November 16, 2009
Ronald Souza, Deputy Superintendent
New Bedford Public Schools
455 County Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
RE: New Bedford High School Leadership Academy – “Readiness School Proposal”
Dear Dr. Souza:
It has come to the attention of the New Bedford Education Association that the Superintendent has directed the High School scheduling committee to focus on “a more comprehensive approach to our work, from addressing the schedule change to exploring complete restructuring of our high school.” (Page 3, #4 – Readiness Conversion Capacity from the “Readiness School Proposal”). As you are aware, the parties agreed to specific contract language, Article 12, 7 Reopener, which addressed the anticipated recommendations of the restructuring committee working on re-vamping only the high school schedule.
Therefore, it is with great surprise that we learned of the expansion of the role of the committee. Furthermore, upon review of the document, there are many areas discussed which are not only mandatory subjects of bargaining but are also clearly enunciated in various provisions of the agreement.
The purpose of this letter is to state unequivocally that the New Bedford Education Association is the exclusive representative for all the professional faculty, staff and administrators working at New Bedford High School. We are concerned therefore, that this proposal is being developed without any consultation with or representation from the Association. The changes contemplated in this document require much more than, “negotiation of memorandums of understanding with the local union . . .” (page 8, #7 – The Way Forward). The timeline in this section identifies January as the target date to “select teachers, administrator and support staff . . .” (page 8). We are very concerned that the Administration is proceeding with this proposal, which will violate not only the Agreement but also Chapter 150E of the M.G.L.
Furthermore, when we agreed to the contractual language in Article 12, it was with the understanding that there would be a joint committee, with appointed Association representatives, deliberating together with the Administration. This is not the process to date regarding this restructuring plan at the high school.
Therefore, we demand that the Superintendent direct this group to cease and desist until such time as the parties can schedule a joint session to develop a process for addressing the scheduling and other needs at New Bedford High School.
Finally, although there may be bargaining unit members and association officials attending these restructuring meetings, it should not be construed by either the Administration or the committee that these individuals speak on behalf of the New Bedford Education Association.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience in order to schedule a meeting to discuss these important issues.
Sincerely,
Lou St. John, President
New Bedford Education Association
21 comments:
Thank you Lou for writing this letter. I hope our members read it and start asking necessary questions as to why this current proposal would violate our collective bargaining rights. I understand the drive by those at the High School to try to improve student scores at the high school, but not at the cost of our contract being negated. Read article 12, Section H of the contract and understand that there are certain re-openers that can be revisited under this current contract. This is a legally binding document, and to arbitrarily ignore the language hurts ALL 1200 members, not just those at the High School. Our members should also realize that there are other sections to the contract other than the salary schedule. Sometimes certain language is more desirable than a few dollars increase.
Let's not forget this could also impact Unit B. I hope when and if we start talking, we have some Unit B representation present also.
Nice letter Lou. It bothers me that at the point in this obvious attempt to violate the contracts is teachers who belong to Unit A.
Dennis Wynn hand picked who he wanted at the point and this individual has gone ahead without regard to the provisions of the contract. As far as beginning something of a grand scale anytime soon, don't worry. The high school is in such bad shape it will take the new person a year and a half to recover from the political appointments of the Headmaster and the former Assistant Headmaster.
Schedule for next year at the high school? They are having trouble scheduling for next semester. Great new computer system.
Ready for what? The inmates have already taken over the school. There must be something the union can do about these back-stabbing teachers who are working with Dennis Wynn to violate the contracts. Haven't we humbled Dennis Wynn enough yet. When this is defeated how long before DPB starts questioning his value?
What is this all about? Could someone explain what is happening at the High school? Whats Dennis up to? In plain english please.
You are not the only one who doesn't know what's going on. Teachers at the high school who are being sold down the river by members of their own union don't know what's going on. I think Lou should call an emergency union meeting and update the staff on the changes being planned which have not been negotiated. The two administrator leaders at the high school are both on this committee yet teachers don't know what is going on. Great communication.
Again why are we concerned with unit B? What do we have 10 B members?
