In September, REA filed a demand to bargain letter to start the process of bargaining an MOU that would re-open the COVID sick leave bank. REA wrote and offered an initial draft MOU for the District on September 19th. The District’s official offer, however, did not come until October 28. That proposal offered access to the bank only after all other leaver was exhausted by a member. Despite a number of changes and attempts to bargain in good faith by REA, the District continues to counter by denying access to a COVID sick leave bank prior to exhausting all other leave and striking nearly all other language. This includes striking any language for the MOU to be retroactive. 
    REA continues to believe that the District’s offer is a slap in the face. Park Rose School District offered 5 days of COVID sick leave fully paid by the District up front. The Park Rose Faculty Association does not even have to help cover the cost of those days as REA did last year (we split the cost from our Sick-Leave Bank) and has offered to continue doing so this year. Prior to REA’s latest counter, there was no part of the MOU language that was new from what the District agreed to last year. 
    REA has requested time to speak with the School Board about this MOU in their Executive Session this Wednesday, December 14th. It remains to be seen if that request will be honored. If so, we hope that sharing our goals and perspectives with the entire Board directly, along with District leadership, will help smooth out this process and assist in resolving our differences quickly. If this request is not honored, we will be addressing our concerns publicly in REA’s report to the Board and will reach out to Board directors piecemeal through our meet-ups. 
    We also have multiple other MOUs that need to be bargained due to changes in law that impact language in our contract, and to prepare for Summer School, etc. To date, the District has refused to bargain more than one MOU at a time, delaying this work. If the District continues in this manner, a new course of action may become necessary. 

​

REA and the District have signed the Substitute MOU, which will now go to the Board for approval. This will hopefully take place at the October 26 Board Meeting. Among the highlights of the MOU:

• The District will honor TOSA schedules and will not assign them to sub on days that conflict with their duties, such as district-level meetings and trainings.
• The District will work proactively with members to ensure meetings and trainings that cannot be rescheduled are protected.
• TOSAs will only be asked to sub at their respective assigned levels. For example, a K-5 academics curriculum TOSA would only be asked to sub in K-5 classrooms.
• District Level TOSAs assigned to sub in Middle Schools will be informed of a substitute assignment no later than 8:00 pm the night before.
• District Level TOSAs assigned to sub at other levels must be informed at least one hour before the report time for the assigned job.
• Building based subs will be utilized first.
• No member will be assigned to sub more than two days in a week, but may volunteer to do so.
• Members assigned to sub more than four hours will receive additional substitute pay for a full day.
• No member can be asked to sub during their prep time.
• Members teaching additional classes (or partial classes) or taking on additional caseloads (SLPs, SpEd teachers, etc.) as the result of unfilled FTE will be compensated for the additional students in their classes and/or caseload. This pay will be equivalent to the FTE they are covering and will be pro-rated for partial caseload or partial classes.
• Members will not be held accountable for job performance shortfalls during weeks in which they were assigned sub duties.
• Adequate substitute materials will be provided for any substituting member; members will leave detailed notes for the absent teacher.
• Long term sub assignments will not be filled by TOSAs on an ongoing basis.
• Building specific positions will not be required to sub outside their respective buildings.

 
REA intends to hold a Zoom meeting with members in order to thoroughly discuss and answer questions about the MOU in the next two weeks.
 
REA is currently in negotiations and hope to conclude the In-Person MOU soon.
 
-REA Bargaining Team

To begin the school year, we reached out to the district and expressed our desire to work on new In-Person and new Substitute MOUs. The district refused to work with us, so REA filed a Demand to Bargain. The district has now responded, and we are at work on the early draft stages of a Substitute MOU. We should be able to share our initial proposal following our next meeting with the district.
 
We hope to begin working on an In-Person MOU in the coming weeks as well, once the Sub MOU begins to move forward. We hope to retain access to the COVID sick leave bank and PPE among other things. More word on this soon.
 
Finally, the district has agreed to engage in discussions on the subject of personal appliances in teacher classrooms. The direction these discussions might go and whether or not they would result in an MOU is not yet known. We hope to be able to share more soon.
 
