Board Meeting: April 11, 2013

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

Share this Post: