IMPORTANT! Weekend homework: Contact your Representative to oppose SB 284 - a bill aimed at disrupting the school workplace and hurting local teacher associations
02/27/2014
Earlier this week, we shared information about SB 284. What started out as a simple bill by Sen. Ron Grooms (R-Jeffersonville) to address the start date of a teacher contract (which ISTA supported), has turned into a bill filled with all kinds of new measures—some of which are intended to disrupt the professional relationships between superintendents and their local teacher associations and hurt the Association.
ISTA has assured Sen. Grooms that it will work with him to find a new home for his bill as the process continues. Sen. Grooms was not a party to the inclusion of these provisions.
In the meantime, SB 284 will be on 3rd reading Monday in the House. Please contact your Representative to strongly oppose this bill. It is important that your message is logged by Monday morning.
ACTION: Please take a moment to call Friday and/or Monday morning to your state representative and record your opposition. Make sure you do so during your break time and with your own phone. Tell your colleagues.
The sample message is simple (although feel free to use your own words):
My name is __________________ and I am a constituent of Rep. __________________ and I wish to urge Rep. ____________________ to OPPOSE SB 284 because it includes provisions that are offensive to me, to teachers and to teacher associations. In particular, I am referring to the provisions that disrupt the bargaining/discussion process and that allow a school district to artificially manipulate general fund revenue so that there are fewer dollars from which to bargain. These are counterproductive and will do more harm than good.
House switchboard: 800-382-9841
You can also contact by email but telephone ensures that the legislator will have seen the message.
Click here to contact your Representative by email.
The worst provisions in SB 284 and that are most offensive are:
(1) A provision to that diminishes the role of the exclusive representative to engage in official discussions as the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit—allowing nonmembers to sit on discussion teams. This goes back on the promises made in the 2011 collective bargaining reforms. In 2011, provisions were allowed to enable proportional representation on committees other than the discussion team—recognizing that the discussion team was part of the bargaining/discussion process. This week, even the Superintendents Association testified in opposition to this—referring to it as disruptive.
(2) A provision that allows the school board to remove from the general fund certain revenues. The list of revenue proposed to be manipulated is: (1) interest income; (2) rental income; (3) or other school corporation activities funds. According to LSA, this would likely remove over $70 milllion statewide more from what is currently in the school general fund. These are revenues that are generated for general school use and should be in the general fund. To start to parse out the different kinds of revenue available to a district makes little sense other than to show less available money from which to bargain.