementary school because of the schedules at those schools.

Recommendation

Although the Associations proposal appears reasonable

on it face, it is not readily apparent that the current

language has been a problem or that the District has

routinely deprived teachers of a thirty (30) minute duty-

free lunch period. Further, it is not readily apparent

what impact the Associations proposal would have on

scheduling at the elementary school level. Finally, the

teacher contracts for the Chittenden East Supervisory Union

and the Essex District provide that teacher lunch periods


9/39

9

will be the same length as student lunch periods, and the

Milton and Winooski teacher contracts provide for only a

twenty-five minute lunch period. The current language

here, which obligates the District to provide a lunch

period at least as long as student lunch periods and to

make a good faith effort to provide teachers with a

thirty minute lunch period, is consistent with agreements

in surrounding districts. Therefore, I do not recommend

the parties adopt the Associations proposal at this time.

ISSUE NO. 3

ARTICLE IV TEACHING HOURS AND TEACHING DUTIES


4.8 Minimum Prep Periods. Each teacher at the high schooland middle school will have a minimum preparation period ofone (1) class period per day. Each elementary teacher isguaranteed a preparation period whenever a special subjectteacher, identified for the purposes of this section asart, music, and physical education teachers, is scheduledto assume responsibility for a class (normally five (5)times per week). Special subject teachers shall havepreparation times each day, which is substantiallyequivalent to the elementary teachers preparation period.


The Association proposes to amend Article 4.8, as

follows:

4.8 Minimum Prep Periods. Each teacher will have a minimum


10/39

10

preparation period of one (1) class period per dayscheduled during the student day. For elementary schoolteachers, the prep period will be equal in length to atypical special class (music, art, PE, etc.).

The Union asserts that scheduling preparation time during

the student day would ensure close proximity between

preparation time and instruction, which would improve

teacher productivity. Further, preparation time at the

elementary level revolves around special classes and may be

a little less than thirty (30) minutes a day.

District Response

In the Districts view, it is a resource issue to give

teachers preparation time when want it. According to the

District, teachers do not always get a preparation period

every day, particularly at the elementary level, where

preparation periods are linked to special classes. However,

the amount of preparation time each teacher receives

averages out to one class period a day. However, if the

District were required to guarantee all teachers a daily

preparation period during the student day, there would be a

significant impact on the overall schedule and could

require additional personnel.


11/39

11

Recommendation

The Association makes a valid point that scheduling

preparation time and instructional time in close proximity

to one another might well be more efficient for teachers.

However, that interest must be balanced against scheduling

constraints, particularly at the elementary schools where

preparation periods must be scheduled around special

subjects. Therefore, because of the logistical problems of

implementing the Associations proposal, I do not recommend

that the parties adopt it in their new agreement.

ISSUE No. 4

ARTICLE VI SALARIES


6.1 Salary Schedule. The salaries of all persons covered bythis Agreement are set for in Appendix A which is attachedto and made a part hereof.

(1) The starting salary for the 2013-2014 school year shallbe $42,545 and the maximum salary shall be $88,494.



The Association acknowledges that the District

compensates teachers well when compared to comparable

districts in the county. In its view, however, it is


12/39

12

important for attracting and retaining teachers for the

District to maintain its relative salary level by

continuing the existing salary schedule. It points out

that recent settlements for 2013-2014 in Chittenden County

have with a few exceptions been at least 3% in new money.

Similarly, recent settlements in Essex Town, Winooski, and

Milton for 2014-15 and 2015-16 have ranged between 3% and

4.8. Therefore, the Associations proposal, which calls

for new money on the salary schedule of 4.93% in 2013-14,

4.88 in 2014-15, and 4.91% in 2014-15 is consistent with

the trend in comparable school districts.

Next, the Association argues that its proposal is

supported by solid economic data showing low unemployment

in Chittenden County and South Burlington. Further, the

combined school and municipal property rates for South

Burlington fall within the median, and a majority of its

taxpayers qualify for tax relief under the state formula.

