THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE FIRST LEGAL CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE CONEJO TEACHERS AND THE

CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1976-1977

by 1; Sydney Stein

A Thesis Presented to the

Faculty of the Education Department

of California Lutheran College JiI, i 'II. i ; Ii : Ii j ii .~ ;; Ii i JI ~ j ', .. 1 ji !' In Partial Fulfillment I: :I l: of the Requirements for the Degree !!" q ~i Master of Arts in Education

With an Emphasis in History

r! II li ;jjl II !! ii ~! I!" Ii Ii Augu st, 1981 Ii II :: :1 :lI'" :1 I' if i! ", j .---- :!"' :II I ='~;::==ii II' II ! I: II d i. .' I! " "It " p j :i" I; .1I' ii

,I ii Ii The thesis of Sydney Stein II

is approved I! II 'li :;" jl ,I II ii Ii n II II l! Ii I' ij !,'i II l! il Ii 11 I! II 'I !i 1/ !; II ji II I' ___ II I' II" II II Leonard Smith Ii ,.ii II Ii Carol Genrich .iiI I II --~---:------li ;j f'"---' Robert Formhals , ' II II I, I, iI I! -II II'I Ii II II 4 Ii I' II II II !I i' Ii Ii 11 ii !l II" !! l~ " jl" II jl jl r II Ii II II " II II II JI iI II :!Ii August, 1981 if ji I. " ii H it Ii Ii 'I 'i r: Ii 'I " !J " It TABLE OF CONTENTS j" II iJ II i Dedication ii I CHAPTER Prefa.ce ... "...... 1 II Ii I I 1. Creation of the Unified School j, District and the Initial Agreement Between the Teachers and the Dis- trict 2

2. The Beginning of Collective Bar- gaining under the Rodda Act in California and the Conejo 11

3. The Negotiations 17 II 4 . Conc1u sion 47 )1 .Appendix 51

Footnotes 54 Bibliography 62

j, T ------

ii

ii" il it d !i" II j! !I II II ii il i

Dedicated to the memory of Bernard Dain

with acknowledgement to

Thomas Boysen

and

Robert W. Formhals

\~'~/ II II II ,.==

.. \1

• n ' _1..; __ II !, I' THE NEGOTIATIONSFOR THE FIRST LEGAL CONTRACT !I BETWEENTHE CONEJO TEACHERSAND THE I! Ii CONEJOVALLEYUNIFIED SCHOOLDISTRICT 1976-1977 Ii i! I! 1: ii i; In 1973 two school districts in the Conejo Valley in 1! ,IIi Ventura County, California were unified. Two years later I; !I :I" California adopted a collective bar~aining plan for public !! ii 11 school teachers. Within one week of the date that the law ,I [i iI ~ 'I i; went !'- into effect, negotiations between the Conejo teachers "I, " nIi :i and the Conej 0 Valley Unified School District began. Ii ii " Ii Ii The negotiations went on from July, 1976, to May, II '1:11977. The underlying reasons for the difficulties encoun- !i I 'I Ii tered in reaching a successful conclusion to negotiatio~s of 'I- (''I ii j , I "'.,-" Ifii the first" legal contract between the Unified Association of .-I' ,I , I' II 11 ConejoTeachers (UACT) and the Conejo Valley Unified School q

II Distr-ict were: 1) the teachers believed they already had a II Ii jl Ii binding agreement with the member s of the Board of Education il 11 II Ii and therefore neither they nor the Board could agree to less ii

!I " II than was deline ated in the earlier agreement, 2) the members !I , II "I II I of the Board of Education believed that when a coritract ex- Ii "I I.

I, pired, everything in tha t- document died and had to be renego- 11 II Iitiated, and 3) the teachers chose to use non-professional .1 Ii negotiators who were members of the school district while :' I Ii the District chose to use a professional negotiator. I IIIi Ii

ilII il II Ii Ii II ~j I, H" II ;; il 11 ii II ij i! i1 II I!'I Ii11 I' II'I CHAPTERI !j II II I'

" 'I !!Cteat10n of the Unified School District and the Initial II !I :I Agreement Between the Teachers and the District ii II II II II In 1973 the Conejo Valley was a small suburban ,I

Ii Southern California valley co~sisting of three communities, /1 i! ",:1. ,I [,Newbury Park, Tpousand Oaks, and Westlake Village. The II lj I,

I:. school communi ty also was divided by three. Children from IIi ; I Ii Newbury Park and the western part o-f Thousand Oaks were, II Ii educa ted by the employees of the Timber School District and Ii' Ii the children in Westlake 'Village (Ventura County) and 'II

I!Ii east~rn Thousand Oaks attended the Valley Oaks School Dis- ,II iI p IItrict. The two high schools were the easternmost schools II II I I, I I! in the Oxnard Union High School District. This changed with I Ii I i.1 the special election held September 18. Eighty five percent ill !: I :Iof those voting on the issue chose to unify their school III

Iisystem' creating one of 'the larger school districts in Califor~ , I' 11 Iinia .1

Ii Five individuals were elected to the unified Board of 'i I ~Education at that time. Pauline Hogstad became the first !i" II ~Board President. The others were Cecil Schnelle, vice-presi-Il 'I i1 II qdent, Glen Scott, clerk, Robert Myers, and Lawrence Smith. II I·.1 ii i! Smith, Hogstad and Myers were to serve four year terms and II I!" i! ", Ii ------' r---

IiI, !! I It'i i " H 11 !i ,I II IiSchnelle and Scott had two-year terms. Both Hogstad and II Myers were incumbent elementary school board members at the Ii IIi' iitime," Hogstad on the Timber School Board and Myers on the II " Ii d II I, 'I iiValley Oa:ksBoard. Larry Smith was currently serving on the I: " n'i !j high sc hool Board and had previou sly served on the Timber ii . "II , Ii Board. Cecil Schnelle was a m:m~er of the Oxnard Harbor II

Commission after retiring from the Oxnard Union High School Ii Ii District administration. Glen Scott, a teacher at Newbury II , II Park High School, remained a teacher in the Oxnard Union High I! Ii School District by transferring to another school in order to'l avoid conflict of interest charges. Ii The Board members took office immediatel~ holding II II iitheir first'meeting on September 25 and their first order of ii jibusiness was to employ a superintendent. With' advice and Jl " , !!assistance from I ';I! James Cowen, Ventura County Superintendent of Ii ilPublic Instruction and Robert Ferris from the University ~f II '!, "I !!SoutI hern Calif or,nia, a searc h was begun. Thi s searc h re suI tedjj i.i II ' I. i!inthe employment of Wayne Butterbaugh as first Superintendent::

!iof the Conej a Valley Unified School District in the early III

iFonths of 1974. . I

'I II II At the same time, the leader s of the teacher s I as so- ! 1\ I i~iations representing the two elementary districts were

!bolding meetings with representatives from the two high

liSCh001S affected by the merger. On a spring day in 1973 I! ikhree Timber District teachers met with three Valley Oaks Ii ;: II ,I 'I i'teachers and four high school teachers, two from each school. Ii Ii II il .:=.::~ 1 I il " " H I! II 114 !'I 'I Ii "These ten people began to create a local teachers' associa- II H ,tion to be affiliated with the California Teachers Associa- ;t :1 tion and the National Educati:an Association. Ii !! :l Meeting during the summer,2subcommittees created a il Ii constitution and bylaws for an organization first called the II d

11 Ii United Association of Conejo Teachers, later changed to the Ii :1 Unified Association of Conejo Teachers (UACT). UACTleaders I! H ,._*" , it if 'I :i had petitioned the California, Teachers Association for re- II! .~ ~ I ii cognition before the election 'so there would be an official Ii 11 II !i spokesperson for the teachers as soon as unification became ai! 'i II I! reality. The first chairperson was Monty Davis, an inter- jll! II I :1 mediate school teacher and ordained mini ster. He informed III,

lithe new Board at their first meeting of UACT's existence. ,I

Ii With the establishment of the unified district came !I 'I ' II Ii the need to unify policies defining the working conditions I j! Il !: of the employees. The pr,ocess by which certificated employ- II ii II II ees had input in this procedure was known as the meet-and-con-!! ,II hIi

I!Ii fer process as defined in the state's Winton~-- ,._" Act. The Winton!;I. P li II Act was intended to establish a "professional" approach to Ii I; ,I ii resolving issues. Cer'tificated Employee Councils were I'! I' I :i created by teacher organizations. CEC volunteers met and II I Ii III conferred with district administrat,ors about the wording of II

Ii specific education policies. T~many association officers, 11

;1 thi s procedure was le sst han sa ti sfactory. They fre quent ly II

'i" "'I il called the Winton Act the "meet and defer" process. Too II

Ii often this method was described as a meeting where the ad- II -~ il ..

ilI , i 'IIi H .. ,ministrators told the CEC representatives what the teachers

were going to dO.]

The California Teach~rs Association (CTA), represent-

ing over 100,000 California teachers, was urging local af-

. filiates to try to get school board members to put down these

;i !policies in written agreements listing the rights and obliga- !f :tions of teachers. While these "Agreements of Understanding" ·i :1 were not legally binding, t hey were predece s sor s of neg ot ia t- i ! ~ ,ed contracts with similar formats to contracts.

:1' As the Conejo Teachers established their CEC, it was :1 I d 'lithe understanding of association leaders at that time that :\ '.I ;'I :lcurrent law required, in the event of unification, that frO it ;! !! ilteacher in a newly, unified district lose benefits through II

lithe' process of unification. Therefore UACTofficers met with 1.1 'I~ :; lithe superintendent to create a unified salary schedule and II 'I I, ! arrange for various insurance policies (commonly called il !I :' :,'fringe benefi ts). At the same time, since teachers maintain- i.1 ,; 'I1 i.led that a written agreement between the teachers and the dis-:I i' il :trict was a benefit, and since the high schools had such an II 11 ' I ! agreement, and since no one could 10 se benefi t s through uni - il I ! !Ification, they were entitled to have a written "Agreement of i I i ! ! qUnder standing. It I I, i h According to Pauline Hogstad, in conversation with thel i

investigator, the newly elected Board of Education WI:..S given 11 ~he same information from the ~ounty Superintendent of SCh001~~ I ~herefore, the Board was hard pressed to unify each component I i :;" "., Ii I: II iI" 6 - !: :i" " l!districtsf personnel policies into one master policy in a I! i, Ii !! ::very short amount of time. The Board had a little over nine ;:., !I iimonths to do all of this in ,order to have a smooth beginning q I' 'I Ii Ii as all public schoolteachers employed in the valley would 11

,; H n"I, Ii officially be working for the Con:ejo Valley Unified School !j H ii !I i,District as of July 1, 1974. li I- ii '!i I: !I II Ii From January to July, 1974, the Conejo District con- II " I, ii ;1 !isisted of two employees, Wayne Butterbaugh, district super- II I' II I! intendent, and one secretary. AsUACT personnel had already ill 11 ' lideveloped proposed policies, 'they met with Butterbaugh and I' " Ii !!agreed to a written policy document to become effective Ii

IiII III I!July 1. This Agreement Policies and Procedures .with the n II '!/ iiBoard of Education and the Certificated Personnel of the 'I' ,.1I' - -- -- _ -- I !j . !IConejo Valley Unified School District was to be in effect I 'i . llfrom 'July 1, 1975 ,but agreement could not be reached regard- I' Iling salary so the first document was extended through June 30,11 il1976 II 11 . I ,! II Ii The 53-page volume contained 14 sections ranging from Ii Ii II !I I! !irecognition, non-discrimination, and staffing (hiring/ pro- II II. q" ,Imoti on/transfer) policie s to salary, fringe benefits, working II l!conditiOnS and grievance procedures. Even though negotiated Ii

