Open Enrollment Amendment Proposal
Board: John, Kateri, Beth, Rosemary, Laurie, Danny, Cece, Jim, Nichole
Start with a go-around:
Faculty hasn’t had a good chance for explaining change in decision. Tough for a temp to take a
1 year temp job here – perhaps the OE preference is a ticket for them to come here. Perhaps
move siblings above temp position.
Also believes temp positions tough to fill with quality. Teammates feel same, some very
strongly, some not so strongly. Temp job stuff probably not come up that often.
Struggles with giving one year employees prioirty, the golden ticket is not rationale for getting
full time people here, it is more about their philosophy. the last 6 temp position we have had,
only 2 have had kids. We don’t even use that as a bargaining chip. It doesn’t seem like that is
the reasoning for most candidates are here looking for it. We are a public school and serve the
public. Some siblings wait long time to get in. In guiding principles we have a commitment to
diversity, and giving spots to teachers who are only here for 1 year creates less diversity. Also if
someone is working for 3 months, do they get a spot? What point do we cut this off.
Recognizes desire to make sure that all faculty is seen at same level, being careful to not have
temps viewed as “less than”. Because this is a benefit issue, it is understood that there may be
differences based upon job hours, etc. This is a benefit, needs to be seen as this. There might
be a waiting period, to make sure both sides are committed. Doesn’t believe OE position for
temp should be put above siblings and rest of community.
OE policy should be looked at. Doesn’t see there is a need for resolution, for this year. Sees
one year waiting period as a good way to weed out people just getting kid into the school. More
about making good hires, policy not as important.
Original intention for looking at this came up for trying to get clear on what an employee is for
the OE policy. Having clarity around that is important. Lots of voice came up around equality.
Long standing faculty are strongly speaking around a bit more of a teacher preference in this
process. Why is that? Faculty wanting a give on this, we aren’t union, we don’t get a lot of
benefits that other BVSD employees get, not even on salary schedule. We give so much, and
really want to make sure that faculty gets this benefit. Faculty wants to honor faculty and
history, of shepherding each other’s kids through the school. Also a bit around how much time
taken on this one topic.
We need to see this as learning place. We have shared governance, can use this to either build
or tear down community. Sees a lot of history here, what does it mean to deeply collaborate.
Concerned how we are not finding concordance. Compelled by argument of .25 faculty member
If having separate sets of rules we are creating differences. Should avoid having different
benefits for full employees. Likes .25 and should only be full year in case of temp employee.
Sees that siblings should have preference too. Majority of temp position employees become
permanent, and putting off having kids here one more year is detrimental. There is a huge
difference between staff and faculty and this needs to be noted. We need to look at OE policy
wholly. Really looking at this for the new hires this year. Teammates sees the same problem of
the will be 2 years before kids get here.
Noticed how many teachers have or have had kids here. Sees that this is very important to
have the OE employee benefit. Sees that it is important. Maybe hire more diversity. Teachers
don’t come in just to get kids here. Our hiring process is really solid. Temporary piece, hears
concerns, torn because if we are hiring our best, then it would be good to have their kids here.
Maybe the idea of moving siblings up above temps. Not really sure on the .25 sees that they
Comments believes that tabling may not be good for community. Hearing that things don’t get
decided. May lose parents from the council meetings.
proposal earlier included the need to look at the whole OE policy, but this will be hard, so need
to move forward on this.
Is it possible for task force, would it come back to whole council, with new bylaws it would come
back to the council board.
Agrees important we come to conclusion. Our bylaws give our parents a strong voice in this.
We need to show that parents really have a voice. Look deeply whether council became an
Parents said, sense that they want a voice. Particularly the sibling voice. Having kids split
loyalties and driving. Real difficulty for parents with siblings in separate schools is the different
educational philosophies and ed opportunities for their children -even harder to deal with that
as a parent than different schedules and carpools.
The feedback getting is giving temporary is the sticking point. Faculty vs staff waiting not a
problem. Just allowing slots for people if we don’t know if they will be there feels awkward. .25
time commitment makes sense.
1. Children of Faculty (licensed, non-temporary employee) employed in a licensed Faculty
position of .25 F.T.E. or greater, whether they reside inside or outside the BVSD boundaries.
2. Sibling of a student who will be attending Horizons the following year
– EQUAL preference with –
Children of Faculty employed in a licensed temporary full-time, temporary part-time or
temporary job-share Faculty position, with a one year contract of 0.25 F.T.E or greater
(whether they reside inside or outside the BVSD boundaries).
3. Children of non-licensed Staff in their 2nd consecutive year, or subsequent, of employment
at 25% or greater (i.e. 10+ hours/week), whether they reside inside or outside the BVSD
4. Other community preferences as already stated in BVSD Policy JECC-R
Concordance reached. Proposal passed.
Meeting adjourned 08.25 am