Finally, the Association asserts that the Districts

proposal to revamp the salary index on the ground that

those on the higher columns are disproportionately overpaid

in comparison with their counterparts in surrounding

communities is misplaced. It claims that the real reason

for the disparity is that there are a large number of

experienced teachers in South Burlington who are being


13/39

13

fairly compensated based on their experience. Similarly,

it asserts that the South Burlington salary index is a

unique index that rewards teachers for performance, and

cannot be compared in a meaningful way with the salary

indices in other districts in the county.

District Proposal4

At the outset, the District takes the position that

its teachers are well compensated in relation to their

peers in Chittenden County and have the highest average

teacher salary ($72,845) in the county. Therefore, rather

than proposing to adjust the salary index by an across-the

board increase, the District is proposing to adjust each

column on the salary index by an identifiable percentage so

that teachers in each column except for the BA 30 column

will earn five percent above the average teacher salary in

the county. Specifically, the Districts proposal includes

the following components:

1. No step movement in 2013-142. Different percentage increases in the five left hand

columns on the salary index, with no increase in theM+30 column

3. A one-time cash payment for all teachers who would4 During the parties negotiations the Districts salaryproposal consisted of no step increases and no new moneyfor salary increases. It presented this proposal for thefirst time the day of the May 15 mediation/fact finding.


14/39

14

receive less than $1,000 under the revised index toassure all teachers would receive some additionalmoney and to offset the increased health insurancepremiums proposed by the District

According to the District, its proposal will result in

total new salary money of 1.54%, which includes $89,217 in

column increases, $160,000 in one time cash payment; and 3)

$15,000 in co-curricular increases.

The District advances several arguments in support of

its proposal. First, it claims that the twenty-five

percent of its teachers who are at the top step of the

index are some of the highest paid in the county, which is

an anomaly. Second, because the teachers in the top

columns are already so well compensated in relation to

their peers, it would merely exacerbate the disparity to

award them an across-the-board increase. Third, its

proposal helps to equalize the relative position of the

teachers in the left hand columns with their and still

ensures that the teachers in the other columns will receive

additional compensation in the form of a one-time cash

payment. At the same time, the lifetime earnings of

teachers in South Burlington would be brought more in line

with their counterparts.

Finally, the District emphasizes that the salary

increases it is proposing under the new index are realistic


15/39

15

in light of current economic realities, particularly the

most recent CPI, which is less than 2%. Further, as its

annual report reflects, it has already made cuts to

accommodate the FY 2014 budget approved by the taxpayers.

If it must absorb salaries higher than it has proposed, it

will be necessary to cut additional programs and staff.

Recommendation

As I have frequently observed, I believe Section

1732(d) of the Vermont Municipal Employees Labor Relations

Act sets out the criteria that are most relevant for

analyzing the parties respective economic proposals: 1)

the wages and benefits of similar employees in comparable

communities; 2) the ability of the Board to pay in light of

current economic conditions; and 3) the cost of living

index.

The parties here have a fundamental, philosophical

difference about what constitutes comparable wages. In the

Associations view, comparability should be determined by

looking to the percentage wage increases received by

teachers in surrounding school districts. However, the

District claims I should compare the actual salaries of

teachers in South Burlington to those of other teachers to

determine what increases are warranted. As a practical


16/39

16

matter, neither approach is entirely satisfactory.

Percentage increases may vary depending on the political

and fiscal realities facing a community. Similarly, there

may be specific reasons why one school district has chosen

to pay its teachers significantly more or less in any given

year than their counterparts. Therefore, I do not believe

that looking at a snapshot of a single year is the best

predictor of comparability. Rather, it is necessary to

look at historical practices, emerging trends, and unique

community factors to get a true picture of comparability.

Here, the charts submitted by the District comparing

South Burlington teacher salaries with those in other

communities for 2012 and 2013 show that South Burlington

had the top salaries in all but the BA-Step 1 and BA-30-

Step 10 columns each year. Significantly, however, that

had also been the case since 2006-07. In other words, the

District has for the past eight (8) years paid its teachers

more than the surrounding communities. It is also

significant that the salary index for South Burlington has

a unique performance system that places teachers on a

higher step based on their demonstrated performance.

Finally, the number of teachers in South Burlington in the

M+30 column is a testament to their longevity and

experience. In sum, there are historical reasons why there


17/39

17

are more teachers in South Burlington at the top steps of

the right hand columns because of the vagaries of the South

Burlington index and their longevity, which does not

necessarily mean they are paid significantly more than

their counterparts with comparable years of experience.