Ilcontracts and strikes were not legal in California, this II

~document contained a 'strike/lockout prohibition. Ii Ii :1 The teachers involved in conferring with Dr. Butter- I,! 'I I I! • t. 11 f I \ibaUgh were a compos~te group represen l.ng a segments 0 the I :!component districts. Three women from the Timber district, I " I Ii ! 11 ' 1. :: II j!7 it il all of whom later served on the first UACTnegotiations team, Ii !~ :joined with a female elementary school teacher and a male :i

'intermediate school teacher from Valley Oaks. In addition

four men !i from the high schools also served. Revision of :; Ii the team occurred during the summer of 1975. The original ,! il i! 1: I! II h . " ,Ii' c a J.rman, Joel Kirschenstein had been promoted to a managemen~i !! -, Ii i!Position. Linda Calvin, a sc hool p sychologi st, became chair _ ;: ,i !I ilperson. Of the new team of nine four would serve as UACT iiIi !!negotiators after collective bargaining became law and one Ii ;1" ilwould be UACTpresident during those negotiations. I',I I: II" ji The investigator was a party to most • ,I 11 of these act~ons,:! . :! !I .' II iifirst as one of the original ten creators of UACTco-chairing Ii Ii ' ';, II lithe sUb-committee that wrote the constitution, then serving 'Ii Ii II II " lias the f,irst vice-president. Later on, she was consul t'ant to il II 'I /!the CEC team during the development of the Agreement and a jl II 'IP ,!member of the first UACTnegotiations team. On that te,am she II I' !,'I ilacted as recorder and went on to be a witness in most of the, II Ii Ii Ii ligrievance arbitrations hearings. !j ii " \ Ii '1'\ ---lEven though most primary resource materials related I: II ' d lito thi s topic are unpublished, through the methods- of a hi s- Ii Ii !torical narrative verified by interviews with participants, II inewspaper articles, and the Agreement and Contract as well as II I Ii lithe minutes of the negotiations sessions, it should be possi- 'I I i llble ~o give an objective assessment of the happenings. Re- ~Ii Ii I, ijgretably, the assistance I: I of some participants is no longer 11 I, II , llava ila ble . Bernard Dain died from cancer in 1978. Martha 'I ! II \,~-j i! " !J I,

Ii /,'/

II I,II j: ;1 l! I, LII :\ q I, liB., "!~ 'II' i!Argue stated that she had no wish to relive any part of those Ii ., ,I years in any way. Because of labor relation problems between Ii

IiI, Bill Gordon and UACTofficer,s at the time of this writing, ;j !I !iinterviewing him is not possible. I: .! In addition, a few minor H·" III' iiparticipants are no longer living in the area or employed by :1 ' Ii IJ ,III iithe Conej 0 Valley Unified School District. il II ~1 II 'I While it was Mrs. Hogstad's hope that the transition ij H .----.--.---~•.. H II :1 II i l1 to a unified school district would occur peacefully, that did ~i 1:-! I! ,. P not turn out to be the situation. Conversations with Helene II , II ilDain!+ UACTpresident during this period, describe the circum-!I iI II !Istances. The county counsel advised the Board members not to iI "'I -, I,'I iinegotia;te with the teachers before July, but the Board was II !i . :1 II, jianXiOus to get along well with the teachers and decided not II

l!to listen to the county counsel. Bob Myer,s set t-he tone of I' II ,- ,I lithe talks while Larry Smith emphasized the fact that a county!1 :l !I 11 il iJcounsel' s opinion is just a recommendation. At first Butter-Ii 'I Ii iibaUgh was hesitant but appeared to become supportive of Ii I; 'I i!meeting and conferring after Board Members expressed their Ii L'i "II lip0 sit i on s • II II II !1 The actual di scussions went smoothly. During the ii Ii I ~summertime the teachers Iteam was reduced to t~ree people _I

!IHelene Dain, Jo€;l Kirchenstein and Howard Brody. Dain and 1'1 II " i!Kirchenstein were anxious to get the agreement finished. She II III ' I'I i\was about to bec)me the first female principal of the unified I Ii :I ;1 II ijdistrict and he was about to become a vice-principal at one j 'I I I,I - I f liof the high schools. Both wanted closure on this document. I , ----/' I!'I I I i I ~ p d H I' d ii I! jl.. Q, ,I Dain-summarized with the statement: "Joel and I 1:

11 ,:wanted a contract. Howard and I got everything we could." l! , :! n They were successfu~, but this would later be recall-Ii i! ed by administrators when it came time to negotiate the first!! !J C ontrac t. 5 'I': il n ;1 Even though the teachers now had an "Agreement of I: !j Ii I'II :i Understanding", the district was not calm. The next major q ~i H ~I endeavor of the Board was to pass a school bond. The elec- ii :i 11 l! tion was unsuccessful, so a new election was called which I, Ii il !J II Ii succee~ed.6 (Then the district miscalculated its income and I' il iI iI ]) 11 il became the first school district in California to have to I, 'I I, I. 11 :1 borrow money from the state in order to finish the school II Ii Ii 7 ii year. Next it turned out there was money left over at the 'II !: ~; end of the year and the situation was not as critical as had !! II' ji ~ 8 ,!Ii first appeared. " I' ~ :1 Finally, the CEC met during the summer of 1975 to III Ii Ii II II il meet on a revised "Agreement of Understanding." Thi s time, II II I' the situa ti on wa s tense. Agreement could not be reached on il !1 I' I' the issue of salary because of the earlier problems. The II d I,'I I ' II result was a unilateral salary freeze by the Board. The II !I" II Ii non-money policies of the original "Agreement of Understand- I II II I. ing!! were then extended to apply through June 30, 1976. The-I II I \1 I: CEC continued to meet through the fall. In September, the I II ii teachers threatened a strike.9 In)ctober teacher s conduc ted!! II jj" Ii a "candle-light vigil!! outside the meeting room of the Board I! " ~! i! i! of ~ducation while the CEC members asked that the freeze be :1 :' I! \------iI il II i1 » II II il" I.'I II IIn II 'i !: II i! -, ___ ~ • ._ - .• ._~.~ .._...•.. __ ...._ ...... __ .••.... '..•..• _.•.• "._."'0 _.1. 10 lifted. The Board refused and teachers responded with a

lawsuit, boycott of after-school activities and a work slow- 12 down. The lawsuit was won by the district 0n Dec~mber 19, 1: I: 11 1j ;j 197;, but the Board lifted the salary freeze on January 14, il I' ;1 II ii1976, and made it retroactive_to December 1.13 it I, I! H !I q With that atmosphere of distrust and confusion the !I it IIIi 1 1 . II ;1co lect~ ve bargaining bill was signed. 'i II H II 'I 'I i' H !l i' ii II !i II il II ,I II Ii j! II I'Ii , I! I Ii i 11 II Ii" il/, - 'I I ,- I 'i I Ii.ii II,I !I I :i 'I Ii ' III !I il III' Ii d :1'I !I'I I,. III I;I! I. il~ II' II I

II 1'1 Ii 1 II il II " II II !I il !,

\1 1\ II 1==== II ii . I

\1'. 1\I !I " " "II p" "II ii 1'1 ==,. i'

II ,II n Ii II Cl:,lapter2 II !I 'i I! d I' The Beginning of Collective Bargaining under the Rodda Act II

in California and the Conejo II II Ii At the same time that the Conejo Valley Unified

School District was being created, the California Teachers II II 'I- Association (CTA) was politically involved with creating II

support for a statewid~ collective bargaining bill that II "' II would give local teachers the legal right to bargain about I, II" :1 II ' :j wage s and working conditions. II :r l! On January 26, 1975, CTA's State Council, the legis- II ,11I " II lati~e branch of the organization, adopted the following I',I !! 'lIt· jjreso u ~on: Ii ii I' JI " II That the primary operational goal of CTA II II :! is to help chapters win recognition or I' 'I certification as exclusive bargaining a-· "I: II gents in every jurisdiction in accordan~e Ii'I I! II with collective bargaining legislation; I,'I !I I, and ...That achievement of this goal be Ii r the major determining factor in the de- II ployment of staff a£d the allocation of Ii Ii monetary resources. II 'I II Eight months later a ten-page plan of ac~ion to Ii carry II !: out this resolution was distributed to local chapters. In- ' Ii jl i!cluded in the plan was an implementation timeline. Phase I II !I iI" I !! of the operational plan was to concentrate activities on ! I " I;" ~Ipassage and implementation of the bill (assumed to be June, i I' ,I I' Ii 11

,I 'i !I " " Ii 11 :;1975,through January, 1976.) Phase II would center on re- I' !i" II ; cognition and elections of exclusive bargaining representa- i\ il I :i tives (assumed to extend from, February, 1976, through Decem- II :j I II ' Ii ber, 1976). i :/ All CTA staff personnel were given specific direc- I, ;J il tions for local activities. William Gordon was the local

II staff man in the Conej o. Through an agreement with the Simi I II Educators Associat-ion in Simi, Calii'ornia, SEA and UACT

II united to form a UNISERV Unit? (A UNISERV Unit was a cluster i II of local associations uniting together to have closer con- I II tact with CTA. The unit could hire their own employee to 1 11 act as an executive director of the unit or CTA would assign

IIII' a staff person to the unit. ) Mr. Gordon had been working as I' an ex:cutive director already in Simi and therefore he added I UACT in September, 1974, shortly after the Agreement of

Understanding had been developed. He had be~n a nego~iator

and teacher advocate in Illinois during the 1960's where

collective bargaining was already practiced. Now asa'CTA em ... . ployee he was directed, as part of Phase I, to identify

teacher leadership, develop a communications system and

work on chapter image - to personally be a "taugh, success-

ful representative of teachers.«3 As a part of his role, he

became the facilitator between CTA and UACT responsible for

contacting other CTA specialists and gathering needed bar-

gaining information.

CTA was successful with Phase I. During the legis- •

,the right to bargain collec~ively.

'i health and welfare benefits"leaves and transfer policies, I, ,I ,: safety conditions, class size, evaluation procedures, ~!

