BY STACI WILSON

A Mountain View teacher and member of the union’s negotiating team challenged the board to settle the contract dispute. Teachers in the district have been working without a contract for three years.

Fifth grade teacher, Brooklyn Twp. resident and member of the Mountain View Education Association negotiating team Ernie Griffis said, “My team is willing to take a proposal and turn it around in one night.” Another round of contract talks was scheduled to be held Tuesday night (Aug. 11). “My heart hurts. I’ve been to 50 meetings,” he said. “I don’t want the (students) to miss out on anything.”

Griffis advocated for a “rational conclusion” to the negotiations as he issued his challenge as a community member and teacher. “Let’s do it,” he said. “I’ve never seen us more hurt in this district.”

As the start of the school year approaches, teachers have opted to not take on any of the extra-curricular adviser positions without a contract in place. “We want to get the supplementals back in,” Griffis said.

Board President Thomas Stoddard asked why the union did not come back with a considerable drop in their request.

Griffis said, “Come back with something on our scale. You never responded with anything lower.”

The union has said the members would not accept the board negotiators proposal of creating what they consider a more linear pay scale.

The scale, proposed by the board negotiating team, was questioned by board member Jason Richmond.

Richmond said the a flat raise percentage would cause a greater disparity between teachers at the bottom and top of the pay scale, rather than create the linear model Stoddard has claimed the fixed percentage would lead to over time. “It creates a larger gap between the top and bottom salaries by doing this,” Richmond said.

Board member Jason Casselbury said with a fixed three percent raise, teachers at the top rate would see about a $2,100 increase, while those at the lower rates would see an increase of about $1,100.

“You keep trying to sell us on the angle being a proper line and it’s not,” Richmond said.
Griffis wasn’t the only teacher at the meeting questioning the board about the negotiations.

Dave Breese, of Gibson Twp., took issue with the board’s characterization of the process on the district website.

In an overview of the negotiations on the website, the board put forth: “The Board has maintained from the beginning that as the employer it was its responsibility to set the salary schedules. Many boards just give their unions a pot of money, say 2% of the previous year’s salaries, and let them (PSEA, the state union) create a ‘traditional’ salary schedule. In Mt. View’s experience these have led to grossly unfair distributions and caused definite morale issues.”

Breese said he did not accept the board’s concern for “morale.”

“We have a lot of morale, maybe too much,” he said. “This is the most convoluted process I’ve ever been a part of.”

Griffis and Breese were just two of the over 30 Mountain View teachers who attended the Monday night meeting. Griffis also noted that all of the union’s most recent proposal was not included in the web post. “We get it to $900 within every step,” he said. “We set it up for you. We put it on a platter.” He said the last page of the union’s proposed schedule included the margin with all of the numbers. Griffis also said he felt that if the two parties could settle two of the three sticking points, the supplementals would likely be back in the district for the start of the school year.

Mountain View student Abby Mecca returned to the board to voice her concerns over the contract dispute. She asked if settling the contract dispute was a priority for board members. “Are you willing to stay far into the night? Willing to come to s resolution?”
Stoddard said, “Every proposition from the union side has been for more. There’s never been any drawing together.”

She also questioned the cost to the district for mediation services at the nearly 50 meetings. “I’d rather those dollars were spent on my district. I back them,” Mecca said.

“It would be a lot easier if they would be reasonable,” Stoddard answered.

Clifford Twp. resident Corey Gesford questioned why only three labor relations sessions had been held since June 11. He also said that, according to the way he read the district’s posting on the web, the salary scale and distribution of money was the main sticking point.

Gesford pointed out that in most school districts, the union sets the disbursement to the teaching staff. He asked if the teachers had complained about the way in which the last contract was “divvied up.”

Stoddard said he felt it was “unfair” the way it was done before; as Gesford asked if it was his personal initiative and not a board initiative to restructure the pay rates.

Although several board members had served on the negotiating committee when the previous contract was settled – including Roy Twining, Sondra Stine and former Superintendent Andrew Chichura (who was appointed to fill the board vacancy at the start of the meeting), Stoddard said that this was now a “different board” with a “different philosophy.”

Twining said that at the time, it was his understanding that the union distributed the pay raises equally. “I take fault that I didn’t ask the right questions,” he said.

Gesford said, “It’s a matter of control as to who slices up the pie. The union has avenues to complain about it and fix it. I think this is your agenda.”

Stoddard said some teachers had issues with the way the previous contract pay raises were divvied up.

Aside from the salary schedule, other contract sticking points include the health care contributions and retirement incentives.

As Griffis was making his comments to the board, Stoddard asked an audience member to stop recording the meeting. He was then reminded by members of the public, as well as the district solicitor, that recording of a public meeting was allowable.

In other business, the board approved adding three afterschool shuttle bus routes to take students home following afterschool activities. Superintendent Karen Voigt said the start date for the buses had not yet been determined but the routes would be started as soon as possible after the start of the school year. Drop off locations will be listed on the district website.

Dan and Linda Anthony were approved as the activity bus contractors. Dan Anthony said he had anticipated being only a “cog” in the wheel of contractors taking activity runs and did not have enough buses to cover all of the district’s activity run busing needs.

Voigt announced that at the next meeting, Dr. Christopher Lake would be on board as the Director of Curriculum and Instruction, leaving her with only the job title of superintendent. Lake was hired by the board. He is expected to start at Mountain View on Aug. 17.

The board also appointed Mason Stiver as the K-12 music teacher, effective Aug. 24.

The resignation of Christopher Robinson, high school math teacher, was accepted, effective Aug. 23.

The resignation for purpose of retirement of Diane Makosky, business office and board secretary, was accepted with regret, effective Aug. 21. Board members and administrators thanked Makosky for her service to the district.

The board will look to fill her position, advertising for applications to be submitted by Aug. 28.

Lewis Busing of Jackson Twp. was awarded the CTC bus AM/PM bus run.

The next Mountain View School Board meeting will be held Monday, Aug. 24, at 7 p.m.