What all of the data shows is that the District has

historically chosen to compensate its teacher, particularly

those in the right hand columns, well based on their

performance and experience. As Association Exhibit #5

reflects, since 1999, the District has routinely agreed to

percentage wage increases than allowed its teachers to

maintain their relative standing in the county. Therefore,

I find that the measure of comparability is the South

Burlington teachers relative historic standing among their

peers, rather than merely how much they currently earn. In

sum, I am convinced that, on the unique facts before me, it

is most appropriate to look to the percentage increases

received by teachers in surrounding districts in 2013-14

and 2014-15, rather than actual salaries to assess

comparability.

Tested by this measure, I find that the there is

insufficient grounds to recommend revamp the salary index

at this time and that teachers should receive total annual

new money salary increases based on the current index.


18/39

18

This is not to suggest that the parties should not re-

examine the current index in future negotiations. However,

because the District made that proposal for the first time

at fact finding, the parties need more of an opportunity to

explore the issue in greater detail at the bargaining table

before I or any other fact finder can endorse such a

fundamental change in the salary index.

Finally, I must consider what would constitute a fair

and reasonable salary increase in light of the factors I

have outlined above. The District proposes a one-year

increase of 1.5% in new money, and the Association proposes

a three-year agreement with increases of 4.9%, 4.88%, and

4.91%. In my view, both of these proposals are out of step

with current economic reality and percentage increases in

surrounding districts for the following reasons.

First, the CPI index for March 2013 reflects an annual

increase of 1.5% at that time, which reflects that teacher

salaries would have to increase by at least that much to

keep pace with inflation, which is less than a third of

what the Association has proposed. Second, there can be no

dispute that the District faces budget challenges and

uncertainties about future educational funding. However,

in light of the relative standing of South Burlington

taxpayers, the unemployment rate in the community, and its


19/39

19

overall economic standing in the state, I believe it is

able to absorb the cost of fair and reasonable teacher

salary increases without undue financial hardship. Perhaps

the most significant variable here is the increase teachers

in comparable communities have received in 2013-14 and

2014-15. With three exceptions, salary increases in the

county have generally been at 3% of new money for 2013-14.

Although there is less data for 2014-2015, two of the three

districts with information reached settlements of 3% and

3.25 percent. The one exception is Winooski, where teacher

salaries will increase by 4.8% in 2014-15. However, that

increase must be viewed in light of the below average

increase Winooski teachers received in 2013-14. Therefore,

I find new money increases equal to 3% for 2013-14 and

3.25% for 2014-2015 for teachers in South Burlington fairly

balances the available financial information and the

compounding effect of the increase I have recommended in

teachers health insurance premium contributions, and I

recommend that the parties adopt these salary increases for

2013-14 and 2014-15.


20/39

20

ISSUE No. 5

ARTICLE VI SALARIES


6.10 National Teacher Certification Teachers who possessNational Board Certification as of December 1 of the schoolyear will receive an annual incentive award from theDistrict of $1,500. The Parties agree to appoint a studycommittee to review the comparability of advancedcertification programs for Speech and Language Pathologistsand Registered Nurses in light of the requirements forNational Board Certification and make recommendations tothe Board and Association for their consideration.


The Association proposes to amend the language of

Article 6.10 as follows:

6.10 National Teacher Certification Teachers, Nurses, andSpeech and Language Pathologists (SLPS) who possess

national Board Certification as of December 1 of the schoolyear will receive an annual incentive award from the

District of $1,500.

According to the Association, the parties created a study

committee pursuant to the current language of Article 6.10,

and it twice recommended to the District that registered

nurses (RNs) and SLPs who attain national board

certification be treated the same as teachers for purposes

of receiving an annual incentive award. Therefore, the

Association seeks to amend Article 6.10 to guarantee RNs

and SPLs will receive annual incentive awards commensurate


21/39

21

with their national certifications.