II!,

r--, ,< < \J

!: q Ii 'I Ii ii !I •

Dr. Butterbaugh sent a letter on May 7 to EERB requesting

EERB intervene. The reason for the request was that 27

ii' counselors and psychologist,s were asking for the right to !j q create their own bargaining unit and the position of the

district was to oppose "splinter"groups. The Board of

\ -- !lij • • I. it Ii I.it ii 1115 # ,, responsi~le for processing grievances, overseeing the affirm~1 4] !j , :1 ative action policy and developing non-negotiable district ii ii :1 policies. (Instead,' the responsibilities of negotiations !l

,! ! 11" 'Ii i! turned into a full-time position for the first few years.) I; : II Ii Besides the district employee, the Board members also joined I! n II ,I. 'III a consortium connected with the law firm of Patterson and , ii ! P Taggert. Thi s firm was one of the pi oneering California II IId i'I :i con sul tant s to sc hool di stri ct s in the field of c ollec t ive 'I L'I I',! III' bargaining. Both Board members and district administrators II" Ii il' 'll. attended workshops conducted by Patterson-Taggert emPlOyees.,' tI I Ii District administrators could also call the firm for informa-I' 'I • 1: ( I h, t· 10 II " ,on. I if The man chosen to be the full-time district employ~e I I, I II was ~,obert Formhals. He was hired after two wri tten examin- I II II ations and interviews with the superintendent and Board mem-I II II 'Ii I!bers. Originally, the Board was hesitant to hire him as he ~ II II Ii seemed to be overqualified for the position. Formhals re- Ii, i!membered Myers saying, "We can't afford him if he is that I! ,! Ii II iI Ii good." But, he was able to convince the Board the reason he II

I, was available for the job was the fact his family needed him II

to settle down and remain in one location. As his pr~vious ~ II employment had involved a lot of traveling, he was willing iI lito work for what the school d· t . t Id '. d ~ ~ Ii ~s r~c wou pay ~n or er to L.LeII II" ~in a permanent position. 'i !J II!, il II Previously ForIDhals had been tho/executive director !I 11 I' iI II f!.' I!ilof the ' California School Boards Association and had acted as I II I! '\ II n j il16 ~ I

frequently worked on the same issues as CTA officers. This

11 1: experience re sulted in a di,s,trustof CTA and NEA personnel l! Ii I; ii and propaganda. Later, he went to work in British Columbia ii ,I n as a labor law expert. Upon arrival in Canada, teachers in- i' " Ii formed him they knew all about him. NEA staff persons had I," II I, Ii l I!·1 given them background on his personal life: II Now, as the Conejo District's professional n&gotia- ij i !i H i: tor, Formhals was given the directive from one of the Board il II I, It I, members, "We gave the store away last year and you Ive got to I if Ii Ii bring it back, and we don't have anything to buy it with.12" I I; ii II :~ "II il ilI' II' !I li I ,i1\ I II II I "I' 11 Ii I, iI I! Ii II jt I'",I II 11 i Ii i I, I, II !I II I, I! II II I.'I II II iI Ii 11 \. Ii ,!i' 11 It iJ Ii

-t i===

1\'I • I! II :1 t I: ; •••••• -'-~" - ." •• -.1.•_ ..... ~. n __ ~_~_'U .-,~, ... -._ --····_ .. c ._'~ ._ •• ? "_' __ ,...' __" ••••. ~ .. _._ •• ~.. • .~_._u ••• ,_,~. ",..." -,.--. -'~'- .--- ._._ .~- '" •• _. -._ •• '-;:-.' •••••• , "-;--~"-~-~'-'''''-'.~~'~-1-":..'''''''-' ~ ,~.r.'-.~;.,...,,:.__,"::,'1~' •

17

-'

" :j ,I 'I " CHAPTER3 " Ii , :1 The Negotiations :1

11 Finally, the parties were ready to begin. They met :/ II jlat the bargaining table for the first session on August 3, !I , i1 111976, at 10:00 a.m. Representing the district were Robert II i il l ljFormhals, Jim Bayles, and Ron Barney. Representing the ,i i ilteac hers were Carol Genrich, Linda Calvin, Sydney Stein, and f II l I ik'onty Davis. The first order of business was to decide where! I I 2 I I Ito meet. Three days of meetings were arranged for August 3, I I 114, and 5 to be held at the UACToffices. The next item was ' j / I Ito agree to typing and initiall'ing tent,ative agreements. Thirdl

Icame -a discussion of confidentiality with the parties agreein~ I \Ithey couldn't guarantee confidentiality since each had to re-

IjPort back to their governing boards. Then the issue of scope

I~as introdu.ced. The Board's posi tio~ was that the law spec i- I I ied the limit s. "UACT's position assume s the validity of the I I I r&vious two contracts.,,3 Discussion was held regarding poli-l I I~ie s not within the scope of bargaining. I I I Now the discussion centered on the UACTproposal and I ,~he distric,t' s initial response page~by-page. On page 1 Dr. I I orm":lals wanted the title page changed in that I the district' s I II I !rame came fir st. UACTwanted California Teachers Association ! I dded I ir but National Education Association deleted. This was !I !I • !I I II ii" I • lB

,agreed. After lunch UACT revised this and put NEA back on :i :the title and again this was acceptable. The revision came !! iI ":; :about because the UACT team at lunch time discussed the fact :: q ii, ~I !I ,i that UACT is an affiliate 'of the NEA and it was possible that:! II ' II il CTA would send NEA employees to help UACT in future barga,in- :! 'I II :1 1,ng. , 'I ,I !I A philosophy statement copied from the earlier agree-II

!I ment.s had been included in the proposal. •I~ was now agreed II

:1 to delete this page as the districtts posJ.tJ.onwas that it !! II :1 was not within the scope of negotiations. ! ,i Article I - UACT wanted the word "~ssociation" to be I II used in place of the word "Union" as they were not willing ii

to be called a labor union in public. They regarded ihem- II

selves as a pro~essional ~ssociation. D'r. F,ormhals agreed \ I to"the word change but told the UACT team that's what they ! I I were.4 N:ext came debate about which groups of employees I would be in the unit and whether the district would change I i titles to make everyone managers in order to cut down UACT's I L II Then UACT wanted to extend size. No agreement was reached. I'I the contract date to August 31. The district preferred to I

stay with the fiscal year. No agre~ment was reached. Four I areas of disagreement were clarified on tl:l.eNon-Discrimina-

tion Article so no agreement was reached and the parties ad-

journed for lunch. I- ~ SESSION 2 - Returning after lunch, discussion was I held on negotiat.ion procedures and grievances but no agree-

r \' i I, ments were reached and the parties adjourned for the day.

Ii SESSION 3 - The same people were present as had been: ., ;j

,)1 all the items discussed during session 1. Mr. Davis said li'I q UACT would consider these.

Next, it was decided to go through the total pro- II posal and discuss each side's position on the various items !i I' starting from yesterday. Article S - ,Public Charges - was I I i I a topic unique to the Conejo community. I Dr. Formhals said i he couldn't negotiate this but he would take it back to the I"

Board.

Article 9 - Personnel Files- became a major area of

controversy. Dr. Formhals agreed to change parts of the I I policy to allow teachers to see derogatory material being I placed in their files. UACT caucused. Afterward, Linda I I Calvin stated UACT had no change of position. "Dr. Formhals I responded by stating,"If that is so, our last counter-pro-

posal is our next propos~1. ,,6 A leng:§hy',discussion was

held with Dr. Formhals lecturing on procedures of negotia-

tions. Mr. Davis claimed that the basis of this contract is • already in the current agreements. Dr. Formhals asked the

UACT team to caucus and come back with a new position. AfteIj

the caucus, Mr. Davis said this item could wait until Willia,

I ,20

Seaver returned. Seaver, as Director of Certificated Per-

'j sonnel, was considered by the UACT team tc be the person in 1\ \1 il charge and the one who· could be trusted to honor his word. \\ :1 jj iI Davis, therefore, was challenging Formhals' authorization toil 'I , i I " negotiate and reach agreement. n ••• Dr. Formhals pointed outl

lj they would n~gotiate with him and not with anyone else."7" I :, I Di scussi on continued but temper s were short and : II again Formhals' authority was challenged when Davis asked II Ii " whether UACT was bargain'ing with the management or the 'I j, - II Board of Educa tion. Again, the topic wa s the negotiation ! i II I I procedures and no agreement was reached. The parties re- 1 I I cessed for lunch. I

i SESSION 4 - During lunchtime the UACT team had met, 1\'

/ with Bernard Dain, UACT president. He drafted a letter to I Dr ...Formhals asking for clarification as to who was the em- ployer? The intent of this letter was to separate the I c ~ I Board from the management as well as to challenge Formhal's I j authority. It was the opinion of the UAC T team that much of! - I the Board's proposal came from the school principals and did\

, I not reflect the opinion of the Board. Since Dr. Formhals

had only been employed by the district for a few months, the 8 UACT team believed him to be ignorant' of this division. Formhals questioned why Dain was now getting into negotia-

tions and I was UACT now playing gameE. Discussion then pro-

ceeded with Article 10. This article was designed to give

the association use of school eqUipment and the district

inter-office mail service. The Rodda Act allowed for both I

\ i q • 21

i of these right s but Dr. Formhals claimed the use of inter- 11 office mail is a violation of federal law which supersedes :\ 11 state law. :1 ! I I Both parties continued to discuss articles but no ! !I i agreements werereache~. The last topic was how to deal" :I I I n ! 'I I with counter-proposals. UACT wanted to work jointly from :.li I il il I a common draft but Dr. Formhals rej ected that as conferring! I rather than negotiating. In negotiating, proposals are I I I I i traded until agreement is reached, he said. I 1 i I i SESSION 5 - The third day's meetings got under way I I I I at 9:05 a.m. with tha same people present. MJnty Davis ! II began the talks by expressing concern over the tone of negoj r I j tiations. He stated it was bad for the students saying I I I I I I ""the most important thing in education is teaching. If the I I j morale is low~ students will be hurt." "Dr. Formhals' reply was 'the new arena of SB 160

dictates a new system. ,,,9

Davis again expressed UACT's belief that teachers

were beginning bargaining from the earlier Agreements.

Dr. For~hals' reply WaS "When I was interviewed by the Board, the Board stated that they felt too much had been given under the old act and they wanted to get tbe oper- ation of the District back in a balanced pos- ture." Mr. Davis stated that Dr. Formhals represented collective bargaining coming into the 'Conejo and was thelBersonification of collective barg~ining.

Minimal discu3sion was then held on money and bud- I geting with Davis describing UACT and the Board working to- I I I

I,1 22,

:1 gether in the previous two years against the Di strict r S busi-. :1 '1 :\ness office to find the money in the budget. A review of :i " ~eVerything done the previous day oecupied the rest of the \1

il morning. No agreement S were reached on Article II - Leaves n II ~or 12- Bereavement Leave. 1\ II q SESSION 6 - Returning from lunch, the teams spent I, i ii :1 fifty minutes discussing additional leaves, but reaching no :1 Ii II I' II agre emen t s . Adjournment was called until Tuesday, August 10. !

II The UACT team met on Monday to discuss how they would I IIhandle the Board's initial response and the challenges to ,I I i' sc ope. Originally they had been angered. What few items not I lldesignated to be out of scope were described as being the I I II same in concept but the district preferred their verbiage. I, i I ilFinally, one teacher recognized what was bothering her about i

IthiS position. It was the word verbiage which means excess

!wordiness without meaning. The UACT team had hurdled this

I'matter by telling the management team they agreed the dis-

trict's response was verbiage. Therefore they needed the

original proposal soeveryone-- could understand the contract.

Now it was decided to handle the topic of scope in a

similar manner. They would agree with the distri.ct in their

own way. They met in an empty office where they had a lot of

~space. Next they placed sheets of paper in different areas

10f the room. On the paper s were written the sco:t:eUems SUCh!

las hours, safety, class size, etc. The team members then tooldl I I .!coPies of the initial proposal, tore them apart and stacked ! I h them in the appropriate part of the room. They even threw :j ;! :! away ,a few sections when they couldn't create a reason for ,!-I ;j i\ II putting it in a category. Lastly, they glued the pieces of ii II :! il paper together and had copies made so the new proposal would 'I !i be ready for session 7. :1

ilII SESSION 7 - Starting a new week, both teams added ;1 II il 1/ members. William Seaver and Dave Knox had joined the manage-i! I ,j i !I ment team and Beverly Haddad and Bill Gordon had joined the II I I I IIUACT team. The meeting lasted 25 minutes. Monty Davis ex-

II pre ssed concern that the UACT proposal did not have a lot of I i I II "throw-away" items to reach compromise. Since the teachers ! II had been in a strike atmosphere the previous year, he hoped I ; , .r·..·· this would not reoccur. UACT had considered money to be the

only major issue, ,and now, it appeared, management was try-

ing. to usurp the Board's position. Therefore UACT was pre-

senting a new revision of their proposal.

Linda, Calvin stated that since tentative agreement

was made on the title page, that was not changed. Also, they

would presume anything not responded to was rejected. This

was to· "cut out some of the nonsense from last week. "II

Dr. Formhals mentioned the possibility of impasse.

Linda responded with a request for written responses

to the UACJ proposal.

