It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
The HGEA and the DOE
Aloha everybody!
I started this discussion in the forum section because it concerns both education and unions, but it got buried in the "view all" section. I'm moving it here because I want to make sure at least the Education members have a chance to read it.
To give you an idea of the power of the HGEA over the DOE, here are some of the provisions in their current contract (underlining added by me):
Article 1 – “The Board recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of a unit consisting of all educational officers employed by the Board as certified by the Hawai’i Labor Relations Board pursuant to Chapter 89, Hawai’i Revised Statutes.”
[In other words, every administrator and staff member, including the State Superintendent, is a member of the same union-JM]
Article 3 – “If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of the rules and regulations of the Board, other personnel regulations applicable to educational officers, or any contracts between the Board and educational officers, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.”
Article 4 (B) – “Subject to the foregoing paragraph, nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as interfering with the Board’s right to make, amend, revise, or delete any portion of the School Code or subsequent related procedures; provided, however, that the Union shall be consulted on any changes to be made.”
Article 8 (A) – “All matters affecting major personnel policy changes in employee-employer relations concerning educational officers, including those that are, or may be, the subject of a regulation promulgated by the Board are subject to consultation with the Union".
(B) - "Task Force Studies which may affect personnel policy matters shall have educational officer participants appointed by the Union.”
Article 11 (A) – [This lengthy section gives priority to tenured administrators for selection to any other administrative position-JM]
(B) – “All appointments of tenured educational officers shall be permanent, except in cases where an educational officer is “vicing”, is on probation, is in a temporary position, or is otherwise appointed specifically for a limited term.”
(D) – “Department procedures to implement provisions of this agreement shall be developed collaboratively by the Board and the Union.”
Article 12 (E) – “…. Educational officers with tenure shall not be suspended, demoted, discharged, or terminated without proper cause, provided, however, that the foregoing is not intended to interfere with the right of the Board to relieve employees from duties for lack of work or other legitimate reasons.”
[N.B.: “Proper cause” is a legal term meaning willful and gross misconduct, specifically excluding poor performance-JM]
Article 14 (A) – “The Board shall provide legal counsel” [i.e. the A.G.’s office-JM] “for an educational officer upon request when:”
(1-4) – [The educational officer is sued, subpoenaed, or deposed about actions taken as an employee of the DOE-JM]
(D) – “When grievances are filed against educational officers for actions taken by them in the course of their employment and within the scope of their duties and responsibilities, the Board shall provide them with necessary staff support and representation.” [N.B.: the staff support and representation consist of other educational officers who are also union members-JM] “When such assistance is requested by the educational officer and the Board fails to furnish such assistance, the educational officer will not be penalized for any improper action taken. The educational officer may also request the presence of a Union representative who shall be allowed to attend any grievance hearing against the educational officer.”
(E) – “The Board shall provide educational officers with advice and assistance” [i.e. other educational officers who are also union members, as well as the AG's office-JM] “ in the interpretation and administration of collective bargaining contracts or agreements covering their subordinates. Whenever educational officers perform or carry out their assigned duties and responsibilities based on such advice and assistance, the Board agrees to provide full support to the educational officer should conflicts or grievances arise.”
Article 16 (D) (1) – “In the event that educational officers must be laid off, retention points based on months of service as an educational officer for the Board shall be used to determine displacements. …”
Article 17 – “Educational Officers shall be involved in decisions which impact their functions and responsibilities.
“The Superintendent/Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and District Superintendents” [all of whom are members of this union-JM] “will collaboratively agree with their respective educational officers on agenda and scheduling of quarterly union-management meetings entirely devoted to educational officer initiated issues.”
Article 21 (B) – “Membership of the committee on surveys, questionnaires, tests, and any other types of inventories shall include educational officers from the school, district, and state levels. Selection of representatives shall be collaboratively determined by the Union and the Employer.”