As always, the bargaining team is working hard to protect the interests of REA members and to help make the transition into the new school year as smooth as possible.

We wanted to update you on the two MOUs we have been working on with the RSD, the Summer School MOU and the Retention MOU.

First, the good news. We have successfully completed bargaining the Summer School MOU. We are working on wrapping up the final details (signing, checking grammar, etc.). We will share that MOU once it is signed by uploading it on the www.reynoldseducationassociation.org website under “Member Resources.”  

The Retention MOU, however, continues to be stuck and the District is refusing to bargain, simply returning to the same starting point with each counter. We have tried several different proposals, each met with the exact same counter from the District with no substantive changes. The District accused REA of bad faith bargaining when we returned with little to no COLA movement in the 2021-2024 contract negotiations, and now they are bargaining the Retention MOU in the same manner.

This time, though, there is one key difference between what REA was doing and what RSD is attempting. REA took this action because the District had the ability to pay for our COLA raises and they were claiming otherwise. Today, the District is taking this stance, not because they don’t have the funds, but because they don’t want to spend it on staffing.

REA met with the District last week to review their costing of the Retention MOU. The District’s costing included all of OSEA’s and RAA’s bonuses as well. The District is budgeting to spend approximately $1.3 million in money provided by the state for this particular purpose. They are also looking to spend around $5 million in leftover ESSR funding. To meet REA’s current proposal, that would mean spending somewhere between $700,000 to $1.5 million from the $34 million general fund carryover. That carryover is unspent dollars from this past fiscal year.

After that meeting, REA gave our counter. As of today, a week later, we have yet to hear the District’s response. We are looking at meeting to work on some contract maintenance issues soon (but that meeting is not yet set), and hopeful they will give us their counter then. Until then, we are stuck waiting.

REA leadership is continuing to stand strong on the idea that the District must continue to invest more in staff if RSD hopes to recruit and retain educators next year. You, the membership, gave us clear guidance to “hold out” in the survey and we are currently working under that guidance. While we understand that not everyone agrees, we plan to honor the overwhelming majority.

As outlined in the REA Narrative, we believe that RSD must invest in staff in order to invest in students. That RSD must be willing to spend on the classroom and schools above all else. The District seems to disagree, and their refusal to bargain on here is yet another example of this fundamental disagreement.

While we cannot say for certain when retention bonuses will be made, our goal continues to be sooner than later.

REA Leadership does wish to give members a heads up that bonuses are taxed differently than regular pay. When bonuses do arrive, members should expect a 30-31% total tax deduction (that includes both Oregon and federal taxes).
 
As school is letting out and many members will not be checking their email as regularly, we will be making future updates here. We hope to have something more positive in the coming days. 

The bargaining session last Thursday night (December 9) was a big disappointment for your team. We have worked very hard on finding ways to bring our costs down to a range that the district could agree with. In order to do that we offered to keep the amount of money the district puts into the insurance pool the same. We also offered to have our raises start in January instead of being retroactive. This reduced the cost of our offer by $1 million. We packaged this deal, which means everything in it has to be accepted together.
 
The district countered with 5% starting in March, 5% next year and 3.5% in the third year. To illustrate how out of touch their team is, they proposed to have our monthly insurance benefit of $1330 start in March and not be retroactive to the beginning of the year. We have had an insurance benefit of $1330 a month since 2019!! We have not proposed to increase it, so it seems clear the district team does not even know what our current benefits are.
 
Your team was unhappy with this offer to say the least. We responded by taking our package off the table. We kept the reduced amount of money in the insurance pool because, unlike the district, we believe the money the district receives should be spent on staff and students, not saved. We then reverted back to our original offer of 7.5%, 5% , 4%.
 