District Response

The Districts position is that the study committee

did not provide it with sufficient information regarding RN

and SLP national certifications to enable it to determine

whether they are equivalent to national teacher

certifications. Therefore, has not been able to determine

whether an RNs and SLP are entitled to an equivalent

annual incentive award. However, the District is willing

to continue receiving information from the committee and

proposes that the current contract language remain

unchanged while the committee continues to do its work.

Recommendation

The annual incentive award for RNs and SLPs employed

by the District is certainly reasonable and equitable,

provided the incumbents of those positions hold a national

certification equivalent to a national teacher

certification. It is in the Districts interest to

encourage all of its professional employee to attain and

maintain national certifications in their respective

fields, and the Associations proposal would provide an

incentive for RNs and SLP to strive for that goal.


22/39

22

Unfortunately, however, I am not familiar with the specific

national certifications are available for RNs and SLPs or

whether they are equivalent to national teacher

certifications. Accordingly, I cannot recommend the

parties adopt the Associations proposal at this time.

However, the District is willing to consider extending

the annual incentive award to RNs and SLPs if it has

sufficient information to justify that action. Therefore,

I recommend the parties continue the existing language of

Article 6.10, and also include a specific time line for the

study committee to make a formal, written recommendation to

the District, and a time line for the District to issue a

formal, written response to that recommendation so the

parties can have some closure on this question.

ISSUE No 6.

ARTICLE VIII TEACHER EVALUATION


8.5 Complaints. Any complaint regarding a teacher made to

any member of the administration by any parent, student orother persons, if used in a formal evaluation, will bepromptly investigated and called to the attention of theteacher will be given an opportunity to respond and/orrebut such complaint.


23/39

23


The Association proposes to amend Article 8.5 as

follows:

8.5 Complaints. Any complaint regarding a teacher made toany member of the administration by any parent, student orother persons, if used in a formal evaluation, will bereduced to writing, promptly investigated, and called tothe attention of the teacher. The teacher will be given anopportunity to respond and/or rebut such complaint.

The Association contends that it is unfair for teachers to

have to defend against unknown allegations from unknown

sources if they are going to have professional consequences

for the teachers. Therefore, it proposes that all serious

complaints that could have professional consequences be

reduced to writing.

District Response

The District opposes the Associations proposal on

this issue. In the Districts view, complaints to

administrators are often informal and require little or no

follow up by administrators. Further, the District does

not know at the time a complaint is made whether it will be

used as part of a formal evaluation.


24/39

24

Recommendation

At the outset, I note that the current language of

Article 8.5 is somewhat confusing. It requires

administrators to promptly investigate and notify teachers

if any complaints they receive about teachers are to be

used in a formal evaluation. What is not clear, however,

is how an administrator knows at the time he or she

receives a complaint that the substance of that complaint

will be used in a formal evaluation at some point in the

future. Therefore, my initial recommendation is that the

parties re-phrase the existing language of Article 8.5 to

provide that, whenever the subject of a complaint an

administrator receives about a teacher could: 1)

negatively affect a teachers evaluation; or 2) have other

professional consequences for the teacher, the complaint

shall be promptly investigated and brought to the teachers

attention. This will make clear, that administrators are

not required to take formal action on every offhand or

minor criticism they may receive about a teacher unless it

is of such a serious nature that it may be the subject of

adverse consequences in the future.

Second, I agree with the Association that, if

administrators do receive complaints that fall into the

category of complaints that could have professional


25/39

25

consequences, basic principles of due process suggest that

the teacher should have written notice of them and an

opportunity to respond to the specific allegations or

charges against them. Accordingly, I believe that Article

8.5 should be amended as I have recommended to clarify what

kinds of complaints it covers and to provide teachers with

clear notice of any serious charges against them.

ISSUE No. 7

ARTICLE IX SICK LEAVE


9.5 Catastrophic Leave. A teacher may request to usehis/her accumulated number of sick leaves days in excess of

the leave allowed under the FMLA or VPFLA in the event of aserious medical condition affecting the teachers spouse,

parent, child, or member of the immediate household . . .


The Association proposes to amend Article 9.5, as

follows:

9.5 Catastrophic Leave. A teacher may request to usehis/her accumulated number of sick leave days in excess ofthe leave allowed under the FLMA or VPFLA in the event of aserious medical condition affecting the teachers immediate

family.


