Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline Rif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Negotiators debate discipline wording and district's proposed K'12 RIF bumping rule
Summary
During contract talks, district negotiators and union representatives clashed over proposed changes to discipline language and a move to a single K'12 bumping pool for reductions in force; union leaders pressed for clear due-process protections and written RIF criteria.
Andy, a district negotiator, told the group the district wants clearer discipline language that preserves progressive discipline but guarantees due process: "no teacher shall be disciplined rather than reduced to rank compensation without due process," he said, arguing the change would prevent management and union from getting into disputes when serious misconduct occurs.
Union representatives, including Lynn Pormell (union member, teacher) and Melissa Johnson (union member, teacher), asked how the proposal would handle serious incidents such as fights or when a teacher is struck. Pormell pressed for assurances that investigations and representation would not be short-circuited; she said the law requires special protections for tenured teachers and that any RIF or discipline action must be justified with documentation. Andy and others said progressive discipline still applies, but that certain facts (for example, verified physical assault) could move a case directly to written discipline or termination after an investigation.
On reduction-in-force (RIF) rules, the district proposed replacing separate elementary/high-school buckets with a single K'12 bumping unit, citing arbitration precedent (discussed in relation to the Radakovich case) and saying seniority plus certification would determine who can bump into positions across the district. The union asked how "specials" (art, music, librarians, counselors) and multi-certified teachers would fit; Andy said the single K'12 model would include those staff, with bumping determined by certification and seniority but recommended further language to clarify edge cases.
Union negotiators repeatedly asked for documentation and clarity: what counts as sufficient financial justification or "enough work" to trigger a RIF, and what arbitration or statutory standards the district would rely on. Andy said the district often uses arbitration decisions and legal counsel to guide RIF decisions and that district staff (named in discussion as "Shelley") would be consulted. Representatives agreed that clearer definitions and documentation would reduce later disputes.
The parties did not adopt any formal changes at the meeting; Andy said he would draft and share proposed language and the union requested time to review. The negotiating teams agreed to continue the conversation by email and tentatively scheduled a follow-up session.
