School board votes not to ratify teachers contract

The ratification failed to pass in a 4-2 vote with board members Willi Kostiuk, Roger Jerome, Stuart Nordquist and Michelle Hebner in opposition, and Mark Lassila and Darrell Wagner voting to ratify.

The rejection ignited emotions among the board, and later elicited a public admonishment from union representative Steve Reinke after the meeting adjourned.

An additional strategy session is scheduled for 6 p.m. Nov. 24, and a meeting with union officials to follow at 7 p.m.

There appeared to be several dimensions within the opposition. Jerome said he objected to changes (which he hi-lighted) on the final document from the last draft he had viewed, of which he had been generally in favor. Board member Stuart Nordquist agreed that the contract lacked consistency with his last viewing but also disagreed with certain increases offered on the contract. And board member Willi Kostiuk simply wanted more time to settle some issues.

But in spite of the request to table ratification, board chairman Darrell Wagner urged those opposed to air their concerns. “Go ahead; we’ve got all night,” Wagner said.

This prompted Nordquist to cite details on several differences in numbers on the document from the one he said he previously viewed, as well as his arithmetic on just how the contract’s increase percentages added up. Nordquist said he follows the internet site of the Minnesota School Board Association on a daily basis and had done his homework on other contracts. He took issue with insurance benefits as well as the removal of a sunset clause and a cap clause that would pay teachers more money if they teach over a set amount of students per day.

Superintendent Don Langan was clearly irritated by the delay in ratification. Following Nordquist’s statements, he spoke forcefully in punctuated tones.

“Keep in mind what you are getting,” Langan said. “You said you wanted 7-day periods and college in schools. That was it.

“This is not rocket science, people. You’re adding 35 classes. I’m not young enough to see that kind of contract.

“I have a very short tolerance for comparing ‘Contract A for School District A’ with ‘Contract B for School District B.’”

Langan went on. “Anyone who thinks you can improve educational opportunities for kids without increasing the costs of teaching — well, crawl back from under that rock.

“If I sound like I’m getting excited, I am.”

Jerome brought the conversation back to his concern over changes on the contract he was holding.

“This contract, here, given to me in October, has several changes that I was not part of,” Jerome said. “Don, I attended the meetings and I was in favor of that contract but I’m not going to approve this.”

Undaunted, Nordquist praised the outstanding jobs done by the district’s teachers, but went on to say that the result of some of the changes on the contract will be that “our future hands will be tied.” He began to recite a quote that seemingly illustrated his point, ending with the question, “Do you know who said that?” Langan immediately recognized the comment as his own.

Nordquist said, sardonically, that overall adjustments and increases in the contract’s salary and insurance benefits were “not bad, not bad at all — in these economic times.”

Dropping the sarcasm, Nordquist added, “We (the board) are the guardians of the district’s purse strings. The superintendent will be gone, but we will have to live with this.”

Jerome stated that if the board would return to the contract he remembered, he would approve it.

After clarifying the union stance on some opinions stated by the board, union representative Marie Blumhardt said she had thought that things had been worked out. “I think you guys might have gotten lost in your own drafts,” Blumhardt said.

Nordquist replied that while things may have been worked out with the administration, they had not been worked out with the board.

Following the meeting, board member Willi Kostiuk told The Daily Journal by phone that he was very disturbed by what he deemed an extremely unprofessional public scolding that occurred after the meeting was adjourned. Union representative Reinke reentered the meeting place (he had left during the meeting immediately following the failure to ratify) and called out board members by name who had opposed the ratification. Kostiuk said he was then chided by Reinke with a pointed finger, for doing a great injustice to the school and the community by not voting to approve ratifying the teachers contract.

“I had just asked for a tabling to get some final things ironed out,” said Kostiuk, who initially opened the contract discussion at the meeting. “It wasn’t finalized yet. We needed at least one more strategy session with each other, and another with the union.

“This didn’t have to happen. We wanted this to be settled in a positive way. We don’t want tension at all, we want it to be worked out.”

Kostiuk explained that a recent influx of questions from taxpayers on whether tax-levied funding from an approved referendum would go to staff salaries illustrated to the board how closely the employment contract — as well as all the district’s dollars and where they go — should be scrutinized.

“But we weren’t saying anything against out talented staff and their hard work. And we do want seven periods that offer more electives and we do want college in school. We can have that. We also want to lure (lost) students back.”

In light of an ailing economy where many employees have added duties with no pay increases and lost benefits, and others have simply lost their jobs, Kostiuk said the board still wants to do the best it can for the district’s teachers.