By Christine Sullivan
Dear Board Members”
As I travel the length of our 42-mile district, I am pleased to see that the Harwood Unified Union School District Board is involved in efforts to engage the community in discussions about raising the funds for much needed and long overdue improvements to our high school building. This is evidenced by the frequent signage stating, “Your Future, Your Voice, Let’s Talk!” Many people on the board in the past, however, have also given voice to the sentiment that the greatest marker of the educational quality in our district is the people who work here and interact with our students on a daily basis. Ironic then, that contract negotiations with support staff have been and continue to be at a standstill because the board won’t come back to the table to talk. One must wonder then just how invested the board is in the future of our district.
As a former board member, I participated in the negotiating process multiple times with both teachers and support staff over the course of my tenure. (While a teacher in another district, I also represented the local union in the negotiation process.) Never in all of those times did the board find itself at an impasse that resulted in going to fact finding, as the board does now. By taking this step rather than coming back to the negotiating table after failed mediation, the board is essentially refusing to talk with the support staff employee bargaining unit. Why is it that the board wants to engage in dialogue with one constituency about one very important issue for our district, yet refuses to do so about an equally important and pressing issue with another?
Going to fact finding means drawing out the process which in turn means that the valued employees who work with our students on a daily basis and support their education in a multitude of ways are working without a contract. They are working at the previous year’s wage rates, while the cost of living and health insurance premiums increase. The board’s refusal to talk means that support staff will actually see their net paycheck amounts go down and that their money will not go as far as it once did. This act does not speak to the ways in which the support staff are valued. What is the board afraid of and what is preventing them from agreeing to talk? How does holding out against the bargaining unit benefit the future of our district?
As someone who devoted a significant amount of time to the unification process, I can also attest to the fact that equity was an ever present and significant theme in merging governance and in contract negotiations with both bargaining units. While I am loath to discuss some of the specific issues that are the sticking points in the currently stalled contract negotiations, I do need to question whether the board is still invested in the concept? While all things cannot be equal as far as financial compensation is concerned (which after all considers credentials and responsibilities) why is the board digging in its heels in a way that would indicate that they refuse to acknowledge a certain amount of equity as far as the human worth of the individual members of the bargaining units are concerned? Are support staff less than when it comes to being able to attend to their own health and the health needs of their family? Are support staff members less than when it comes to being trusted with the time that would afford them to do so? Are support staff less likely to get sick because their compensation and responsibilities are different from that of teachers? The answer to that is No, and that they shouldn’t be treated in a way that indicates their status is of lesser value than their colleagues.
Support staff are an integral and important part of the educational services and support being provided to our students. They are present throughout our schools and form meaningful and significant relationships with our students, which in turn contributes to the overall quality of their educational experience, the prospects for their futures, and our success as a district. As the midpoint of the school year approaches, and in light of the value placed on their work, I ask the board to consider whether their own approach to the currently stalled support staff negotiations makes sense. In a climate of engagement and dialogue is it logical to shut off conversations with a valued (and large) contingent of district staff? Or is the message of “Your Future, Your Voice, Let’s Talk!” important only within the context of what the board prioritizes as far as the infrastructure needs of the district?
Sullivan lives in Waitsfield and served on the Waitsfield School Board, the Act 46 Study Committee, the Harwood Unified Union School District Board and now serves on the Waitsfield Select Board.
