Editor's Note: This story has been updated to reflect that it was school board member Joan Cullen who complained that the full board has not been permitted to see the teachers' union counteroffer.
With only a few weeks until the Pennridge School District teachers’ union contract expires, some school board members are complaining they have been kept in the dark about negotiations.
“Sadly, I feel like I’m flying a bit blind at the moment, with the lack of information being shared with duly elected or appointed board members,” said Director Joan Cullen.
“As the deadline approaches, how can we be expected to vote for something we know nothing about?” asked Christine Batycki.
“Individual members of our teachers’ union apparently have more information about these negotiations, than do some of the members of our own board, who are charged with the statutory responsibility of negotiating this contract in good faith,” said Jonathan Russell.
In an email statement, school board vice-president Megan Banis-Clemens defended the negotiating process, which she said has included eight in-person bargaining sessions with the Pennridge Education Association, which represents about 500 professional staff, that are “moving in a positive direction” with the help of a state mediator.
“As is common practice elsewhere, the board has established a bargaining committee to conduct negotiations, with input from the board as a whole,” she wrote. “Any final contract is subject to a public vote by the full board. This is the same process we have always used, even preceding my eight years serving on the board, and we are continuing to move forward to reach an agreement that has the support of a majority of the board as soon as possible.”
Batycki said certain directors have been kept out of the loop on all significant issues since current Board President David Reiss and Banis-Clemens took over last December.
“This one is no exception,” she said. “Our board leadership has failed to do the basics by not sharing what our strategy and goals are for this next contract before they started negotiating. They have also failed to let us know what the terms are that the union has demanded.”
Batycki slammed Banis-Clemens for an “embarrassing exchange” at the May board meeting “where we learned details from teachers and their representatives giving public comment and then Mrs. Banis-Clemens began shouting out details to the audience.”
At the time, Banis-Clemens said the board had “only given one initial financial proposal and that proposal was earlier and higher than any other initial proposal we’ve ever given. It was two percent and it’s almost what we have given historically and what the administration has gotten.”
Banis-Clemens also accused the PEA of putting “a lot of false information…out to the public” and then delaying negotiations until after the primary. “If I didn’t know any better, this was politically driven and you tried to stir it up,” she said.
Cullen said “at least four board members have been excluded from the process in a way that has never been done before, in any negotiations that have occurred during my time on the board. We were not informed that an offer was being made to the union, which was done back in March, I believe. We were not permitted to give input as to what the proposal — which was supposed to be made on behalf of the entire board — would be. We weren’t even permitted to see what was proposed by the board until after repeated requests were made of board leadership to let us see those details.”
The teachers union has apparently responded to the board’s offer, said Cullen “but we have not been permitted to see that counteroffer. Many requests have been made of board leadership to allow board members to see the counteroffer; those requests have so far been ignored.”
Asked whether he has been excluded from being privy to the status of negotiations, board member Jonathan Russell said, “It certainly does feel that way. I never voted or authorized anyone to negotiate on my behalf….I was never presented with the teacher’s union proposal and never was asked to vote to accept it or reject it.”
Russell said he understands the efficiency of delegating certain responsibilities to a negotiation team but “it would appear that this team was never approved by the full board, with authority to act on the board’s behalf. This team was simply appointed by board leadership. Moreover, assuming for the moment that this team is in fact authorized to act on behalf of the full board, they seem to have forgotten to whom they are to report.”
In a social media post about a week ago, board member Ricki Chaikin admitted she knew little of the negotiations but wrote “What I can say is that making sure our teachers are paid fairly, have good insurance and benefits, feel valued, and are not at the bottom of the county pay scale is possibly the only thing all nine of us agree on.”
She accused the PEA of “exploiting” the board’s first offer “for political purposes.” Creating a public controversy on a first offer of negotiations “serves no good means, and is not normal practice,” she wrote.
Join our readers whose generous donations are making it possible for you to read our news coverage. Help keep local journalism alive and our community strong. Donate today.