We also showed the district how their offer will keep us at the bottom of the metro districts. With the district’s offer, teachers at the highest pay scale would be making $10,000 less a year working for Reynolds than they could make working for Gresham. The lawyer for the district stated that we are calculating steps incorrectly, which is not accurate. She also said that we are engaged in regressive bargaining (taking things off the table that have been offered). This is also not true. We are not. In package bargaining, either side is allowed to offer things which can later be withdrawn if the whole package is not agreed to. (The district has used this tactic before as well.) She also said no one else is offering such large raises. This is true - no other district needs to offer such large raises because they already have higher pay scales than Reynolds. If they did offer large raises, then we would be left even farther behind.
 
The school board member present repeated how the board really wants to pay the teachers well; they just can’t afford it. He expressed concern that if they agreed to our raises the district may have to lay off a teacher, even a single teacher, in year three and he can’t agree to that. We pointed out that at the rate of teachers leaving, there wouldn’t be any one left to lay off.
 
Next steps:  We have offered a date in January for the next bargaining session, and we want that session to be in person. In the meantime, we are asking all of you to contact the school board with your concerns about the bargain. Please mention how you are doing financially and/or emotionally. Mention if you are thinking about leaving or mention people you know who have left. We will need your action and your support to get through this bargain.
 
Another important “next step” is to take care of yourselves. Please try to relax and get some enjoyment and peace during the winter break. You are all amazing, and your team appreciates all of your support.
 
Thanks again.
 
In solidarity,
Your REA bargaining team

Thank you to all the REA members who have been showing up for these negotiation meetings.  Your support is essential and sends a message of Solidarity to the district.  Thank you!
​
In this past session the district and REA had a brisk and meaningful exchange of proposals.  The district and REA were able to collaborate on Article 25 (Reduction in Force), and this article will be tentatively agreed to.  The district and REA are close on Article 23 (Fringe Benefits), but still have a couple wrinkles to iron out.  The district increased their offer in Article 22 (Compensation), but it only moves us from 14th in the Portland Metro Area to 13th over the three years of the contract. Here are the details.
 
A#27, Class Size and Case Load Workload:    REA and the district are still in agreement on using the word “limits” in place of “guidelines” (as per Senate bill 580) and are in agreement on REA’s proposed language reducing class size limits for K-1 to 22 students.  The district continues to agree to a review process for caseload relief. The work on this article is now completed but it is not tentatively agreed to as 27 is still in a package with 26 and 22.
 
A#26, Student Services, Section C, Social-Emotional and Wellness Support Services: The district and REA have informally agreed on the language for this article for sections A, B, and C. REA see’s this language change as a positive for all.  Again, there is no official tentative agreement on 26 as it is packaged with 27 and 22.
 
A#25, Reduction in Force: There has been a change in the law which impacts this article. The district and REA have been in discussions about how and when to implement ORS 342.934.  REA and the district have agreed to negotiate an MOU by June of 2022.  Both sides believe this will allow for any changes in the new law to “shake out” and for interpretations and guidelines from ODE to be distributed to districts.  This article will be tentatively agreed to.
 
A#23, Fringe Benefits: The district and REA have been very close to informal agreement on this article.  However, in the information request response that the district just shared with REA, there are some ambiguities regarding the insurance pool.  Your Bargain Team has determined that the district has been making over-sized payments to the pool which results in dollars not being used effectively.  We will be seeking a sidebar to discuss the pool further and may make suggestions regarding future district contributions to put the money towards items like COLA.  More to come on Article #23.
 
A#22, Compensation: RSD and REA met in a sidebar on Tuesday, 11/16/21, to work out costing differentials prior to the 11/18/21 bargain session.  The District team and our team had different methods for costing our respective salary proposals. We were able to bridge the gap on many of the issues impacting costing.  Unfortunately, there remains some disagreement on costs for steps.  We are still nailing down the number of FTE the district should be costing out of the general fund versus grants and other source funds.  Overall there was a good deal of progress in bringing the figures into alignment.
As a result, RSD brought forward an increased COLA proposal of: 5% in year one, 4% in year two, and 3% in year three, for a total three-year COLA compensation of 12%.  REA is still holding strong at 7.5%, 5%, and 4% for a total of 16.5%.  So, we are closer in total compensation, but far away in terms of moving REA members up the Metro 14 salary rankings.  This means the district is still far away from being able to effectively retain current staffing and attract new staffing.
 
