WPEA: Proposing Article 45
First change is on page 2, we want an increase in the preservice mandatory duty days, and increasing in service days each service year from 4-8 in 45.2. And then, also, 45.11, this language is currently in the contract, and our understanding is that the parties agreed to move this from the MOU to the current contract.

OFM: Just to make sure I understand, you are proposing moving this language from the MOU to the contract?

WPEA: Our position is that the parties already agreed to do this, so we are just moving forward with what we understood OFM already agreed to.

OFM: I wasn’t the lead negotiator last year so I am not saying you are right and I am not saying you’re wrong I will have to check.

WPEA: In the Employers preparation for this meeting did you review this MOU?

OFM: I didn’t, personally, check this MOU to see if the language compared to current contract language.

WPEA: That’s not what I asked, I asked if you reviewed this MOU prior to today’s meeting?

OFM: I didn’t personally do the comparison, I am saying I did not double check their work.

WPEA: I am just asking if you did any prep work.

OFM: Yes, we did.

WPEA: I look forward to their being evidence of that.

WPEA: Our proposal for 45 is 7 workdays as personal leave days each fiscal year to get parity with Vancouver school district. The state of Washington has made the determination that these schools deserve parity with Vancouver School District. This is not intended to replace the personal leave day identified in district. …

OFM: How many personal leave days does Vancouver School district get?

WPEA: I can send you a link to their contract and you can look.

OFM: Yes that would be helpful thank you.

WPEA: (Proposing MOU) Again just to reiterate, the top portion I pulled out into the lump sum proposal.

OFM: (Visible confusion)

WPEA: Hello?

OFM: (Visible confusion) We aren’t sure what you are asking. Can you rephrase? I understand the part that you think there’s language from the MOU that you think should be in 45.11. I don’t understand what you are talking about now?

WPEA: Yeah, I don’t know how to be more clear about it. Maybe if we run into questions we can talk about it then?

OFM: (New speaker) I think I am following- we have a lump sum MOU that includes three provisions that should go into Article 45. Am I following?

WPEA: Yes, but I think the only one that goes into Article 45 is the third one, the bargaining units at CDHY and WSSB- the braille provision might need to go in licensures and certifications. And the other one it was proposed to go into an appendix, which doesn’t make sense to me but it seems like the parties last year knew what they were doing.

So this is not going to be direct match to the MOU you’ll have to do your own comparison. The only thing I changed was dates and dollar amounts. The MOU I pulled this from says this is not precedent-setting, and I did not include that. The proposal from WPEA is a lump sum payment. ..
We believe we have shared concerns with the Employer and shared problems,. The bottom line is that they can go to another district and easily make twice as much with fewer certifications.

OFM: Well you are deep into economics and we aren’t prepared to discuss economics.

WPEA: I have already informed my team that we don’t expect a counter until after your revenue forecast. We are asking the Employer for a discussion on shared priorities and shared problems.

OFM: I don’t see the second proposal in proposal format so I am confused about what the actual proposal is. Maybe Jessica can straighten me out.

WPEA: What is wrong with the proposal format? That it doesn’t have line numbers?

OFM: No I am assuming it is not Article 45 again.

WPEA: Why would you assume that when it says it is part of the lump sum MOU and I’ve said it’s part of the lump sum MOU. I am confident based on Jessica’s ability to repeat back what I am saying that she udnerstands and she can break it down for you.

I think I mentioned we will need more time when you feel you can focus on economics because our primary concern is parity with Vancouver School district.

OFM: Of course we will discuss economics when it comes time for that.

WPEA: Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just really not understand me?

OFM: I was just reiterating that the process is to discuss economics after the Revenue process, we both agree that is the process.

WPEA: We don’t agree that is the process.The union has no choice but to go along with it. That doesn’t mean we agree with the process.

OFM: Okay so what is the problem.

WPEA: The problem is you say we agree and we don’t.

OFM: Don’t say, in open bargaining, that I am agreeing to an Employer position if I am not. It’s inappropriate.

WPEA: Okay we can agree to disagree.

OFM: We agree that it has historically been a fact that this is what the process has been.

WPEA: Maybe I am not being direct enough. Before the parties end today, WPEA would like a date the Employer is willing to discuss economics.

OFM: And I said, of course we will discuss the schools economics, after the forecast comes out. Do I think we are going to spend an entire day on that? No I don’t. But when economics comes up, we’ll discuss it.
DO you want to set a date and time for that?

WPEA: I stated previously that we shouldn’t need more than four hours to discuss this, I never said we would need an entire day.

OFM: Okay let’s schedule that right now.

WPEA: Great, it’s almost like that’s what I asked for ten minutes ago.

OFM: Okay so looking at dates on July 15, or July 22

WPEA: We’ll need to caucus on that.

OFM: Let’s break until 1 pm, does that work for your team?

WPEA: Yes, please set up a break out room.

CAUCUS

OFM DID NOT RETURN TO THE TABLE TODAY