The ~arties caucused. The District's position was

that the new proposal was not new, Just rearranged. They

also noted that Calvin's position "diverged 1800 from the

, _, _..24

::truth, ,,12 in that the management team had presented up to , ii .,four written proposals the previous week and management was ,I j... :\ !i il concerned about the teachers' response to Calvin's statements!1 II "because they will get a totally false picture of event s. "l~ :

II . SESSION 8 - The morning group returned at 4:10 p.m.- !

A dialogue between Dr. Formhals and Bill Gordon was conducted IjII 1, i, ! ;/Formhals insi sted all items must be specified in the contract i! '/ 'I i The Board had to know to what benefits they were agreeing. 'I I I I I I Gordon was adamant that teachers 'would not give up : I 'I

II previously won benefits in the earlier agreement. It was noti , i

j acceptable to rely on Board policies now that the contract 1 II I il' was laga1 and non-changing whereas Board policy can change I : , I ! whenever the Board member s de sire. I, , I Dr_ Formhals also brought up the issue of fact -find-I

ing saying this might be necessary if UACT refused to believe I

the district's financial ~tatements. I

The next session was set for September 1, 1976. Two

sessions were held that day starting at 2:05 p.m. and con-

cluding near 9:00 p.m. By this time, the Management team

had stabilized consisting of Formhals, Barney, Bayles,

Seaver and Knox. UACT's team was changing. At this session

Calvin and Stein were joined by Roberta Mahan. Both sessionsl

consisted 9f a reiteration of the proposal starting on Chap- I ter 1, Article 1 with no agreements reached. Again the I possibility of impasse and fact-finding were raised by Dr. I - Again, reference was made to the previous' agree- II F ormhal s. I

! '! ------

,25

14 lment of the past year.

SESSION 11 - On September 2, Paul Robinson, business

II !/ manager, attended. His position was that the district's ;j II total reserves were about $25,000 because Worker's Compensa- ~ ;; il 11 tion rates were increasing 168%. With that, discussion was ;1

II resumed from yesterday, again wi th no tentative agreements II

11 other than the title page. II ;, II ~ SESSION 12- The meeting of Septeciber 7 included the ~ I, 'I : original teams as well as Bernard Dain. Meeting dates _were !.II I : i : ! set after school started. At this time Formhals again pro- ;1 I i II tested the teachers' reference to earlier agreements. i! iI You consistently say, "change things that I 'I were agreed to". Each year we may put I i jl things on the table that were previously agreed to. This time our proposal was \ I developed by consulting the whole Manage- i ment Team, not- by one person working alone I # as the Superintendent was forced to do two j years ago. We didn't do any of this arbitrarily. i React to our proposal and give us your reactions. i j' , Davis: Our proposal is based on last year's 15 agreement which had the full input of management. I

At this time, Dain stated he would be making some of

the issues publici by asking the Board members their position

at the upcoming school board meeting.

A major item of concern was then expressed. Since

the counselors and psyc,hologi sts were filing for their own il bargaining· unit, it was the district's posit~on Linda Calvin

II and Carol Genrich were not entitled to release time for

II bargaining for UACT once the school year began as this

! I II might bring charge s of an unfair labor charge. I II q ,T 'I

1\

1\,i ! 26

,j Bernard Dain then went to the school board and the .. " "' :1 newspaper with a public attack on Robert Formhals. Dain :1

iIi accused him of arrogance and of treating teacher negotiators !I i II !/like coolies and assembly line workers. Dain also comPlained;l, il • I

1.'1 that Formhals was an outsider and the cause of negotiation :1 11 i 'I I !I problems within the di strict. Board members did not respond II

!I as the superintendent informed Dain he had no right to speak il :1 I ;j , 16 I II about the negotiator since it was not an agenda item. , II I I: SESSION 13 - The session of September 9 was used to I ii' continue discussing the proposal with Davis assuring Formhals! i I I that UACTwould bring counter-proposals on September 20. Ad-j III ' !, journing at 9:45 p.m., Formhals summarized the areas of !I i difficulty and a declaration of impasse. The UACT ;eam left I j, I I the room, walked t'o the parking lot, stopped, looked at each I I other, and then started to speak about what had occurred. I

I Even through impasse had been mentioned before, it still was I' I . , I a surprise to the teachers to actually have impasse called. I I The prooess for negotiations would now ohange, but the II I teachers' team did not know how this would happen. I' On September 13, Formhals sent a bulletin to members I ,t of the menagement team notifying them that ,impasse had been I

declared. He then asked for input on the summer school pro-

posal as t~e district anticipated continuing negotiations.

He concluded:"By the way, don't believe all that you see

quoted in the papers. The President of UACThas apparently

elected to follow the :CTAstate recommendations, which among •

'27

i other things, includes the instruct10ns to personalize and

dramat~ze. an ~ssue.. " 18 11 ~The opening of school on Tuesday, September 14, went

~smoothlY. Teachers had met ,and decided to do only the job

:itheYWere paid for and to do no administrative duties such as ,!: • i ;Ilunchtime student supervision or work on school wide prOJ ects II i i/ without extra pay. They wer_e .also urged to get involved with 1/ I. il i! lIthe" community groups and inform parents and taxpayers of the IJ l9 ,II II problems in the schools. r ! , 1/ . r i SESSION 14 - The first mediation session was called I ; lion September 20. Besides the two teams (with Linda Calvin ! I and Carol Genrich as consultants), Robert Scott from the II State Conciliation Service was present.

teams no longer met together. Each te'am met in asepara te ' "--"--'- room-with---Mr. Scott walking back and forth. On September 24;

Scott met with the management team at 6:30 p.m.,left to talk

I to the UACT team which now included Faith Elliott, and return

I ed at 9:58 p.m. During that time, Bill Gordon went through

the proposal and emphasized the areas based on the earlier

I agreements. When Scott returned to the management team, he

[ , . / Irepea~ed this position. He then discussed each item and

I I i " '28 returned to UACT's room at 11:30 p.m. After 30 minutes, === Scott came back and clarified UACT' searli:er posi tiona

Formhals appeared annoY,ed and told Scott that it must

be necessary to go to fac~-finding since UACT didn't seem to

:j agree to any of the District's language. j',I II Scott left at ]'12:20a.m., returne'd at 2:00 a.m. and il reported UACT members said they were sleepy. He then took II the District's response back to UACT at 2:30 a.m., returning Ii

three minutes later. Formhals sent him back to get a written!

response. The response was "NO" written on the Di:strict I ! proposal. The UACTteam then left. The management team II

continued to meet with Scott until 3:45 a.m. Formhals threat~

ened to file an unfair labor practice charge over the fteach- II

,t-",'.--' ers leaving. He added, II "I have never seen such arrogance. They want their words, their numbers, and their own agreement. If we ever go back to the table ~e should bring the press in so the ~ public can know, that they are petrified when it comes to moving. They aren't will- I ing to give up anything.,,20 • I SESSIONS 16, 17, 18 - Since Bob Scott had the author-Ii

ity to call or not call fact-finding, he chose to continue mediation. Unproductive meetings were held on September 30 I and October 5. UACT's major concern of the 5th was an agenda item for the Board of Education meeting the next evening to I re scind the agreement. Discussion of that action took place I on October 7. The Board had voted to adopt salary increases I I for all employees, except those in UACT's bargaining unit, on II

December 15. UACT matters would depend on fact-finding. The Dist~ict agreed to allow one CTA representative and one I, iI II

I II

II 1/ __.. - - u_. _. _.~ .._ . _._. ,. __ .. ,.. ' _,,', ._~_'_'-'~--"_"_"_. "._,~,, __,__., "__ '. __ ' "... _. " :29

.,i ,J UACT representative to analyze the District!s financial docu-: Ii' q:,ments. Then th~ proceedings went on as usual. II 1/ SESSIONS 19, 20, 21 - Three sessions were held the II week of October ,8 with agreement reached on Negotiations i II ,Pro-i. ,1 1i 'i 1/ cedures and Public Notice. Proposals were sent back and 'I" :1 III' forth on other items. ,I q ! ij SESSION 22 - At the meeting of October 18 most of :/I, Ii 'I the time was spent in scheduling meetings with agreement :1 !I reached that fact-finding would be recommended if a final !I ii settlement was not reached by Wednesday, October 27. iI II 11 SESSION 23 - Separate meetings were conducted during !! , I I the morning, but a joint session was called at 2:15 p.m. At 1 r i I this time UACT asked for clarification of several items. Ex-i II tensive talks were held on specific salary matters w-i-thDr.

III FormJials insi sting Tom Brown, the eTA budget expert, had re- ,I

ceived the budget analysis requested and Mr. Dain saying no. , (Later Formhals found the papers had not been mailed and he

apologized ).

SESSION 24 - On October 26 several tentative agree-

ments were reached. They were Jury Duty Leave, Response to

a Court Subpoena, a Table of Contents, Informal Resolution of, a Problem, and Sabbatical Leave. I

I SESSION 25 - The Wednesday deadline had been reached.

,Tentative agreements were signed on Personal Necessity Leave, I

I II Summer School, Sick Leave, Military Leave and Employee!s i

Legal Protection. Finally, a joint session was held at 9:30 II II I I ! I I I i ! 'i I I, :30 i :j ( :Ip.m. Mr. Dain gave a final salary position verbally. The '. :1 UACTteam considered it to be so reasonable, they asked the :; i :i ! other side to take it .to :he Board members who were meeting Ii I at that time at the Thousand Oaks Civic Center. The manage- i ' : • Il Ilment team did so, but the Board's position was to reject ·the II

!/proposal and. go to fact-finding. At 2:20 a.m. the session i'l: , I I , I was adj ourned. I

I ! I SESSION 26 - The groups met again later in the morn-!i I ing without the mediator. At that time Definitions and Work i i Year were settled. I ! I I SE.SSION 27 - On October 29 aU non-money matterswere I! agreed to including binding arbitration of grievance~. During II

separa te meetings, Dr. Formhals came over to the UACTro om, II , I opened the door, and stuck his head into the room. His head I

wag..'c overed by a gorilla mask in honor of Halloween. He said I I nothing but he threw a proposal onto the table. The teachers

remained non-committal until he left. Then they began laugh-,

ing. Stein read the proposal that had been tossed onto the !

table, then began rereading it aloud. It contained binding I

arbitration, but the'team thought it was a mistake. They I called Bill Gordon on the telephone and read it to him in I

order to verify it really was binding arbitration. Later, I Dr. Fohmhalsstated he had always intended to give this item I because a contract must have an outside judge if ~t is to be 21 I of value.

SESSION 28 - Scott called the teams together again on j I i I I iI ... ~~~... '.--"'- , :31

,! November 15 to tell them of plans for fact-finding . No other: :\' .1 !i sessions were scheduled and the participants looked forward ·.'1

; i '\' ;' ! to the holidays of November and December. il I , !I I At this same time the community was aware of the fact II ilthat there would be a school board election held on March 8', Ii

i 1977. II 1 ,I I 1I : Filing for tlieConej 0 Valley Unified School District !I I, '.jI I Board of Education closed on January 7,1977. Three seats il , II Iwere avai la b10 to t he candida t e s - a maj ority of the Board. Ii I Incumbants Pauline Hogstad and Priscilla Schroeder had filed I , I lalong with W.R. Lawrence, John Bumburger, Basil Walker, Susan I 'Wilson, Gail Hendricksen, Richard Sm! th, and Kenneth Ainge. 22 I I j The local newspaper article informing the community of the ,p,

candidates appeared two days before the fact-finding ,hearing began ... I i The fact -finding hearing was held on January 11, 1977 ,I with Philip Tamouch as chairman and Tom Brown and Richard ' Eldred representing UACTand the District respectively. The I report did not come from the chairman until March 12 even

though it wasdtie back on ~ebruary 27. The reason fdr this

delay is given in the report on page 3.