The district still agrees to REA’s proposed longevity language calling for a salary adjustment of 1% at 15 years of service, 2% at 20 years of service, and 3% at 25 years of service.   The district still agrees to our language calling for a 1.5% hourly rate increase for members who assume the duties of an absent administrator. 
 
The district relented on their position of not increasing the early retirement monthly payment.  This monthly payment had been stuck at $600 per month for the last 25 years.  The district has agreed to REA’s language calling for an increase to $800.
 
Once again, we want to remind everyone that articles 22, 26, and 27 are being discussed as a package proposal.  No single article can be agreed to without the others also being agreed to.
 
Next Steps:             
REA has called for another sidebar tentatively scheduled for November 30th.  REA is hopeful that this sidebar will be as solution-focused as the previous one and result in a final push to an agreement.
 
A tentative next bargain date has been established for Tuesday, 12/7/21, Pearl Harbor Day.  REA is calling for the district to make this session an in-person meeting.  The district denied this same request for the last session because of, “concern for the safety of staff.”  Your Bargaining Team believes that if the district can keep us safe in schools with unvaccinated students, they can also keep us safe in socially distanced auditoriums or multi-purpose spaces, with everyone wearing masks, and all in-person participants showing proof of vaccination.  Look for further messaging from your Organizing Team.

In Solidarity!
 
Your Bargaining Team: Molly F., Bruce M., Bruce S., Joyce R., and Brian Jay
 
 

Bargain Update for 11/2/21 Session:
 
Your Bargain Team would like to express its appreciation to all the members who have been showing up for these negotiation meetings.  Your support is encouraging to the team and sends a message to the district.  Thank you!
In this past session the district and REA met for over three hours, the longest session to date.  There were multiple exchanges of proposals and significant progress was made on language in articles 26 (Student Services), and 27 (Class Size and Caseload Workload).  The district and REA disagree on Article 25 (Reduction in Force), are close on Article 23 (Fringe Benefits), and are still far apart on Article 22 (Compensation).  Here is a rundown of where things stand.
 
A#27, Class Size and Case Load Workload:   
REA and the district agreed on using the word “limits” in place of “guidelines” (as per Senate bill 580) for discussing class size and case load numbers for all schools.  The district agreed to REA’s proposed language on reducing class size limits for K-1 to 22 students.  The district also agreed to a review process for caseload relief to be conducted by the Student Services Committee by the third week of September each year.  The work on this article is now largely completed but this is not tentatively agreed to as 27 is in a package with 26 and 22.
 
A#26, Student Services, Section C, Social-Emotional and Wellness Support Services:       
The district and REA have largely agreed on the language for this article for sections A, B, and C.  A and B (SPED & ELD) had been agreed to at previous sessions.  The significant changes in C are that the district finally agreed to a committee to oversee, review, and propose “best practices for providing emotional and mental health support services to students.”  It also includes oversight on staffing needs, structures of services offered, and includes physical health support services as part of its charge.  The committee is comprised in the same ways as the Student Services Committee and the ELD Programming Committee.  REA see’s this language change as a positive for all.  Again, there is no official tentative agreement on 26 as it is packaged with 27 and 22.
 
A#25, Reduction in Force:         
There has been a change in the law which impacts this article.  The district and REA have been in discussions about how and when to implement ORS 342.934, which says that cultural or linguistic expertise must be considered along with seniority and licensure when conducting a reduction in force.  REA would like this distinction to be a proactive process and not a reactive one.  In other words, REA would like for members who meet the criteria of having cultural or linguistic expertise be identified and designated prior to any RIF consideration process.  Our suggestion has been to make this determination at point of hire and that it be reviewed annually.  The district wants to negotiate an MOU in the event they determine a RIF becomes necessary.  Your Bargain Team will stand strong on this issue.
 
