Idaho's Director of the Board of Education Is on The Right Track

There are Two Bills pending in Idaho that will reform education. One is more about how school districts will be funded at reduced rates, redirecting part of state funding to special programs, especially math, and limiting the administrative staff as a percentage of all school staff. This is Idaho Senate Bill 1069 and is the less controversial of the two placed before consideration by Tom Luna, the Director of the State’s Board of Education.

The second bill is Senate Bill 1068 and this is the one over which the teachers, Dems and “Rhino” Republicans are fuming. This writer referred to this bill in his last blog on the importance of keeping the union “horse” in the barn in the first place rather than dealing with the critical mass of Big Labor once it is out.
Reading SB 1068, which is relatively short at 25 pages (compared do Reid’s health care boondoggle at over 2,000 pages), this bill is straightforward and through its entire length re-establishes management control of the schools, not labor, i.e. union control of schools. Some (but I personally know exceptions) teachers are furious with this because seniority is no longer a consideration in district actions; there is no more “tenure” and a small piece of state incentive money may be paid to teachers who excel. It is a part of union credo that no workers receive recognition or money greater than the poorest performers. A note about tenure. Tenure will continue for teachers who already enjoy that protection; it will be all new staff and staff who have yet to earn tenure who will never receive it. Two “classes” of employees is another union irritant because the union will forever receive pressure to equalize the two classes and this legislation, unless revised in the future, will prevent that; thus a permanent “under class” as the union is likely to call them.

Another piece of the bill that causes the foaming is that members must vote on representation renewal every year. The purpose of this is to make sure that a union run amok cannot incarcerate its workers indefinitely. It is much tougher to decertify a union than it is to certify it so this, as “they” say, “levels the playing field.”

The opposition, spinning dizzily, says the bill strips local authority of “sovereignty” (my term). There is some truth to that. The bill names many subjects that the unions and management may NOT negotiate. There is a benefit to this that the public should understand. The union “buys” school boards, much as it does many public officials in the state of Washington where I live. Those it cannot buy it intimidates. Let’s call the purchases “protection money” except all the money protects is organized labor as big business. So, under this bill, labor-leaning districts are going to get a haircut. Despite the bedroom relationship of the union and management in these districts, the taxpayers and kids will prevail because the law PREVENTS weak management from letting the horse out of the barn. And, in most pieces of these two bills the boards gain more power than they lose.

The last piece and your dear author loves this: ALL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WILL BE NEGOTIATED IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC. And, all labor agreements will be posted on the school’s website. Since general terms of employment are NOT confidential, is there any reasonable person alive who can defend negotiating in secrecy and hiding the agreements? The benefit of this section may not be immediately understood so the reader should ask himself, “Do I know the terms of the bargaining agreements of the employees in my city”? You do not because the management team does not want you to know of its weaknesses or sweetheart deals to pay for labor peace and the union does not want the public to know of the exorbitant salaries and laughable work rules in the contract. This author suggested this several times to a fire district that in fact ended up kicking out all volunteers and employing only union staff and the district was not willing to make the negotiating public. Go figure!

Tom Luna is on the right track. The bills are under attack and the outcome is not certain; but he has done the “right thing” much as have Chris Christie, Jan Brewer and Scott Walker and for his tenacity he should be commended.

For Senate Bill 1068 following is the required summary by the Idaho code reviser:

******************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS20241

This part of Idaho’s Students Come First legislation relates to labor relations and employee
entitlements. This legislation returns decision-making powers to locally elected school boards
and creates a more professional and accountable work force. It does so by making a number of changes:

• Phasing out tenure for all current and future teachers who have not yet earned it, to be
replaced by one- or two-year contracts.
• Including feedback from parents and objective measures of growth in student achievement as
a factor in the performance evaluations of professional staff.
• Eliminating seniority as a factor in reduction in force decisions.
• Enhancing accountability by giving principals more control over the new professional staff
assigned to their building.
• Providing liability insurance options for teachers.
• Eliminating the 99% average daily attendance protection feature of the state funding formula
and replacing it with a 10% severance fee to be paid to any professional staff whose positions
must be eliminated due to lost enrollment.
• Eliminating the Early Retirement Incentive Program.
• Limiting the length of negotiated labor agreements to one year.
• Eliminating "evergreen" clauses from negotiated labor agreements.
• Requiring that unions provide documentation that they represent over 50% of employees in
order for collective bargaining to take place.
• Requiring that all labor negotiations be conducted in public meetings.

***********************

Anything in the above you believe is “cruel and unusual punishment” or “slapping teachers” as a “RiNO” recently stated?

I did not think so either.

*&*&*&*&*&*&