No deal in school negotiations

In the end, it came down to $20 of a monthly health insurance contribution per teacher and a couple of school days. But neither side would budge.

Thus, after more than two months of bargaining, including more than nine hours on Thursday, the Eugene School District and the Eugene Education Association ended the 2010-11 school year with no deal on concessions for 2011-12.

That means, in addition to 68 teachers and other licensed staff who were officially laid off in the past week, more layoffs could be in store for the financially troubled district before school begins in September.

“It is very disappointing,” Human Resources Director Celia Feres Johnson said. “I think both groups worked really, really hard. I think both groups are invested in resolving this, but we weren’t able to agree today.”

The sides agreed to meet again on Aug. 31, just days before school begins. But no agreement Thursday means any deal struck in late summer or this fall would be retroactive to July 1. And that means the district, which is facing a record $21.7 million budget shortfall, will have to honor the current three-year contract with the union that expires June 30, 2013, costing it money it says it doesn’t have without making more devastating cuts.

Tentative pink slips were sent to 122 teachers in two rounds, one in February and another in May, but 54 of those teachers received notices in the past week saying they would be retained by the district for 2011-12, albeit for some in new positions and/or new schools. Some of those 54 teachers, however, may now again be at risk of losing their jobs.

The district and union were able to agree on many points, including no cost-of-living salary increases for teachers in 2011-12, with a one-half “step” advancement (1.85 percent of salary) based on experience for 2011-12 and a return to full “step” funding (3.7 percent) on July 1, 2012.

But they differed on the length of work year for teachers. Both sides came in to Thursday’s session having previously proposed a repeat of this year’s 185-day work year, with seven unpaid furlough days. But the district on Thursday proposed 186 days, and the union proposed 184. Union leaders said one less day would save the district a day of salary pay, but school officials said that could put the district out of compliance with minimum state instructional-hour standards for a second straight year.

Ultimately, it was a $20 difference over monthly health insurance contributions that had both sides heaving bitter accusations at one another toward the end of Thursday’s session.

When the union signed a new, three-year contract last June, EEA members were provided a $65-a-month increase, to $1,100, in their monthly health insurance contributions. Union bargainers, citing concerns about rising health care costs for members, wanted to see that contribution bumped up another $20 to $1,120 — which was down from the union’s previous proposal of $1,125.

The district says it must get ongoing costs under control and for every $10 increase in monthly health insurance increase per employee, it costs the district $130,000 a year. Thus, a $20 a month increase per member would cost the district $260,000 a year.

After the union gave its final proposal at 5 p.m., still asking for the $20 a month increase, the district’s negotiating team took yet another caucus, or recess. A few minutes later, Christine Nesbit, the district’s associate human resources director and lead negotiator, came back in the auditorium at the district’s Education Center and had a brief exchange with union bargaining chairman Tom Di Liberto before leaving again to join the rest of the district team in caucus. The district team re-entered a few minutes after that, and sat down at the table.

Nesbit and Di Liberto then engaged in a testy exchange over which side was or wasn’t willing to devote another five minutes to bargaining. The meeting then broke up.

“Insurance is a major impediment,” Nesbit said. “We know that’s a problem … maybe we need to talk about a mediator.”

But union members were not keen on bringing a state-appointed arbiter into the mix.

“I could never imagine in my life that we would get a mediator over this small of differences,” retired teacher and EEA member Paul Duchin said.