26/39

26

According to the Association, the general catch-all

language is proposing is more inclusive of various family

members.

District Response

The District objects to the Associations proposal on

the ground that there is no need to expand Article 9.5 to

apply to individuals not listed in the current language.

Further, it contends that Associations proposal is overly

broad.

Recommendation

I do not recommend that the parties adopt the

Associations proposal as drafted. In light of the modern

notion of family, it does make sense to expand the

application of Article 9.5 beyond the listed individuals.

Further, it is common today for employees to have

responsibility caring for family members who do not live in

the employees immediate household. However, I am always

reluctant to recommend language that is so overbroad or

undefined that it could lead to future disagreements

between the parties about how it applies. Here, for

example, allowing catastrophic leave for members of a

teachers immediate family begs the question of exactly who


27/39

27

falls into that category. Therefore, I recommend that the

parties agree to language that would broaden the

application of Article 9.5 beyond members of a teachers

immediate household, but also list the particular family

members to whom it would apply to avoid the potential for

future disputes and grievances about who constitutes an

immediate family member.

ISSUE No.8

ARTICLE XIII PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


13.1 Tuition

(2) The Board will reimburse teachers for university or

college credits which are consistent with a teachersIndividual Professional Development Plan, or the strategicaction plans of the District, or the professionaldevelopment needs of the teacher as identified through theevaluation process in accordance with the followingformula: the reimbursement shall be limited to three (3)credits per teacher per school year (i.e. July 1 throughJune 30) not to exceed one hundred (100%) percent of theU.V.M. winter three (3) credit rate; and said teacher hassuccessfully completed the course with a transcript gradeof B or better. The usual course approval process shall

be followed.

(3) The Board shall provide reimbursement in a total amountnot to exceed Eighty Thousand ($80,000 Dollars during eachschool year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) . . .


28/39

28

District Proposal

The District proposes to amend Article 13.1(2) as

follows:

(2) The Board will establish a tuition fund not to exceed$80,000 per school year (i.e. July 1 through June 30) forthe purpose of reimbursing teachers for university orcollege graduate credits . . .

The District proposes an $80,000 cap on tuition

reimbursement and proposes to limit tuition reimbursement

to courses taken for graduate credit. Although the

District recognizes that professional development

opportunities can improve teaching quality and increase job

satisfaction, it believes that limits on the amount the

District spends on course work is warranted. It emphasizes

that $80,000 dedicated to that purpose would allow forty-

six (46) teachers to take a three-credit course at U.V.M.,

at the current tuition rate of $1,746. Further, the

District notes that the pool of money available for tuition

reimbursement should focus on benefitting teachers working

toward their masters degree or beyond. Finally, it points

out that, in recent years, it has spent between $70,000 and

$101,000 for course work, which, in addition to the $80,000

the contract allocates for other professional development,

has cost the District more than $180,000 in some years.


29/39

29

Therefore, the District believes that a cap on tuition

reimbursement is a reasonable and necessary cost

containment measure.


The Association advances a two-part proposal to amend

Article 13.1(2) and 13.1(3). The first prong of its

proposal would modify 13.1(2) to require the District to

pay in advance for courses taken for university or college

credits. The second part of its proposal would amend

13.1(3) to increase the $80,000 allocated for conferences

and workshop fees by 3% a year beginning in 2013-14.

In support of the first part of its proposal, the

Association argues that it is a financial burden,

particularly for new teachers to front the cost of taking

college costs. Further, if a teacher receives tuition

reimbursement in advance and does not complete the course,

the teacher is obligated to pay back the District, so the

District will be able to guarantee that the requirements

for tuition reimbursement have been satisfied.

Next, the Association asserts that there should be

automatic annual increases in the pool of money available

for ongoing professional development because each year

there are some teachers who are not able to get any money


30/39

30

because the pool is often exhausted at the beginning of the

application period. According to the Association,

educational requirements for students, like the new common

core requirements, are changing rapidly and it is important

that teachers have an opportunity to attend conferences and

workshops that deal with the topics related to those

changing requirements.

