| In the debate concerning the election of the Longmeadow School Committee's teachers' contract negotiators, I argued that the members we were electing should bring a balanced approach to their task by being educationally, professionally, and experientially diverse. The committee at the time had and continues to have a wonderfully diverse membership when it comes to professional experience and education. Clearly, this was a committee with a great deal to offer in terms of a balanced perspective. When the smoke cleared, however, we had elected three members that could boast zero professional experience related to education or even the public sector in general. I argued to no avail that this group would not be well equipped to represent the spectrum of views on the committee, or in the community. I did manage to get elected the first alternate to the team, charged with attending meetings when a regular team member was absent. Since that time I have never been provided with briefings befitting my role as an alternate negotiator nor have I been called on to attend a single meeting. The negotiators have also failed to keep the other committee members adequately informed or involved. I have become increasingly uncomfortable with my inability to provide input and oversee the negotiations. The negotiators, for their part, were likely becoming increasingly uncomfortable with my efforts to participate, and at the January 8th School Committee meeting, after the cameras were off and all the people in attendance had gone home, they moved and passed a motion to "clarify" the role of the Unit A negotiating team's alternate member. The motion sought to limit the alternate's involvement in negotiations by declaring that they would not be involved in negotiations unless a regular negotiator had to miss several meetings in a row or was unable to participate in meetings for an extended period of time. The beauty of the motion from its supporters' perspective was that it provided a rationalization and justification for the team's failure to keep alternates (to say nothing of the rest of the committee) in the loop. The negotiators claimed that this was the way they had always interpreted the alternate's role. It appeared to me, however, to be a parliamentary maneuver timed and designed to further shield them from accountability. Their claimed understanding of the alternate's role is problematic at best. First, it is contradicted by every other member of the School Committee that was present when the team was elected, including Paul Santaniello who was elected the 2nd alternate. Both Mr. Santaniello and Ms. Jessica Hutchins (also a member at the time) recall that our more conventional understanding of the alternate's role was not only understood by the committee, but was explicitly stated. Another problem with this new interpretation of the alternate's role is that it makes very little sense. Why would we elect two alternates to step in only for long term absences? What about unforeseen absences? It was pointed out during the debate on January 8th that alternates should not participate in meetings on the spur of the moment because they would lack sufficient knowledge. Of course they would only lack sufficient knowledge if the team had failed to keep them sufficiently informed. Our negotiators need to better appreciate their limited role. It is the responsibility of the entire committee to approve a contract for the teachers. The negotiators are not empowered to negotiate as they please, but rather must provide sufficient opportunity for other members to have meaningful input. I believe that the make up of the negotiation team should be revisited. I have recommended to the chair that she remove one member of the team and replace him with herself, providing the team with a more balanced perspective and preventing it from further under-involving the full committee in the future. I have also strenuously objected to the practice of dealing with these important communications issues away from the cameras and public scrutiny (i.e. in executive session). In our public meeting on January 22nd I expressed my concerns on this issue in front of the cameras. My statement was met with deafening silence. Later that evening an attempt to deal with the issue in executive session was thwarted by a shouting match that most certainly would have been less acrimonious had the discussion been conducted when the cameras were on. It appears that some members of our committee are not comfortable with the public aspect of our work. Our townspeople deserve elected policy makers who respect their right to observe and participate in public policy making. While collective bargaining strategy cannot and should not be discussed in public session, using this fact as an excuse to hide other disagreements from the public is wrong. High quality public education requires active and open public debate about our schools, even when it is uncomfortable. Jerold Duquette Longmeadow School Committee |