The chairman has written this report with great reluctance, considering the extensive attempts that the parties have made, to both their credits, to settle the remaining issues, through continuing direct rtegotiations and post- fact-finding negotiations, mediation body and, finally extensive executive sessions of the Panel attempting to resolve issues over the

:',."., sUbstan~,ve nature of the Fact-finding Report itself. 32 The actual hearing was conducted much like a trial ,I i 1\ with testimony going on for much of the day. The setting of

I! the hearing was a guest room at the Holiday Inn in Newbury :1 ii 24 11 i Park. Both sides gave gra.,phicpresentations of their posi- I: : II' I ti ons. Seven separate areas of difference were given to the ii" !I fact-finder; amount of salary increase, amount of fringe Ii i 'I !Ibene~its package, salary schedule structural adjustments, t II II i release _lme for association activities, teacher travel and iI I i i mileage reimbursement and equalization of extra duty assign- i I I 25 ! II ments during the work day. ,I I I On January 12 the school board members took action I to II put themselves in the political campa~gn. They agreed to I I .conduct a workshop for candidates to brief them on the 1ssuesl I I I ' I , [Board President Glen) Scott said the '

I work~hop would "try to eliminate many II I of the things people have questions on, I' and make statements about It and keep to I I a minimum candidates' comments "on things I I that aren't necessarily ~oing on," during I the heat of a campaign.20 I

On January 19, the News Chronicle printed an in-depth II I look at the district1s creation headlined Unification: Why I has the boat ride been so rough~ and is there peace ahead? I IIThis article was written by Catherine Gaugh, the reporter who

had covered the educational community in the Conejo for the

News Chronicle during the entire period of collective bar-

gaining.

During this same week the UACT representative counci~

met and voted to support a one-day walkout in protest of the 1 : , delays since the fact-finding hearing was over and nothing ! '\,,~ ,

I, 33 ---," I

:1 appeared. to be happening to result on a settlement. The " " :1 '! public was informed of this by a front page newspaper article:! !Id 27 Ii" 'Ion the same day that negotiations' re sumed. :1 'I " /1 SESSION 29 - The parties resumed meeting again on!l ;1 II II January 24, 1977. The fact-finder had recommended continuing:1 ; II I' negotiations so this was attempted. Salary proposals were II I exchanged. Again UACTbrought up the concern that the Dis- :: ,i III, ! trict had more money available- for salaries than they admi t- Ii ! I I ted. I I SESSION 30 ... Another meeting was held two days later I, i I I at which time Tom Brown was present as a CTA representative. i I ' , I A three-way conversation between Dain, Brown, and Fo;mhals !I

1 was carried on about salary and whether the Board members II I I I would give Formhals more negotiating authority. BACT cau- 1 I cused at 11:4' a.m. awaiting the Board meeting. I I As of t~s date formal Joint meetings with regular I

I minutes ended. An additional 14 negotiation sessions were I

held between February 4 and May 9 but they became single '

topic issues as the political climate of the community began

to affect the proceedings.

As the UACTexecutive boar1 began a public relations

campaign to urge members to walk out> the District began a I counter-campaign. On January 24, a letter from Formhals was I sent to al~ teac hers. In the letter, sta ti stics were given I to show Coenjo teachers' salaries to have increased up to 25%I

over the 3 years of unification. This letter was a response ! I I ! 34

to a UACT memorandum accusing the Board of not agreeing to al ,! ., q d cost-of-living raise. The letter also gave spe~ific salary Ii jj :I 'I '1 ~i d 28 II offers that had been rejected by UACT. II il I, Bernard Dain and Monty Davis notified the UACT mem- !I II il" ~ bers that these salary offers had not been made at the bar- !i if 11 il II gaining table. They had been presented to the fact-finding :1 I II i 29 II panel but not to the negotiators. The official proposal II il I was made the same day Formhals' letter was sent to the " ,1 30 I j teachers. I I I i T""-ee d'ays later the Mo...,.o f"'h.,..",.,.,-f,., '" _oAo .,.,.,,.,1 ~,. + ....~ ! I ~- ':':"':":;':" ------1:'----- vn_ \1 I . i. - I more article s to. add to the emot onal bJ.tterne ss. One was I ; a report from a private auditing firm informing the Board of I I ' i i Education of inept accounting practices on the part of the ill' 1 I I business office. In the middle of thi s article was t he in, I I sert "-teachers accuse distric t of 'big lie': See Page 2. ,,31 I I With the school board election coming closer, the I

I trACTPolitical Action Committee was scheduling candidate in, ! terviews to recommend endorsements of candidates.32 .

On the 27th of January the ~ Chronicle editorial,

~"They aren't divorced yet," appeared. In the edito~ial, the I analogy of a civic divorce' was described:

What is taking place here is a civic divorce; each "spouse" suspecting the other, blaming the other, attacking the other. It is a wasteful situation, but so long as the mates rema~n under one roof there is at least ho~e of communication. Feb.9'may be the daY33 that the divorce papers are ssrved.

IIi ji

I i Ii "'~'-"-'--"'" -----.-;' _ ...-._",- ..--- 35

Now the issue centered on whether the schools would ,":: ,i be open or closed. The teachers wan~ed the Board of Educa- ., il tion to declare a school recess. Ii The Board had cho sen to Ii !I 'i keep the schools open. Formhals had warned them as early as 11

, il1\ November or December that he believed there would be a strikel'l

in the Conej o. He was directed to prepare a management II I strike plan. In conversation with this investigator he said ;!

he recommended the closing of schools but was overruled by II I the Board Member s. The maj or concern wa s whether the teaCher~;

• I really were going out for only one day. The Board members i

were divided between those who believed no one would go out, 11 I teachers would go on~ day only, o~ it would be an all-out ( \ I strike 34 I . I The school board called a special meeting on ThUrSdayJ

Feb~uary 3, and again on Tuesday, February 8, hoping to re- I solve the issues. Instead the Board Members adopteJ emergen-i

cy measures to keep the schools open such as doubling the pay

for sUbstitutes and increasing classroom aides' salaries.35

The students of the Newbury Park High School Associ- ated Student Body voted to support the teachers' walkout and J 36 to boycott classes. Also, th~ Weathersfield Elementary sChool

Parents Advisory Council voted to urge closing of the schoolS1 for, the day. 37 On the other side the ConeJo Recreation and I I Park District directors-denied the use of a community pa~k I ~or the teachers' rally on the 9th.38 I (h_ Also, a new name appeared in the proceedings. Richard I

I 'I I' I I ,i 'I ,

" :!Mason, the president of the National Association of Pro- ! ii : ;\fessional Educators (NAPE) was head of a local group of i ,II ,I!' 11 teachers opposed to cOllectiv.e bargaining in education. He :1, :1 , ! 11 held a community meeting on February 7 to express opposition Ii

!Ito the walkout. He also declared his intentions of getting- II !I a court injunction to prohibit the walkout .39 ' ! 11 Negotiation sessions were being held daily to reach i

1/ resoluti-on but the momentum just increased. On February 8 II ,! II II the News Chronicle carried a two-page advertisement paid for l I ------jl : by the district ,presenting its salary offer. This action 11 i, II I angered teachers who were undecided about walking out and I, I swayed some to join the others on the picket lines. 40 II ! , !1 , 'I i Richard Mason went to the Ventura County Court House I

-Ion Tuesday to get an injunction hut was told nO_illegal I 41 L action had occurred. II I I Bernard Dain told the Board members he would stay by i II the phone unt 11 10,00 p. m. If the Board Memher s agre ed to I

I the teachers'position he would call off the walkout. He I remained by hi s ph,one until that time hoping he could stop I

the action. Rumors had spread that Dain was afraid to walk

out as this would be an illegal action and could jeopardize,

his naturalized citizenship. His wife laughed upon hearing

of this rumor and said the only concern he had was that the . 42 walkout might fail and he would be embarrassed.

This investigator was a party to the actions of I I IIFebruary 9, 1977, as a teacher leader. My personal recollec-

-,I !

1 i Ii 37

:; tions of the day are as follows: 'i !! The first pickets were scheduled to be on the line at 116: 30 a.m. around the high schools. Other groups of teachers , II " Ii 1.1 had arranged to meet for breakfast mainly to give moral sup- :i 1 11 II port to each other. I left my home and drove by the high' d : n I. , i'I 1 school fearful of what I wouldn I t see. What if no one was l! 1 :1 I there? Instead the teachers were marching. il ' After breakfast we went to our ,schools where a pic _ il / l 'i ket captain had the signs for us. We walJted back and forth II in front of the school until after 9: 00. Theneveryone !,

headed for the community park in the center of Thousand Oaks II ,I for a rally. Both CTA and NEA staff personnel were already ii , ! i there. They had been. organizing this day for weeks arrangingl

with police fo~ parade permits and other details. 1

.' At the park the bs.,rgaining team personnel gathered I'I I together. The staff people were making bet s on what percent-I . , age of teachers were present. La ter fl.gures would range be- I

tween 85% and 92%. The estimates were varied because of the

number of people absent because of'illness.43

Speeches were given by Bernard Dain and ¥onty Davis.

Verbal attacks ..were then made about Robert Formhals. An NEA

staff person assigned to help told the crowd that Formhals

,had been a negotiator in Federal Way, Washington, in earlier .. years and all of the negotiations, problems UACTwas facing I were the same tactics that had been used there. The Board II, members were being duped by this "professional agitator." i I I ! I, 38 -, .::.:.:..:..=---==--:---====-~ ":.-=-===..-:::=.=::::-=-....: .. -===-=====-==::-:=---===--....===--=-=--===-=== -"-

The crowd became angry, but Davis stressed acting in a calm

manner and dire(ted everyone to go to the District Office

where teachers were to continue the picketing. Enough

teachers went to completely encircle the office complex.

After walking around the building three times, since the , ,I :1 'i superintendent and other office personnel were reported to be 'I ;I 'I :i o'!t of the office, the crowd dispersed to go back to dis- I, ii tri buting leaflet s door -t o-d oor . jj 'I 'I The UACT executive board and bargaining team went to d

11 a hotel room in a local hotel. There they were told of the 'I :j I, ., t ::mornlng scour oc currence s. Susan R. O'Brien, on behalf of H i1 l' I' jl I! the District had gone to court at 10:00 a.m. to get an in- !I I! , i 11 , ;!' :i junction. CTA lawyers were able to stall the proceedings '1':1 I' I II until the judge adj ourned for lunch. After lunch a temporarY;1 ii' !I ilrestraining order to the Unified Association of Conejo Teach- II

II ers, Bernard Dain, individually and Does 1 through 850 was Ii il II Ii issue d. II I' i l The UACT people were informed that a DistTict emploY-i 1 J \ ee had been given the summonses to distribute,therefore we il' I ' Id were to remain in hiding until the evening's Board Meeting. II[' I jI I At approximately 7: 00 p.m. we drove to the Civic Ii

'\ 1\ II' Center for the meeting. Hundreds of teachers were wai ting. II I I,Ij 1As Dain entered,Kenneth Beatty gave him a summons. Beatty II l , 44 'I then attempted' 0 serve the other officers. A television li,

inewsman'\ from Los Angeles' Channel 7 was present as were news-II ' i lipaper reporter s. So were the fire marshalls who insisted ------~- .

part of the crowd leave the building as over 400 teachers

,were present and the room has a 275-person seating capacity.

