District Needs to Negotiate with Respect, and Work Within the
Law
District Needs to Negotiate with Respect, and Work Within the Law
Editor,
I am compelled to write regarding your editorial of Aug. 30 about the teacher/administration issues at San Benito High School. I agree that it is incredibly unfortunate that there is continued discord with the school staff. I also have been shaking my head with bewilderment over choices that have been made in the past three years.
There is one point in your editorial with which I take issue. There was no “lapse in basic negotiation communication” in the negotiations process. The district chose to break the law – this is not an interpretation – they broke collective bargaining law when they chose to declare a new schedule/working conditions change for each of the past two years. The district did not complete the negotiations process before implementing the changes. This is illegal (see Alhambra Teachers Association CTA/NEA v. Alhambra City and High School Districts: PERB Decision No. 560).
When this was done and changes in teacher working conditions took place, it was a violation of the law. That is why our first Unfair Labor Practice was filed and why it was accepted for the informal hearing – the district broke the law. We’ve tried to work with the district and must now put our trust in the legal system since our contract has been ignored. The district had several opportunities to end the acrimony, and now the legal system will do it for them.
The Unfair Labor Practice filings were our only recourse since our collective bargaining agreement does not contain binding arbitration. The administrative law judge at the hearing indicated that SBHSD is one of a dying breed of school districts that does not yet have binding arbitration (it’s accepted statewide and nationally as a preferred practice for dispute settlement).
Over 90 percent of school districts in California have binding arbitration in their certificated teacher contracts. This vastly reduces legal complaints with Unfair Labor Practices and increases both sides working to create a better contract and better adherence to it. If disagreements about the contract could not be decided at the local level, a non-biased third party would make the final decision. The arbitrator’s decision would be legally binding to both sides. This would equalize the balance of power and reduce acrimony.
We would much rather work with the administration than having to take these measures. The district must treat teachers with respect and work within the law – they are not above it.
Chuck Schallhorn,
SBHSTA President,
Hollister
Transportation Blueprint Contains All Kinds of Flaws
Editor,
The proposed San Benito County transportation infrastructure blueprint is illegal because:
n It violates the constitutional equal protection rights of county’s residents in three districts
n It violates the constitutional due process rights of county’s residents in three districts
n It circumvents the carefully drafted provisions of Ch. 2 of the SBC Code, thereby undermining the principle of “one man, one vote”
n It circumvents the provisions of Ch. 30 of the SBC Code regarding creation and amendment of the SBC General Plan
Does it even comport with the SBC Regional Transportation Plan, now under review? We don’t know because its details are being kept secret. I thought that this was a democracy, not a totalitarian dictatorship.
Although its proponents call it a blueprint for infrastructure, it is a new general plan except in its name because it lays down plans and guidelines for transportation and land-use infrastructure. That is exactly what a general plan does, and our elected supervisors have been entrusted with the voters’ consent to perform this task, and appointing our planning commissioners, to see that SBC’s residents get the very best that government can do.
Without a public hearing, or disclosure to the voters and taxpayers, who will be required to pay for it, the COG blueprint is being forced through, like a ramrod with no explanation, except that SBC must act fast or the money will go elsewhere. Did the creation of COG repeal portions of the SBC Code? Why should AMBAG be allowed to dictate our general plan? Did anyone from SBC mandate portions of the new Monterey County General Plan? Or Santa Clara’s? When did VTA acquire jurisdiction to impose its transportation and land use plans on our county? Our county has equal dignity with California’s other counties, and we are entitled to self-rule as much as any other county in the state. Our supervisors must protect SBC’s sovereignty and tell AMBAG, VTA, and their supporters that they have no lawful means to impose their plans on us. Â
Our supervisors would be crazy to follow VTA’s wasteful policies, which AMBAG embraces. The MIT study of all the nation’s transit agencies found that VTA is the worst one in the USA. The Santa Clara County Grand Jury indicted VTA in June 2004 for gross mismanagement, fiscal abuse of taxpayers and governance flaws. AMBAG’s planning has left the Central California Coast Region as the largest urban area in North America without an intermodal facility, thus causing 75 percent greater fuel consumption during the past 25 years to move tonnage out of the Salinas Valley, across SBC on badly congested local highways, and causing 9,000 times more smog in the 25 years than all the automobiles combined in this region. Meanwhile, VTA and AMBAG blame “senior citizens driving their gas guzzlers to Safeway” for causing air pollution.
I feel certain that SBC’s supervisors are blessed with the common sense to tell AMBAG and VTA that their policies are contrary to the best interests of SBC’s residents. We can make our own transport and land-use infrastructure decisions.
Joseph P. Thompson,
via e-mail
