By Laurel Droz
Staff Writer
Goodrich- Following nearly a two-year battle, the Michigan Education Association has reached a decision regarding a major rue between school staff and administration regarding the school calendar year.
Sort of.
‘We did get an answer from the arbitrator,? said MEA representative Dianne Bregenzer. ‘He chose not to decide who was right and who was wrong.?
At issue is the school year being shortened by 14 days. On April 13, 2005, the board of education presented a proposal to the Goodrich Education Association, promising no layoffs of certified teachers if teachers agree to work 14 fewer days this past year.
With a reduced calendar year, the school could save an estimated $50,000 for each day school is not in session say school officials.. However, Bregenzer argues the loss of 14 days is the equivalent of a 7 percent reduction in pay for staff. Arbitration was meant to determine if shortening the school year the district constitutes a contract violation.
Since last year, Goodrich Area Schools have been on the MEA’s ‘critical list,? since efforts to reach a contract have broken down.
Superintendent Kimberly Hart said a decision was made, one which favored the district.
‘Basically what (arbitrator Peter Jason) said was he was being told two completely different sides of the story? two conflicting stories,? said Hart. ‘Because of that, his decision had to be made based on who had the burden of proof.?
In this instance, it was the responsibility of the union to prove the fault of the district, which they failed to do. For that reason, arbitration favored the district.
It was a decision the MEA might disagree with, says Hart, but a decision nonetheless.
Bregenzer said she was surprised by the result.
‘It is the shortest decision I have ever seen? and the weirdest,? said Bregenzer.
But a decision based on an inability to decide which version of the story is true is one Bregenzer said she doesn’t view as a decision at all.
‘It’s kind of crazy, I’ve never heard of an arbitrator not making a decision.,? said Bregenzer. ‘Sometimes you don’t like the answer, but at least you get one.?
Hart disagreed.
?(Jason) is not saying he didn’t make a decision,? said Hart. ‘He’s saying he didn’t see sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof. No matter what, there needs to be sufficient proof.?
Bregenzer said she is concerned about the impact the decision, or, as she interprets it, lack thereof, will have on bargaining a new contract.
‘Neither one of us know where we are now,? said Bregenzer. A situation Bregenzer says is disruptive to the bargaining process.? We’ve each offered each other an initial calendar proposal and it’s gone no further than that.?
Board of Education president Michael Tripp said the decision will actually help the situation. ‘We know where we’re at with that issue,? said Tripp. ‘That issue is a dead issue and we won’t have to consider it any further.?
Tripp added that the board had felt relatively confident that things would be decided in their favor.
‘We are just glad that we’re through that process and we can continue to go on with negotiations without anything looming over anyone’s head,? said Tripp.
Hart says the decision will help both sides proceed with negotiations. Additionally the district will now be able to work out a budget, something they were unable to do until a decision was made, since a ruling favoring the union would result in district costs between $550,000-$750,000 to repay the teachers for pay lost in the shortened year, said Hart.
For now Bregenzer says the negotiations will continue, and the next step is the same as the last; ‘keep bargaining.? It’s a critical step for both sides now, with the current union contract having expired July 31.
‘The district is ready to move forward and put this behind us and give out students the best education that we can and do the best for our teachers that we can fiscally afford,? added Heart.