After speeches by UACT members and teachers from neighboring

districts spoke to the Board Members, negotiations were

resumed in an adjoining room. Robert Formhals described the

[j situation extremely well. "Bill Gordon can always grab d II failure from the jaws of victory.,,45 The District's team iI 'I i! 'I Ii consisted of Formhals and Seaver. The Board Members were ;! :1 q ,I il Ii intimidated by the crowd. Within the first few minutes of 11

ti Ii the session, Gordon asked for a "no retaliation" clause fori il anyone supporti ve of the strike. Formhals asked him who he ii

II meant. He replied everyone including cats, dogs, and bus II ii ' ij II dr i vers. Formhal s re sponde d he would have to find out if ' ::

II UACT was authorized to speak for the other un~onsand there- il 'I I fore he left. ii'ii

'I !' Ii We all went home as tomorrow was another teaching day!! II II II and it was "business as usual." II :1 Again, politics began to interfere. The first 'I II workshop for school board candidates was held the next even- I' , ing. In the morning was a candidates' forum sponsored by thel II Republican Women's Club. Only six candidates were present I'

as Democrats were not invited. All six were oppo se d to the II II walk out and "agency shop" (actually a representation fee ford 'I

II non -UACT member s) was a maj or t opi c of concern. The two in- 11 Ii Ilcumbant candidates were in agreement on issues with the 11 iI Ii i challe~gers taking opposing positions. 4~ !I Ii 'I Ii !!Ii 40 -- - --,7'O--F-=-=-'-- - - .._-- -__ --=:::=::..=-==-_- n • _ - _ =_====

At the evening workshop the one topic not discussed

was the walkout. Instead candidates were given district

documents on budgeting, finances and school law.47

The following week another forum was held. This one

Iwas conducted by the Gonejo Valley Republican Assembly and :! !!all 10 candidates were present. The major issues were col- !! 'I , ii lective bargaining and the walkout. - - - ii ji" ]1II d Some audience members shot acid-tongued :1 :1' questions at candidates, quizzed them on Ii :/ their knowledge of school finance and ne- :i ;1 gotiation laws and a few asked repeatedly ;1 !I whether the candidates, as school board :1 :1 member s, would fire Superintendent Wayne :' :1 Butte~baugh, other district 4~dministrators ji ii and "~ncompetent" teachers. II :J d il The following week the decision was made to wait for II ;( :1 '1 i iithe fact-finding report before negoti.ating again. In the !I

Ii'I meantime the Di strict would not take any action against j'I /' I 'I . :i II teachers involved in the walkout and Michael Taggert would II II d II :: I!represent the District in court when UAGTrepresentatives il

iI were to appear to determine if the temporary restraining iil 'I 9 . . i' II order would be.ome a permanent one~ Also, over the next: three Ii

1 weeks, five more forums were to be held. 1,1

I ,On February 22, a permanent re straining order went ,II I I , 'I II into effect. One of the reasons the judge granted the in- I i!Jun.tion was the beli~f that February 9 had been so su•• ess- I i ful, another such act~on \Vould be equally successful. 50 !, I II I On February 24 at the first forum, one candidate, II I 'I

II Basil Walker, announced he was wi thdra wing from the race and :1 Ii 51 II' :! Ie ft. ' The UAGT ,exec uti ve board had not taken an off i c i al II! II i

li Ij 41 =-:~c·=---=-::=--;[---'--._ --, .~-:-=-=-':':-:-='7"=-=~----:::-":::=_==-==--= - -- -- •

position on the campaign, but the News Chronicle reported

they were supporting "Priscilla Schroeder, Gail Henricksen,

and Kenneth Ainge.,,52 And more public pressure occurred. The

newspaper headline read: New probe of education grand jury

,panel opens informal examination. According to the article ,1

After each candidate had an op- II r if !I :! "II

I,Ii iiI' iJ II I~ I' Ii II p :1 II II !I il 'I II A forum the next night created a contr over sy with il II Pris-I! II cilla Schroeder announced her opposition to renewing Butter- I,II !!baUgh's co~tract while Pauline Hogstad favored it. Candidate Ii II IIRichard Smith said he could agree with Schroeder but first !II. IiII Ilother II).anagers,especially Robert Formhals snould be dis- I. II \1 . II ;i ::

iI '; \,'I il \1 " ;i .. ,42 •.=.:....-=~: - .. -:=-----=--~-~------.- -,_.--- .-::::...-::..=.:.:.:=....:..:.=:=:.... :missed. Kenneth Ainge and Bill Lawrence also disagreed ;)

:about Formhals and the negotiating session of February 9.

candidates then chose up sides regarding the need to

Formhals employed as a full-time employee.55

" At this time the N~~s Cbr~nicle endorsed Schroeder, il 'i !iSue Wilson, and Smith for the Conejo Board of Education while 11 :1 :I ,1 i!UACT off,icially backed Schroeder, Gail Henricksen and Kennet~ ,I 'I j'A· !i ;I l.nge. Support for Schroeder was based on the belief that 'I II II ;ishe was the most knowledgea ble candidate supporti ve of teach-:l

11 • !Iers. Henrl.cksen was a long-time friend of some UACT officers 11 if Iland Ainge, even though an unknown quantity, was recommended :! I " I Ijby the teachers he worked with at the community colle,ge. ii ,I ,J i :1 ! Again another forum was held and the candidates re- ;1 I !Iaffirmed their positions on Butterbaugh's contract. This !I I 'II, Iitime specific items still to be set~led at the negotiations ii lj 'I rtable were debated with candidates splitting on the issues Ii'I 'of salary and a required Maste~'s degree to reach column V Ii I I 56 I lof the salary schedule. I

The election took place on March 8. Schroeder was II l'the overwhelming victor by an almost two-to-one vote over the II

Inext fini sher Kenneth Ainge. Richard Smith became the third III , I Board member, 24 votes less than Ainge. The surprise was II Hogstad's showing as number seven out of ten. Hogstad's I, I Icomment to'the press was "I'm not really that sorry. .. ,57 but I !rour years later she was unwilling to discuss this period of 'I Itime in depth with this investigator. II i 'I I i I ;1 !I II !I :,H :; 43 ------Suddenly a new political campaign began. The UACT

annual eleetions were to be held and a challenger to Bernard ii Dain declared his candidacy. Gary Reed, a mili tant teacher :i

:ifrom:1 Newbury Park High. School, ran in ...... the first contested ,i presidential election held by UACT.58 Reed ran on a slate .,'I !along with others who believed the lengthy negotiations were ,I 1/ due to the lack of mili tancy on the part of both Dain and .'

I!Monty Davis. Dain won by less than 35 votes out of over 650 :1 d II !I Ii il ballot s po ssi ble. II

!i Now the fact-finding report became PUblic--almo,sttwoli II " I :i !I!weeks after it was due. Of the seven items considered by :1

I il II, Philip TamtJuch, he supported compromi se on almost all "1 tems. !!" H.. t ;i :i UACT had asked for 12.4% salary increase with the district ',II: !I I iloffering 3%. The fact-finder recommended 6%. UACTasked fori!

I a fully-funded fringe benefit package; the Di strict wanted a III I I 11 . 'I II specific dollar amount. The fact-finder recommended a speci-I !I ' '!fiC dollar amount equal to full funding. UACT had wanted the!

' i,I 1 I salary schedule restructured with automatic money bonuses; i! -I 'I The District wanted restructuring with no bonuses. Tamouch I' II • I II supported UACT. UACT wanted the Master's degree requirement I

,Iremoved; the District did not. Tamouch agreed with UACT. II I !I I UACT wanted twenty days of release time; the District offered II llnone. Tamouch found in favor of the District position. UACTI

I wanted I inc~eased auto reimbursement; the District agreed but II I ,I Ijdisagreed on how many miles a teacher should be- expected to II' II \1 Iidrive b~tween assignments. Tamouch supported the District. II I! d iI 'I Ii II II I' II

!.II 44 ..:-:--=-.;.- .....:=.-:::====---==:-=::-.=:=---=--~-=.---- ..- _.._... ".'===:'==';======-=-.':=:::=:':":_-==---- .-=--==':':::':'=".:=::-= The last item was whether extra duties other than teaching

were negotiable and Tamouch made no determination saying,

"The parties are free to seek their legal remedies."59 The

News Chronicle editor responded to this report declaring '. li "that teachers were right ... now we know what to tell the I;

ii kid s. II 60 ., ;:

I,'i it Before negotiations resumed, the problem of Wayne " ii 'I Butterbaugh's contract was yet to be settled. The last meet- II II ing of the Board of Education with Hogstad a member was held II ij 6l "H on March 23, but no action was taken. Ji II A negotiations session was scheduled for March 28 II • il which became controvers:l.albecause a newspaper reporter was i ! invited to attend by a District representative) but Bernard ii

I I' i Dain and the UACT team opposed open negotiations.62 The Ii , .1

il editor of the News Chronicle cpndemned the UACT team for its 11 63 I, position in an editorial that evening. All that was agreedl,'

i ./ i, at that session was to put off meeting until April 11. il !1 II ; 'I !, On April Fool's Day once more the political aspect of Ii 11 I II ! the negotiations process prevailed. A special school board II' il meeting was called for at 7: 30 p.m. on a Friday evening. Theil I I' I only topic on the agenda was installation of the three newly II I elected Board members. Friends of the three arrived in a I I I I party mood. Some of Richard Smith's friends were in formal i

'1 1 \1 attire and' joked a bout the party they had scheduled with , I

!, 8: 00 p.m. dinner reservations. The meeting was called to Iii 1

"I ,I Ii orde:r and the installation took about five minutes. Then !1 !i ' H 1! the Board member s adj ourned to another room for an executi ve I I

11 I !I I II I 1II :I

!t! • ,! 45 ------,--:-- -, ,------==1 session. Two hours lat~r they returned and approved one

motion by a vote of four to one - to extend Wayne Butter-

:1 baugh's contract' for an additional 17 months with no salary ;i ;; . 64 ,! ~ncrease. 'I :1 :i The District's negotiating team next went public ii 'I ii with their salary offer by sending a written proposal to all i\ ii teachers in the district. William Seaver reported this new:, iI 1 offer was the position of the new Board.65 Ii I Ii i, II Next came the news that a citizen named James I I i Crawford was organizing a recall election of the four Board I I I members who had voted to extend Butterbaugh's contract. Le- ! I ! I II i gal technicalities, however, were such that only GleIf Scott "! :1, 66 q !I and Martha Argue were eligible to be recalled. This effor"tii Ii l] ;1 il il did not materialize when only sixteen residents came to the il: 'I ' 'I 67 II I' planning meeting. (A later recall election would occur II I il i and be successful, but that took place after the contract II III 'II I was negotiated. ) II

Finally, it appeared the end wa s in sight, but there Ii

would be future setbacks. The April 22 negotiations session I

was expected to result in a vote by the membership.68 Ir.- II

stead the Board withdrew the offer previously made. They II

also opened the negotiations session to the press. I As re- I I' porter Catherine Gaugh described it, "Friday's negotiation I I,II II, sessi(ln w~s explosive .... ,,69 I The teachers responded with a strike vote threaten- I II i il I ing t~ walk out if the negotiations weren't settled by the 1/ \ end of Apri 1.70 ! Actually the v 0 t e was i 1J F> po ~ 1 ~; li ,..Q + 'h "" II "'I ;,II Ii I! ii ii :~-:----=-.:..---- I --'---====, --~=---=-=---=--~.::.-=--=:...=-~ _,__ __ --:=c 46 == person making the motion was not a member of UAC~ but the

executive board of UACT decided not to make that information ' 71 "pu blJ. C • Therefore the teams went into round-the-clock I ,I ij negotiations. The District offered an 18-month package of

: OJ 'i 6% for half a school year (1977) and 6% for the next year (1977_78).72 n 1I Voting on April 29,1977, the contract was approved,73 :l : il" ! Ii but when the final tentative agreements were seen by the II I, UACT team, they found differences in the settlements. This il I il necessitated additional meetings so the final vote to accept! I the first legal contract between teachers and the Conejo II , il i Valley Unified School District did not occur until Friday, I , i II , ! the 13th of May, 1977. It was officially signed and in ,i ~1 II effect as of May 18, 1977 - ten months and 18 days after the ii i' 7 II I negotiations process was begun. 4 II I !. ! II I Ii f • !l ! Ii I j' II II I

Ii II ,.I II II I :1

11 1I il I, !i If d n ;; 11 Ii iI Ii .47

i1

11 d !I" ;i CHAPTER 4 Ii i Ii I !i ! Conclusion, .,:1 "I 11 I i! ! ii i! The law allowing collective bargaining by teachers q d II :r ! in the state of California became operational on July 1, I,., ii I iI 1976. The first legal, contract between teachers and the i! I 'I II Conejo Valley Unified School District became operational on 11 I !1 'i ,1 May 18, 1977. Why did it take over ten months to reach 11 I Ii settlement? Was this lengthy: process to be the pattern of il I II I bargaining or was this district unique? Only now are re- I j, ' i ! I ! I searchers beginning to assess the history of the bargaining , I process. I I ,- In 1979 a study done by McDonnell and Pascal I identifies eleven characteristics of immature bargainers II II and bargaining iIr school di strict s: II 1) A persistent lack of trust in leaders' statements eXists~ ! This results in many grievances and a third party to settle I differences. In the Conejo it was necessary to call in a

mediator as well as a fact-finder before agreement was

reached. !