Recommendation

1. I do not recommend that the parties amend Article

13.1(2) to limit reimbursement for college or university

credits to graduate credits. That section already includes

language limiting tuition reimbursement to credits that are

consistent with a teachers Individual Professional

Development Plan, or the strategic action plans of the

District, or the professional development needs of the

teacher. Therefore, the District is only obligated to

reimburse teachers for college course work that meets these

criteria and had been approved in advance. Further, there

may well be times when a particular teacher or the District

would benefit from having the teacher take an undergraduate

course in a particular subject matter, and the Districts

proposal would preclude reimbursement in those cases,

causing teachers to assume the cost of meeting the


31/39

31

professional development needs identified by District

administrators.

2. I do not recommend that parties agree to language

obligating the District to pay in advance for college or

university tuition for approved coursework.

Understandably, having to pay for classes and wait to be

reimbursed may be difficult for new teachers. However, I

believe that the problems associated with recouping the

money if a teacher does not successfully complete an

approved course outweighs the convenience of up-front

payment.

3. The remaining two portions of the parties respective

proposals regarding reimbursement for college tuition and

professional development opportunities relate to the size

of the pool of money the District makes available for those

purposes. On the one hand, the District seeks to place an

$80,000 cap on the amount of money available for college

reimbursement, and, on the other, the Association seeks to

increase the $80,000 cap on available professional

development monies by 3% a year.

There can be no question that it is in the interest of

the teachers, the District, and the students it serves to


32/39

32

reimburse teachers for relevant course work and

professional development opportunities. On the other hand,

reimbursing teachers for those activities does have a cost

impact on the District and it should be in a position to

budget for that expense annually. The amount the District

has spent on tuition reimbursement has fluctuated greatly

in the past five years, from a low of approximately $70,000

in 2010 to a high of $101,000 in 2012. As a result, the

District can face an unforeseen spike in tuition

reimbursement that can have a direct impact on its budget,

and a cap on the available tuition money would alleviate

this problem. The District has proposed a cap of $80,000,

which it claims is reasonable. In three of the last five

years, however, the District has exceeded that cap.

Therefore, to ensure that teachers will not see the

available tuition reimbursement funds available to them

decrease significantly, I recommend an annual tuition

reimbursement cap of $85,000, which is slightly above the

average spent by the District during the past five years.

I believe this will provide the District with the

predictability it seeks, without unduly limiting the

teachers access to tuition reimbursement funds.

Next, the Association seeks to increase the pool of

money available for professional development opportunities


33/39

33

by 3% annually beginning in 2013-14. As the Association

points out, the demand for professional development money

often exceeds the amount of funds available. In addition,

new educational mandates make it even more important that

there be adequate monies available for teachers to be able

to stay current. Therefore, a 3% increase in professional

development funds, which amounts to $2,4000 is justified

for the 2013-14 year, and I recommend that the parties

agree to raise the cap in Article 13.3(3) to $82,400.

However, I do not recommend that there be automatic 3%

increases in that cap each year. The amount of money

available for professional development should be determined

based on need and the Districts financial resources at the

time, and I am unwilling to recommend a permanent automatic

increase, with a compounding effect.

ISSUE No. 9

ARTICLE XVIII - INSURANCE


18.1 Health Insurance.

(1) The basic group health insurance plan maintained by theDistrict shall be the VEHI Dual Option Plan. Eligibleteachers may elect single, two-person, or family coverage.The Board shall pay the following percentage of the cost ofthe VEHI Dual Option health insurance plan for the coverageselected in each year oaf this Agreement.


34/39

34

School Year Board % Teacher %

2010-2013 85% 15%

District Proposal

The District proposes to increase the increase the

teachers contribution toward their health insurance

premiums from 15% to 18%. According to the District, its

proposal would place its teachers well within the range of

what teachers in other districts in Chittenden County

contributing toward their health insurance. Further, it

emphasizes that teachers in the District already enjoy a

higher level of benefits than teachers in the county,

including fully funded long-term disability, the highest

number of sick days, and the highest level of life

insurance. Similarly, their salaries are among the highest

in the county. Further, the District asserts that the

teachers will easily be able to cover the $230-$606

increase in health insurance premium contributions it has

proposed under its salary proposal.