Okay, it’s me again. The above provisions far surpass any power that the teachers union has. This contract makes accountability (i.e. sanctions for not doing what the administrator was supposed to do) impossible. Principals’ jobs are absolutely secure, unless they commit misconduct. They will almost never be found guilty of misconduct, in spite of the fact that some of them do so on a daily basis, because the fact finder – a fellow union member – must give the accused administrator assistance and representation - from still other union members. Newcomers to the DOE cannot be considered for any position that a current DOE educational officer wants. The union has to participate in any decision making that affects its members. This contract guarantees a self-perpetuating good-old-boys clique to run our schools in perpetuity.
I really think that school reform requires a weakening of the HGEA’s power over the DOE, in order to make accountability possible. Then, of course, something else still has to be done to create accountability.
Aloha!
I started this discussion in the forum section because it concerns both education and unions, but it got buried in the "view all" section. I'm moving it here because I want to make sure at least the Education members have a chance to read it.
To give you an idea of the power of the HGEA over the DOE, here are some of the provisions in their current contract (underlining added by me):
Article 1 – “The Board recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of a unit consisting of all educational officers employed by the Board as certified by the Hawai’i Labor Relations Board pursuant to Chapter 89, Hawai’i Revised Statutes.”
[In other words, every administrator and staff member, including the State Superintendent, is a member of the same union-JM]
Article 3 – “If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any of the rules and regulations of the Board, other personnel regulations applicable to educational officers, or any contracts between the Board and educational officers, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.”
Article 4 (B) – “Subject to the foregoing paragraph, nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as interfering with the Board’s right to make, amend, revise, or delete any portion of the School Code or subsequent related procedures; provided, however, that the Union shall be consulted on any changes to be made.”
Article 8 (A) – “All matters affecting major personnel policy changes in employee-employer relations concerning educational officers, including those that are, or may be, the subject of a regulation promulgated by the Board are subject to consultation with the Union".
(B) - "Task Force Studies which may affect personnel policy matters shall have educational officer participants appointed by the Union.”
Article 11 (A) – [This lengthy section gives priority to tenured administrators for selection to any other administrative position-JM]
(B) – “All appointments of tenured educational officers shall be permanent, except in cases where an educational officer is “vicing”, is on probation, is in a temporary position, or is otherwise appointed specifically for a limited term.”
(D) – “Department procedures to implement provisions of this agreement shall be developed collaboratively by the Board and the Union.”
Article 12 (E) – “…. Educational officers with tenure shall not be suspended, demoted, discharged, or terminated without proper cause, provided, however, that the foregoing is not intended to interfere with the right of the Board to relieve employees from duties for lack of work or other legitimate reasons.”
[N.B.: “Proper cause” is a legal term meaning willful and gross misconduct, specifically excluding poor performance-JM]
Article 14 (A) – “The Board shall provide legal counsel” [i.e. the A.G.’s office-JM] “for an educational officer upon request when:”
(1-4) – [The educational officer is sued, subpoenaed, or deposed about actions taken as an employee of the DOE-JM]
(D) – “When grievances are filed against educational officers for actions taken by them in the course of their employment and within the scope of their duties and responsibilities, the Board shall provide them with necessary staff support and representation.” [N.B.: the staff support and representation consist of other educational officers who are also union members-JM] “When such assistance is requested by the educational officer and the Board fails to furnish such assistance, the educational officer will not be penalized for any improper action taken. The educational officer may also request the presence of a Union representative who shall be allowed to attend any grievance hearing against the educational officer.”
(E) – “The Board shall provide educational officers with advice and assistance” [i.e. other educational officers who are also union members, as well as the AG's office-JM] “ in the interpretation and administration of collective bargaining contracts or agreements covering their subordinates. Whenever educational officers perform or carry out their assigned duties and responsibilities based on such advice and assistance, the Board agrees to provide full support to the educational officer should conflicts or grievances arise.”