Don't fall into this trap of division. This is not about Unit A vs. Unit B. It is about the blatant attempt to circumvent both Unit A and Unit B contracts by a selected group looking to individually bargain. The last time I checked the NBEA represented both Unit A and Unit B.
Don't get distracted. If contracts don't have to be followed and negotiated salary schedules don't have to be followed, what's next? Paying a selected few favorites more than the rest of us?
A $92,000 academic director who will make more than any contractually negotiated director in the Unit B contract with a doctoral degree. I wonder whose name in on that (as if I didn't know already). I am not surprised that Dennis Wynn doesn't know the Unit B pay schedule for administrators. He didn't know they and the teachers didn't have to attend his "Assistant Superintendent Meetings" for which they were no AS running them.
Oh yeah. There are only 10 Unit B members in all of our schools and at the PRAB building. And there are only 8 teachers in the NBPS system. 5 get's you fifty you are one of the 8.
So this is what the restructuring committee has come up with after a year and a half. A program serving 125 kids, an administrative job for one of them, and small classes for 8 of them. And they can't understand why the union will not support them? How will this program address the needs of the rest of the almost 3000 students at NBHS? Some restructuring. Seems more like "look out for #1."
I remember when the SOS wanted us to change the dates when they had to be notified about upcoming retirements and resignations. We looked at the request and determined it was not in the best interest of our members to vote in favor of the change. I'm hoping we stand our ground this time also. Not because I don't feel this academy will prove beneficial to 125 kids, but because of the sneaky, underhanded way the SOS and this committee are going about it. The restructuring committee has decided that the best way to restructure NBHS is to come up with a program serving less than 5% of the 3000 students at NBHS. What is really confusing to me is the Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster are part of this committee. Shouldn't they have concerns for the other students also?
I teach at the high school and was pretty optimistic that September 2010 would bring some constructive changes what with a restructuring committee and all. I hope what I'm reading is not true. Please tell me the only changes planned are smaller classes for 8 teachers, a new administrative job and an academy serving 125 kids. Please tell me there are plans to do something with the kids in the hallways, those who are consistently late to class, those who stop others from learning. Please tell me!!!!!! You have no idea how much respect I have lost for the committee members if this is true.
Unbelievable. The way this guy was badmouthing Lou and the union the other day for being obstructionist, this is what he and his committee have been up to? He talks a good game but at the end of the day it's business as usual. Individuals getting jobs. I read where he said "...either we're visionaries or we are crazy or a little od both..." In my eyes you are crazy.
Are you telling me that the result of 2 year's work of this restructuring committee is what I'm reading? A program serving 125 kids? Say it ain't so, Joe.
I'm a little confused. This committee has been in existence for over 2 years. This Readiness grant has come about in the last few months (I think). Are there any results or plans for restructuring the entire school that this committee came up with or did they just abandon those plans when the opportunity for jobs for them came up. At this point I don't know what to think. I know I'm not really looking forwad to coming back to the high school without some significant changes. There are close to 3000 students there. What was needed was not a program for 125 students.
What are you (the restructuring committee) thinking. I feel you have let the rest of us down. You took trips, got out of teaching, some of you had additional planning periods to work on the committee, and this is the result? Amazing.
I think our members need to know that this individual who appears to have written himself an administrative job is the same person who was behind the effort to divide the union overthe AP issue. You remember? The plan called for AP teachers to be compensated additionally for each AP student obtaining a certain score on the AP test. Nothing this individual does surprises me. He sounds good, though.
So no 7 period day, no rotating schedule, no shorter planing periods so teachers can be on duty in the hallways? No themes in the different houses, no "different way of doing business." I am not impressed and will look to bid out of the high school. I can't believe that with teachers quitting, students doing whatever they please, this is what the committee comes back with. What a disappointment.
I'm a Unit B female director. Please hire a director at $92,000 for next year and please make it a male. I can use the money I'll win in a discrimination lawsuit. We have a contract and a pay scale just for reasons like this. Please SOS and Dennis. Please.
You and me both sister.
Post a Comment