2) Administrators differ in public. Robert Formhala statedl I I t ! thatth~ need to g~ve the principals a salary raise in I I December was intended to isolate them from the teachers if I - a strike occured or they would have been on the side of the I I

I: I Ii :j jJ 1/48 ;! :i 'i :1 teachers. Also the whole controversy over Wayne Butterbaughs I Ii H ;j Ii contract was conducted on the front page of the News Chron- I: ii" II ili~ JI 113) There is confusion about the separation of responsibili- II ! !I II ties between the management and the uni"on. Some of the most ' I II heated dialogue at the table centered on Formhal~~ emphasis

/1 as to what was management perogative. Dain's attack an

~Formhals accusing him of calling tea~hers"coolies was a I il response to this c·onfusion.

II 4) The teaohers' union has problems eleoting oi'fioers. In

II the Conej 0 thi s did not occur as there was an over-abundance

II of people on the crisis committee, and for the first time , jl there was a contested 'election. <-- , ,--' 5) Principals continue to function in an authoritarian

manner ignoring the contract. After the contract was signed'

Formhals issued over five bulletins of clarii'icationto • principals to interpret articles in the contract.

6) Statements to the public are inaccurate, incomplete, or

misleading during negotiations. The District's change in , posi tion on salary offer s as detailed in newspaper acc ounts

show this too was an immature action.

7) Board members are isolated from the management team. In

the Conejo district Board members called their negotiators

,almost daily to give input. The allegation, however, that

Board members and their management team were divided became

criti.cal during the campaign and forum debate ..s. .. !:" ;i :: ~ ! \1

!l :; " 'i 8) Union members communicate directly with Board members. :1 IIn !I if Ii iI Teachers were accustumed to calling Board members at home Ii II iI ii" Ii :; and this sometimes resulted in splitting the teachers from '\ II I their own bargaining team position as they expressed per- I II I sonal opinions rather than UACT positions.' I I 9) Strikes occur. February 9 was a strike no matter what I i I UACT officers calle'd it and the teachers were prepared to go\ I I Ii, I out again in May. I I 10) The model contract provided by the state affiliate is I I I the basis of the negotiations. In Conejo that was not true. t I The agreement of'1974~76 was UACT's bottom line. The member- I ship officially only asked the team to get two things -,more ,I salary and no loss of fringe benefits. - ,il) Individuals reso-r-tto name-calling and other non-profes I sion:l tactics. Bernard Dain's letters to the teachers as ., well a s the District's paid adverti sement coupled with

Board candidates' allegations at forums substantiate this l. weakness.

Thus it would appear that much of the difficulty

during negotiations was a result of immaturity on the part

of both parties. One unique aspect of the negotiations

was, however, UACT's commitment to the earlier consulted

agreements. How much of the personal attac'k on Robert

Formhals, sinc-e he was the hired negotiatDr, would have been

made if a ~ong-time District employee such as Bill Seaver-

had been the Board's negotiator is open to speculation. /

_.____.,_,.--- -.r-:- --"~--~c--·-:---:".,~·- ....- ...-__.__ "'.-- --.. .".- ._·_.u_~·, .-._"." --.-_ ...._-- ,.-~. . .-- -.-.. '"" .~.,~ .'. -- .""'~-' -",- .., .-. " II One aspect of the, situation that cannot be measured II If II fI 'I 1i is the impact of the personal charisma of the p.articipants.· II j! 11 ,I I i: The teachers' resT\ect for the honesty and integrity of I P ~ I I Ii William Seaver did not diminish throughout the bargaining. I II ' Consequently animosity towards Robert Formhals grew as he I became the scapegoat for all the delay. Also, the high re~ I I gard of all parties toward Monty Davis had many effects. I I I Davis had the ability to persuade each side, even in the I, I most heated exchange, that they were really saying the same thing, only using different words. Sometimes those words

were as different as "yes" and "no~. The teachers continued

I to support Bernard Dainbut their feelings of frustration

centered on Bill Gordon. Small groups of teachers repeated-

/----. ., ...:.....,'-" '--- II ly called for his dismissal and the hiring of a professional " ,r negot~ator. Their regard for Priscilla Schroeder also continued beyond the negotiations.

Only time will tell if all the problems of 1976-77

were due to immaturity, in which case future negotiations

will 'be markedly different, or whether the Conejo district

is unique in educational bargaining.

r'----.. ( " ,/ ._-/

'-, '

iI" ------.

51

:1 ;J ;1 i; :1 ;: II APPENDIX Ii , ! I I I ; I Partic ipant s to the Proceedings: I i I !,Superintendent of the Conej 0 Valley Unified School District ii,

iButterbaUg~, Wayne - ~se~:red ~rom ~anuar!. 1974 to 1980. II

u I Boysen, Thomas - replaced Butterbaugh in 1980. II IBoard of E~ucation Members l~ ,Ainge, Kenneth - college instruction elected in 1977 and I I recalled in 1979. '/ I Argue, Martha "'!' Newbury Park housewife elected in 1975 and I

I recalled 1979. II Hogstad, Pauline - first president of the Conejo Board of :j Education after serving on the Timber School I' ,!" Board. Served from 1973-1977. Lost in bid II for reelection. 'J IIMyers, Robert - :¥ember of the -f.irst conejo. Board of Educatio ,I after being on V~lley Oaks School Board. i Served from, 1973-'1977. Chose not to run for' reelection. ' Schnelle, Cecil - elected to first ConeJo Board of Education. Lost election bid to Martha Argue in 1975. I Schroeder, Priscilla - elected to ConeJo Board of Education I in special election replacing Lawrence Smith1 Reelected in 1977 and served as president of I the Board in 1980 and 1981. Scott,. Glen - Newbury Park High School teacher elected to first Conejo Board of Education. Served froIl . 1973-1975. IISmith, Lawrence- member of the fir st, Conej 0 Board o~ Educat iOIl afte.r serving- on Oxnard Union High School Board. Served from 1973 till he resigned because of illness in 1975. Smith, Richard - elected to ConeJo Board in 1977 and resigned in 1978 due to job transfer out of the community.

Presidents~or the Unified Association of Conejo Teachers Dain, Bernard - served during 1976-1977. Teacher at Thousand Oaks High School. Former member of consul- tation team in Oxnard District and Conejo District. ------

52 j=="

Ii Dain, Helene - served during 1973. Teacher at Los Cerritos, 'i li Intermediate School and member of consultation:: ;1 team during creation of Agreement of' Under- 'j " II standing. Resigned to become firstwoman ;':1 Ii princ ip'al in CVUSD. I II Davis, Monty - served during, 1973 and again in 1975. Teacher!1 ! at Colina Intermediate School and served as !! : member of consultation team, CTA State councili\ Representative and chairman of the negotiating! team. Ordained mini ster who frequently han- :1, dled personnel problems for other teachers. i _ served from 1978 through 1980 taking over as!! pre sident when Bernard Dain resigned due to 11 ill health and elected to two terms of her ownH High school speech and drama teacher and mem- 1

ber of negotiating team. 1\ - served as president in 1974 taking over for Helene Dain. Teacher at Newbury Park High I School. . - ser~ed during 1981, elementary schoolteacher, and recorder on negotiating team as well as I consultant to consultation team. 1

to team who was one of the /three I completed consultation on the "

.\Dain ,Bernard Dillon, Clint \

\

\' '\ 53 '= _. :;, -.,=-:,=--===-=::=-",::,,-:-,;:,0,- _ _ _ - ._-'~_' .j

as financial budget expert. ,Mahan, Roberta - see presidents ;Stein, Sydney - see presidents ,i !Conejo Valley Unified School District Management Team :1Barne y, Ronald - high sc hool princ ipal :! Bayles, James - elementary school principal ij Formhals, Robert - Director of Employer-Employee Relations q Knox, David - intermediate school principal il Seaver, William - Assistant Superint~ndent of Certificated :1 Personnel.

:1 Other Participants , !I II Beatty, Kenneth - classified ('Siilinistrator directed to servel il summone s to trACT'executi ve members on! :1 February 9. ii 11 Cowen, James - Ventura County Superintendent of Public ,j 11 Instruction :1 i Ferris, Robert - consultant to Board of Education Members :~.' i during beginning of unified di strict. !l IIl :; i iI q !il , :1 iJ H [I lJ I :1 I i!' I II I II ,I -,:1 , " " 11 I II I I , I I !II'

I 1/ I i i I i i ! I I II I I I II II II il :I" 'I I' 54

Chapter 1 - Footnotes

1. Ranked by enrollment in the tdp 25 districts

2. See appendix for biographica,l information i I 3. This investigator was a consultant to two CEC I'S and a member of the California State Teachers State Council where she frequently heard such coµversations. II I

II 4. Interview with Helene Dain on July 8, 1981. I j il 5. Recorders~ Notes on Negotiations Sessions with UACT. I Session 12, page 37 I I I i II 6. "Conej 0 pa s,sed $17.5 million school bond," News C'hronicleI I November 6, 1974. -

7. Findings of Superior Court in Case No. 59285 California Teaehers' Association, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Board of Trustees of the Conejo Valley Unified School District, etc., et al., Defendants.

8. "School budget extra $ but no raises," News. Chronicle,. - August 7, 1975. -

O. Catherine Gaugh "Pay hike: flickering hope," Wews Chronicle, October 2, 1975., ---- jl.l. Catherine Gaugh, "Contract cutbacks illegal, teachers charge," News Chronicle, July 30, 1976.

2. Op.cit, Findings of Superior Court.

3. January 19, 1976, memorandum of understanding to Certi- ficated Employee Council from Wayne Butterbaugh. ii Chapter II - Footnotes " :I" q 'I I' I, :1 'I :1 :Il. Collective Bargaining Project 1975 - 1977 11 II 1/ UNISERV Agreement September 1, 1974 through August 31, II :1 197; signed by Helene Dain and Kenneth Hibbitts. iJ r':1 Ibid., 1'.3. I 3. II i 4. Actually entitled the Educational Employment Relations :1 Act. r 5. The Educational Employment Relations. Act Enacted 1975 II as Senate Bill 160 (Rodda) ·Chapter 1'96, Laws of 19-75 I' with Amendments Enacted 1976, 1977, 1978, Article 1, I Section 3540. I 6. Letter of April 2, 1976 to Educational Employment Rela- tions Board. I I 7. Catherine Gaugh, "Bargaining recognition for teachers I'l . stalled, "News Chronicle, May 13, 1976. I 8. "Reverse negotiations vote teachers ask board," News C,hronicle, May 14, 1976.