Article 16 (D) (1) – “In the event that educational officers must be laid off, retention points based on months of service as an educational officer for the Board shall be used to determine displacements. …”
Article 17 – “Educational Officers shall be involved in decisions which impact their functions and responsibilities.
“The Superintendent/Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and District Superintendents” [all of whom are members of this union-JM] “will collaboratively agree with their respective educational officers on agenda and scheduling of quarterly union-management meetings entirely devoted to educational officer initiated issues.”
Article 21 (B) – “Membership of the committee on surveys, questionnaires, tests, and any other types of inventories shall include educational officers from the school, district, and state levels. Selection of representatives shall be collaboratively determined by the Union and the Employer.”
Okay, it’s me again. The above provisions far surpass any power that the teachers union has. This contract makes accountability (i.e. sanctions for not doing what the administrator was supposed to do) impossible. Principals’ jobs are absolutely secure, unless they commit misconduct. They will almost never be found guilty of misconduct, in spite of the fact that some of them do so on a daily basis, because the fact finder – a fellow union member – must give the accused administrator assistance and representation - from still other union members. Newcomers to the DOE cannot be considered for any position that a current DOE educational officer wants. The union has to participate in any decision making that affects its members. This contract guarantees a self-perpetuating good-old-boys clique to run our schools in perpetuity.
I really think that school reform requires a weakening of the HGEA’s power over the DOE, in order to make accountability possible. Then, of course, something else still has to be done to create accountability.
Aloha!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on -
John
The HSTA contract has similar exclusivity, forced membership and limitations to accountability. Attorneys use boiler plate concepts so that all public employees have comparable rights.
I'm no lawyer, but I know that HLRB, DHRD and Office of Collective Bargaining do LOTS of work to coordinate and ensure parity for state workers. It is a central entitlement to the idea of being a public servant.
Trying to unthread who and how in the state budget system is related to Della's question this week.
You are on to something really important though, and I look forward to reading what everyone has to say.
Money is everything. Follow the money.
-
Permalink Reply by jk on -
Curtis points out how the State is being counterproductive by mindlessly matching up the contracts of teachers (HSTA) and administrators (HGEA) with contracts of other State workers. Maybe the contracts work for occupations in certain fields, but not in education. This is an example of how the centralized system’s bureaucratic “one size fits all” mentality actually defeats the State’s goal, which is to provide the best possible education for Hawaii’s children. Here is yet another reason to support fully independent school districts -- to enable them to negotiate their own collective bargaining contracts that can be different from other State contracts.
-
Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on
-
Aloha jk
I don't know if I would call it "mindless", but you do have lawyers lawyering about in Honolulu, and sheep following because they don't know better--this is why unions are here to stay.
Rather than having exclusive rights for unions, perhaps a change in the constitution that removes exclusivity will have some of the effect you are seeking. I'm not sure.
Before the teachers' strike in the 70s there were two teacher unions, Hawaii Federation of Teachers (AFSCME, related to HGEA), and HSTA. The exclusivity came about as part of that settlement, I believe.
I go back to charter schools again, and note that teachers are still entitled to due process under HLRB rules, but that tenure is not an entitlement. Most public charter schools hire teachers on year-to-year contracts, and serve at the pleasure of the Local School Boards. But charter school teachers are HSTA.
-
Permalink Reply by John Mussack on -
Aloha Curtis!
Thank you for pointing out that HSTA's contract for teachers has similar "exclusivity, forced membership and limitations to accountability" to the HGEA contract for administrators and other educational officers. However, I would say that that gives HGEA far more power than HSTA over the public schools, because it is the administrators, not teachers, who are running the DOE.
In addition, the teachers' contract does not give them as much insulation from accountability as administrators (as if teachers were the ones who needed to be held accountable), because the teachers' contract does not give teachers automatic DOE representation, guaranteed DOE support of their individual decisions, or AG legal counsel in case of disputes, the way the HGEA contract gives those things to administrators.
Mahalo!
About
Badge
Photos
© 2009 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