A#23, Fringe Benefits:     
The district and REA have been very close to informal agreement on this article.  However, in the information request response that the district just shared with REA, there are some ambiguities regarding the insurance pool.  Your Bargain Team wants to take its time in sorting this out and has added this topic as an agenda item for a sidebar in the next week.  We wo not wish to fully agree to any of the details around insurance or the pool until these ambiguities are cleared.
 
A#22, Compensation:     
RSD and REA met in a sidebar on Thursday, 10/28/21, to work out costing differentials prior to the 11/2/21 bargain session.  The District team and our team had different methods for costing our respective salary proposals. Originally, our team estimated the cost as the increase of Year 1 Extra Cost + Year 2 Extra Cost + Year 3 Extra Cost = Total Cost. This presumes that the General Fund also grows each year.
 
The District took another approach with its costing method, a reasonable and common one, and that is “layer-caking”:
 
Year 1 Total Cost = Year 1 Extra Cost
Year 2 Total Cost = Year 1 Extra Cost + Year 2 Extra Cost
Year 3 Total Cost = Year 1 Extra Cost + Year 2 Extra Cost + Year 3 Extra Cost
 
Total Cost of Proposal = Year 1 Total Cost + Year 2 Total Cost + Year 3 Total Cost
 
We didn’t spot that difference in costing methods and so we weren’t making apples-to-apples comparisons. Their “layer-caking” estimate put their proposal in the $13-15 million range. Our initial method of Y1 + Y2 + Y3 led to an $11 million estimate for our proposal, which we commented on during a REA member caucus. However, the “layer-caking” approach results in our proposal costing a total of $17 million. We’re sticking with the “layer-caking” approach from this point forward but wanted to explain why our initial $11 million costing jumped to $17 million.
 
We see our $17 million cost as well within the District’s financial ability—it would not result in them needing to make any cuts to anything--and is close to the $13-15 million the District already put on the table. We pointed out that their 3%, 3%, 3% proposal would cost them far less than $13-15 million, and those points are involved in the District reassessing their costing methodology in many areas. However, the District team has shown that $13-15 million is already within its financial comfort zone. The District can easily meet our proposal of $17 million.
 
In the actual bargain session, the district premised their counter with a statement that they were still analyzing our methodology and wanted to take a harder look at the numbers.  Therefore, the district is currently unwilling to increase their offer of 3%, 3%, and 3% over three years.  REA is holding strong on 7.5%, 5%, and 4%.
 
The district did agree to REA’s proposed longevity language calling for a salary adjustment of 1% at 15 years of service, 2% at 20 years of service, and 3% at 25 years of service.   The district also agreed to our language calling for a 1.5% hourly rate increase for members who assume the duties of an absent administrator.  This did come with eliminating the previous language about Teacher In Charge annual stipends.
 
The district is holding fast to their position of not increasing the early retirement monthly payment.  This monthly payment has been stuck at $600 per month for the last 25 years.  REA had originally asked for an increase to $1,000.  REA subsequently attempted to show the district how to bargain by going to $800 as a compromise.  The district says they are not interested.  REA will hold strong on $800 as per our members request.
 
Once again, we want to remind everyone that articles 22, 26, and 27 are being discussed as a package proposal.  No single article can be agreed to without the others also being agreed to.
 
Next Steps:             
A sidebar will be scheduled for week of November 8th.  Time and date to be announced.  REA is hopeful that this sidebar will be solution-focused and result in a more collaborative approach to achieving a new collective bargaining agreement
 
A tentative next bargain date has been established for Thursday, November 18th.  REA has asked the district to make this session an in-person meeting with appropriate social-distancing.  We have also asked that there be virtual options for anyone who cannot or chooses to not attend.  The details for this meeting are yet to be determined.  Look for messaging from your Organizing Team.
 
In Solidarity!
Your Bargaining Team: Molly F., Bruce M., Bruce S., Joyce R., and Brian Jay
 

On Thursday evening, 4/1/21, REA and RSD held their second full-on bargain session.  The two sides tentatively agreed (TA'd) current language in the unopened articles: preamble, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 29.  The District presented counters to Article 5 (Employee Rights), Article 8 (Emergency Closure), and Article 19 (Tuition, Project, and/or Workshop Reimbursement).