Association Response

The Association rejects the Districts proposed

increase in the teachers share of employee health


35/39

35

insurance premium contributions and proposed that it remain

at 15%. According to the Association, overall VEHI

premiums have increased 10% for 2013-14, which is less than

initially projected when the District made its proposal.

More importantly, the increase proposed by the District

would require teachers in the District to pay one of the

highest premium contribution rates among comparable

communities.

Recommendation

With the exception of the Colchester School District,

no other district in the county required their teachers to

pay more than 15% toward the cost of their health insurance

premiums for the VEHI Dual Option Plan, and these figures

remained the same in Chittenden South and Essex for the

2013-14 school year. Nevertheless, the District asserts

that it is reasonable to expect teachers in South

Burlington to increase their share of health insurance

premiums to 18% because: 1) their overall benefit package

is significantly better than that it the surrounding

districts; and 2) teachers can easily absorb the increase

in premiums based on the wage increases the District has

proposed.

As the District points out, its teachers do enjoy a

high level of benefits, and have some benefits, like long


36/39

36

term disability, that are not available to their

counterparts in neighboring communities. However, the mere

fact that teachers in South Burlington have historically

had better benefits than their counterparts, does not by

itself justify requiring them to pay more towards their

health insurance.

What is significant, however, is that the District

will experience a 10% increase in health insurance costs,

or $252,831 if the teachers contribution rate remains

static at 15%. Under the Districts proposal, however, the

teachers and the District would each be absorbing

approximately 50% of that increase, which would cost the

average teacher an additional $747 a year. Therefore,

although I find the magnitude of the Districts proposal

would create an undue financial burden on the teachers, it

is reasonable for the teachers to absorb a small portion of

this increase with an increase of their own premium

contributions from 15% to 16%, which will at most, result

in an out of pocket increase to any teacher of $202 for a

family plan. In reaching this conclusion, it is important

for the parties to keep in mind that my recommendation on

this issue cannot be viewed in a vacuum but is directly

linked to my salary recommendation and is designed to

ensure that no teachers are affected disproportionately by


37/39

37

the combined effect of my recommendations on the two

issues.

ISSUE No. 10

ARTICLE XXII - DURATION

District Proposal

The District proposes that the parties successor

agreement be for one year only. In its view, the

uncertainly regarding how the Affordable Care Act and the

Vermont health care reform law, which both become effective

on January 1, 2014, will affect the kinds of health

insurance options the District can offer and the cost of

those options. Further, the District is concerned about

the impact a sluggish economy will have on Federal

educational funds and the states ability to provide

funding for public education. In the Districts view,

these unknown factors militate against an agreement for

more than one year. Accordingly, it advocates that the

parties follow the lead in Chittenden East and Chittenden

South and adopt a one-year agreement.


The Association has a very different view of the

economic and health care variables. It does not foresee


38/39

38

any significant economic changes or health care

modifications over the next two years that would warrant a

one-year agreement. Further, it emphasizes that a three-

year agreement would provide the parties with a period of

stability and avoid the pressure and disruption of constant

negotiations.

Recommendation

Not surprisingly, the Board is reluctant to agree to

a multi-year agreement because of the unknown fiscal impact

of recent federal health care legislation and recent budget

cuts. In contrast, the Association seeks the long-term

stability and predictability of a three-year contract. In

my view, it is always in the best interest of both parties

to be able to avoid returning to the bargaining table in a

matter of months, which they would have to do under a one-

year agreement. In fact, pursuant to the language of

Article 2.1, the ink would not even be dry on a new

agreement before they had to start the process over again.

As the District notes, there are some uncertainties

surrounding health care and educational funding. In

reality, however, those uncertainties always exist, and the

parties can protect themselves by agreeing to language that

allow them to re-open negotiations if certain contingencies


39/39

occur. In the meantime, labor relations are best served by

having an agreement that will provide predictability for at

least a few years. Therefore, absent any known, imminent

factors that will affect either party, I believe two-ear

agreement provides the Board with enough flexibility to

respond to unanticipated variables that may impact future

health insurance benefits and provides a measure of

predictability in the parties relationship

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________John B. Cochran, Fact Finder

June 30, 2013Newton Massachusetts

Documents

South Burlington School District Fact Finding Report