9. At this time the Board members were Martha Argue, Pauline Hogstad, Robert Myers, Priscilla Schroeder and Glen Scott.

µ.o. Interview with Pricilla Schroeder on July 15, 1981.

µ.l. Information on Dr. Formhals is taken from an interview with him held on July 6, 1981.

In a conversation on June 25, 1981, Robert Formhals attributed the quotation to Glen Scott .

• 56

Chapter III - Footnotes :1 i1

Speaking for UACT were Linda Calvin and Monty Davis. II ii Speaking for the district was Robert Formhals. 'I

11 All references to occurrences at negotiation sessions :1 are taken from the recorders' notes of each session. ;j This author had access to both the district's minutes ii" as well as UACT's minutes and has combined them for the purpose of clarity. II 1I Recorders( 'Notes on Negotiations Sessions with UACT Ii - il Session 1, page 2~ ---- I, I Accept~ng this change of philosophy to being a labor ;1 union' did not come about on the part of the UACT executiv~ board unt~l the Internal Revenue Service tax papers state~ it. At that time the quip, "If the IRS s,ays it's so, it !II must be so, II' was expressed. I , i Documents came to be color-coded. UACT's positions were i printed on white paper. The 4istrict's positions were I printed on yellow paper. When tentative agreements were I reached,they were printed, on pink paper. "To pink" -I ~something meant to agree. I

6. Op.cit. Session 3, page 2.

Ibid.

Caucuses of teachers included conversations in which individual team members attempted to match items to specific principals. This was done mainly by Monty Davis who had handled many personnel grievances for the teach- ers over the past several years.

9. Op. cit. Session 5, page 1.

10. Ibid - ll. Ope cit., Sassion 7, page 2. 12. Ibid, p.3.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid. , Session 10, page 3. /., .. , ~\. -'/ ----.----~------.

57 il_ _ ,. _

;j Chapter III - Footnotes, cont. " " ;1 :j i' i/15. Ibid., Session 12, page 3. I. II 16 Catherine Gaugh, "Teacher leader blasts district's 11 . negotiator, !!!! Chronicle September 9, 1976. !j :\17 il . Areas of difficulty: il salary, extra pay, benefits costs, number of days to work~1 number of working hours, reimbursement for clothing JI ;i damage, sabbatical leave, teacher Governance Committee, 'i i transfer policy, grievance procedures including binding q I arbitration, no strike clause, management rights clause, i,i I maintenance of benefits. i Confidential bulletin of September 13, 1976 to members of II lll~. the management team from Robert W. Formhals. I I ! 1119• Catherine Gaugh, "Teachers to go 'positive', News Chron- i ~ September 14, 1976. - il I , 120 Op. cit., Session 15, page 8. 1 • I Ii' 1121. Interview with Robert Formhals, July 6, 1981. il i , 122 "Fields, for school races set, ItNews Chronicle, Je.nuary 9, I 1 • 1977. I ,I 23. Fact~Finding Report of March 12, 1977 submitted by Philip i Tamouch. I I 24. ItFact-finding hearing on school budget starts, News Chronic.le , January 11, 1977. -

25. Op. cit. Fact-finding Report I II 26. Catherine Gaugh, "Can school boardts tips make election less noisy? , ~ Chronicle, January 13, 1977. 27. Catherine Gaugh, "Teachers plan l-day protest absence, I ~ Chronicle, January 24, 1977. .

8. Cat.herine Gaugh, "District throws teacher pay offer into public view, January 25, 1977.

9. Undated memorandum by Monty Davis.

O. Op.cit., Gaugh, District throws teacher pay offer.

.' ,/ ...-, Catherine Gaugh, Audit hits school accounting, January 27, ( 1977. . ,--::,-,0<'-'. / 58

Chapter III - Footnotes, cont. qII II :132. "Conejo teachers plan candidate interviews, News C'hron- l' icle , January 27, 1977. - i !I 33. "They aren't divorced - yet, News Chronicle, January 27, II 1977. ,! I !j I ii !134. Ope cit.,. Formhals' interview and Schroeder's intervi,ew~ I II 35. Catherine Gaugh, "Board to meet on teacher walkout plan, :1 I iI ' ! February 2, 1977, and Schroeder interview. I ,! I ! Catherine Gaugh, "NPHS leaders back walkout, rr News Chron-i I' 36. ~, February 3, 1977. - I' I I 1137. Catherine Gaugh, "Close schools, one parent council says, i I ~ Chronicle, February 4, 1977. I I II 38. Mike ,Tetreault, "Teachers lose bid for reservation of I I park, ~ Chronicle, February 4, 1977. I 1139. Mike Tetreault, "Teachers' sway over kids criticized," and "Foe of walkout says he'll ask court to stoprit," I News ChronicHe, February 8, 1977. I I II /'.--- i /140. Per sonal c'onversations of teachers with this investigator!

41., Report to bargaining team in courtroom'.

42. Ope ci,t., Dafn interview.

43. People who went out were to be penalized one day's pay and 1/177 of amount given in retirement benefits. More people had money dedueted than were out. For instance one teacher on sabbatical in Hawaii as of February 1 had retirement deducted.

44. In some cases Beatty did not know who he was to serve. For example, Joe Carolyn had been described to him as being on crutches and one leg in a cast. Therefore the first teacher with a broken leg was given a summons. It ,was not Carolyn, who neverwa s .served.

45. Ope Cit., Formhalsl interview. t 46. Gregory J. Wileox, "Candidates Zero in on school offi- cials, ~ Chronic'le, February 10, 1977.

47. Catherine Gaugh, "Offic.ials mum on walkout at school can-'I didates' workshop, News Chronicle, February 10, 1977. il - _ _ I , i Chapter III - Footnotes, cont.

:148. Catherine Gaugh, "Emotional Conej 0 school forum, N'ews il Chronicle, February 11, 1977. - ii il II Catherine Gaugh, "District doesn't plan reprimands for !I II 49. walkout, .~ Chronicle, February 17, 1977. II Ii II 50. Gregory J. Wilcox, "Court order blocks future walkouts" !I by Conejo teachers, ~ Chronicle, Feb,ruary 22, 1977. II 51. Catherine Gaugh, "9 school hopefuls left: Walker quits, !I j" ~ Chronicle, February 25, 1977. I i 52. "Teachers deny rumors of candidate support', News Chron- l icle, February 24, 1977. - j' - i Op. cit., Schroeder interview. Catherine Gaugh, "Board right in suing UACT, candidates I say," News Chronicle, March 1, 1977. ! i' Catherine Gaugh, "Keep Butterbaugh?" News Chronic lee, March 2, 1977. - I i Cat,herine Gaugh, "Candidates split on teacher pay," II' ~_ews Chronicle, March, 3, 1977.. I Catherine Gaugh, "Hogstad finished 7th as newcomers pull II a surprise," News Chronicle, March 9, 1977.

58. "Dain challenged for UACTpost," News Chronicle, March 15 1977. ----

59. Op. cit., Fact-Finding Report.

60. "Now we know what to tell the kid-s~" News Chronicle, March 21, 1977. -

61. Catherine: Gaugh; - "No"vote- on Butterbaugh contra"ct ~ News, Chronicle , March 24, 1977. . -

62. "School wage talks to resume," News Chronicle, March 27, 1977. -

"Teachers want public outside the door," ~ Chronicle, I March 28, 1977. I 64. The description of this meeting is based on the re- collections of'the investigator.

I 60

Chapter III - Footnotes, cont.

65. "School officials deliver teacher salary proposal, " News Chronicle, April 12, 1977.

;1

Catherine Gaugh, "Recall is 'pretty open, I News il 66. April 13, 1977. i Ii " il 67 Catherine Gaugh, "1st recall meeting draws only 16; I' ,1 . strategy is unclear," News Chronicle, April 22, 1977. II II '\68 II CatherineGaugh,"Teachers may vote on wages Monday," ":1 ii . News Chronicle, April 22, 1977. II II II 69. Catherine Gaugh, "District backs down on 6% offer, !J 1 II ! ~ Chronicle, April 24, 1977. 1 i 70. Catherine Gaugh, "Conejo teachers may take vote on I I st.rike';If !!!.!! Chronicle, April 26, 1977. i II 71. This investigator was a party to all proceedings. il 'I II 72. Catherine Gaugh,"District makes new teacher sa1ar~ Offer,[ I News Chronicle, April 28, 1977. . 'I 73. Catherine Gaugh, "Teachers call off strike vote," News I Chronicle, 'May 1, 1977. _ - ·1

.~/ 74. Catherine Gaugh, "Teachers accept pay contract," News I Chronicle, May 15, 1977. - I I

( ""-",--".1 i

I'. .------... -.-.- ...... ,_ .. ,,-- t . - I .j ~ ,; 61' - ! d -'. i 'I II Chapter IV - Footnotes :/ :1 , !I ! ! i I I I l. I L. McDonnel and A. P.ascal, Organized Teachers in I Amer'ican Schools. i I Washington, D. C. : National i ! I I Institute of Education, February, 1979, cited by I i ! Marvin A. I ! Nottingham, "Maturity in Collective i Bargaining, '! Educational Research Quarterly, I i Vol. 5, I I No. 2, Summer, 1980, pp. 2,3. i I I I I I

iI I - I I

t

, . ,. .,

.

,

A

- ( . "~.--:~'..- I l I ,'i,1 ". 62

., q / :, d

BIBLI,OGRAPHY II !I !I Agreement Policies and Procedures with the Board il of Educa tion and thecertifica ted P"e'r"SoiiIi'elof the 1i COnejo ValleyDnif"'Ied School District, July 1,"" 1974-! June 30, 197;. I

Brittain, Jack W., "At the Table: The Implementation of i Collective Negotiations Under the Rodda Act," C.li~ornia Public Employee Relations, No. 33, I June, 1977, pp. 9-15. II Californi~ Teachers Association. Collective Bargaining i Project, 1975 - 1977. I Contract of Agreement between, the Conejo Valley I Unified SChool District and the Unified Association! of Conej 0 Teachers, Calif'O'rnra-Teachers Association' and ~e National Education Association, 1977-1978.

/ The Educational Employment Relations Act Enacted , 1975 as' Senate Bill 160 (Rodda) Chapter-961, Laws of 197'5"with AmeIidiiieiit'SEnacted 1976, 1977, 1978. " Findings of Superior Court in Case No. 59285 California Teachersf Association, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Board of Trustees of the Conejo Valley Unified School District, etc., et al., Def~ndants.

Herman, Joseph, "Scope of Representation Under the Rodda Act: Negotiable and Non-Negotiable Issues," California Public Employee Relations, No. 32, March, 1977, pp. 14-24.

Kuhn, Roger P. Rodda at a Glance for Teacher Leaders. (Los Angeles: United Teachers--Los Angeles, March, 1976.)

McDonnell L. and A. Pascal. Organized Teachers in American Schools. (Washington, D.C.: National InStitute of Education, February, 1979.)

1 ( IL i ~_,...~l .{; i 63

Ii :i .i q I Nottingham, Marvin A. "Maturit~ in Collective Bargaining," ill I Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 5, No.2, j I Summer, 1980, pp. 2-7. ! i Recorders' Notes on Negotiations Sessions with UACT. ' J I Sessions 1-30. - - - ! !I

11 Tamouch, Philip. Factfinder's Report between the j Unified Association of conejo Teachers-aD:"d the Conej 0 Valley UnifieaSchool Di strict, W.arc~ I 1977.

"

I