In Article 5 (Employee rights) the two sides were able to agree on new language in several areas except for paying bilingual teachers for translation of curriculum.  The Association maintains that members who engage in curriculum translation work should be paid at their full hourly rate and not at curriculum rate.   Translation of curriculum is a specialized skill that requires just as much, if not more effort, than any other responsibility members undertake.  Being paid at hourly rate is a matter of respect that REA will continue to ask of the District.  This article has been put aside for future negotiation.

In Article 8 (Emergency Closure) the District and Association were able to each agreement on language that facilitates a rapid and reasonable remedy for situations in which members fell unwell.  If a member feels unwell due to a circumstance or situation in their workplace, the member may speak with their immediate administrative supervisor and mutually agree upon a reasonable remedy (i.e., temporary relocation to another space in the building, seeing a health provider, or going home to recover).  This article is to be TA'd.

In Article 19 (Tuition, Project, and/or Workshop Reimbursement) The District and the Association were able to agree on new language providing clearer guidance and process around tuition reimbursements.  The reimbursement rates were adjusted to the PSU graduate rates for 2021/22, 2022/23, and 2023.24 years.  The sides agreed to expand the definition of approved reimbursement for professional practices and not just instruction.  This gives greater latitude to specialists and others not in a traditional classroom role. The $250 professional organizations option was increased to $300. The new language improves opportunities for domestic travel and related expenses for attending workshops and conferences offered outside of Portland or the state of Oregon.  The District agreed to provide a mechanism for members to quickly and accurately see their available tuition accounts.  The District agreed to provide electronic response to tuition reimbursement requests within 10 working days of the requests.  The District agreed to send a reminder to members about submitting proof of course completion.  The District was unwilling to consider adjusting the tuition voucher program for members who host student teachers and that section (Section C) will remain at current language.  This article is to be TA'd

Next Meeting is scheduled for Thursday at 5:00 on 4/22/21.  The District will bring counters to articles; 7 (Employee Work Year), 18 (Student Discipline, 26 (Student Services), 27 (Class Workload), and 28 (Mentor Program)

In Solidarity!

​Your REA Bargain Team.

​Hello REA, 

Please join the REA Bargaining Team this Thursday, 1 April 2021 starting at 5:00 pm ​as they negotiate our next contract. This meeting's focus is on Articles 5 (Employee Rights), 8 (Emergency Closure), and 19 (Tuition, Project and/or Workshop Reimbursement). 

The REA Bargaining Team will also be providing data supporting our proposed salary increases. We do not, however, expect the district to have its initial proposal for salary increases at this time. You can find minutes from the last bargaining meeting by clicking HERE. 

Click here to join the Bargaining webinar. 

After both teams discuss their proposals they will go to caucus before returning to the table. During that time, REA will hold an all-member caucus to get feedback, hear concerns/suggestions, and answer questions. This caucus will not begin until the bargaining teams go to caucus. 

Click here to join the all-member caucus. 

We look forward to seeing everyone there! 

, with the exception of the initial "meet & greet."
REA and RSD are getting set to begin a new bargain process for the 2021/2022 school year contract and beyond. 
The RSD team includes: Rob Neu, Wade Bakley, Lisa McDonald, Tonya Pruett, Valerie Tewksbury and Rebecca Jourgeneson. 
The REA team includes: Joyce Rosenau, Bruce Marh, Molly Frye, Brian Jay, and Bruce Scherer.
Bargain sessions will all be held from 5:00-8:00pm and are open to membership viewing via zoom, with the exception of the first meeting which is "meet & greet."  Dates are as follows:
Thursday, 2/18/21 --- "meet & greet"
Thursday, 3/4/21 --- Initial Exchange
Thursday, 4/1/21
Thursday 4/22/21
Tuesday, 5/4/21
Tuesday, 5/18/21
Thursday, 6/3/21
Thursday, 6/17/21
Your REA Bargain Team