/FR_'.Y:_~/
I IN THE MATTER OF THE FACTFINDING BETWEEN: l I 2 I i I 3 FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ) PERB CASE NO . ) S-R-34A; S-F-89 4 -and- ) ) FoisoM CORDOVA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ) 5 ____ ) 6
7 Factfinding Panel Membe rs:
8 Chairperson: JOE H. HENDERSON~ Arbitrator 9 District: BRUCE J. JULIAN Julian & Associates 10 P.O. Box f'il 79 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 11 Association : DENNIS L. BAMBAUER Calif~~nia Teachers Assoctation N 12 0 1714 West Street Ill• • 13 Redding, CA 9~001 · ~ ! 0 ,, z 0 ~ a: ., I: Cll i::: 0 0 Cll 14 ~ • i.. I ~ >C - ... ~ ,.,0 .J N ~ Ill 15 Spokespersons: . 0 . - ~~ ... I'. c "' '" "'J Ill0 ..." Dist~ict: NORMAN SIEFKIN t - 16 '1 Folsom Cordov0 Un ified Schvyl District ~z ~ c 17 1091 Coloma Street ., Folsom, CA 95630 18 Associat i o n: JOAN E. ~TOUT 19 California Te ac h~rs Associa tion 4144 Winding Way . Sacramento, CA 95841 20
21
22 The factf inding hearing w."ls lielrl on June 3,- 1981, at the 23 24 Public Employment Relations Roarcl Office, Sacramento, C.:3 l ifornia. n 'l'he panel met ~gain on .June 17, 1981, at the Oakland l\irp0rt, 26 Oakland, Califor~i a.
27 II 28 II 1 I SSUES:
2 1. SALARIES
3 2. AGENCY SHOP 4
5 INTRODUCTION: 6 The Folsom Cordova Unified School District was unified in 7 1949 from the Folsom High School Dis t rict and the neighboring
8 elementary di st r icts. Si nee thn t date, enrollment has inc rcased
9 from 684 to the present 9,873 students. The District is
10 c u r re n t l y ex pe r i enc i n g a de c 1 i n e i n en r o 11 men t • 'I' h i s t rend i s
11 expected to continue for the next three years, and then an ., 12 0 increase in enrollment potential exists in th~ Folsom area. The f5 II 0" 13 ! ~ 0 District is divided into three major population areas: Rancho l'I z 0 ~ & II: OI :: 0 0 0 14 ~ " Cordova, located eleven (11) mi les F.ast of Sacramento; Folsom, ~ ")II ...I IC 0 "'J N ~ II c II ~ ~ u 15 • 1'" located eighteen (18) miles Northeas t of Sacramento; and Ma ther .,c 0 ~ ~ ~ 16 ~ Air Force Base located approximately eiyht (8) miles East of ~ ~ z .,c 17 Sacramento • 18 The Di s t r i c t inc 1 u des l 4 e l e n ~ n t u r y sch o o 1 s , 2 j u n i fJ r h i g h
19 schools, 1 intermediate school, 2 high s chools, 2 c ontin uation
20 high schools, an alternative center , a school for the trainable
21 mentally retarded, an evening ~dult school, an adult school at 22 Folsom State Prison, special education for the educable mentally
23 retarded and special education for the educationally handicapped.
24 Th~ District is currently util i zing coordinated efforts of
25 approximately 993 employees (512 certificated and 481 classified) '
26 and represents a total yearly expenditure of appr ~ ximatel y $26
27 mill ion.
28 The Folsom Cordova Unif ied School District is organiz~d in accordance.with provisions of the Education Cude, Secti0ns 1-
87000, as appropriate. In addition, employees in the Folsom
Cordova Education Association unit enqage in employment pursuant to the mutually agreed upvn anct d ul y rat i fied collective bargaining agreement.
BARG AINING HISTORY:
The Folsom Cordova Educati on ~ ~ sociation is the exclusive
representative for all certific~ted teachers , school counselors ,
psychologists, librarians and nurses, excluding management and
·confidential employees. There are approximately 433 employees represented by FCEA. The current contract wa s ratified by the Board of Education on December J., 1981 and expires June 30, 1983. Negotiations for
1982-83 were to be reopened February, 1982, on compensation and two other items submitted by each party. The FCEA reopened negotiations with an initial pr0posal on
Ma r c h 2 , 1 9 8 2 , on Tr a n s f e r s l C 0 c:q H~ n s a t i c1n a nd
Organizational Fee. The District r ~ sp0n de d with the ir initial proposal on March 31, 1982, addre ssing Compensation, Class Size and Professional Responsibility.
Bargaining sessions were held N;n c h 31, April 15, 1.pril 21,
April 29, May 5, May 13, May 27, June 1, June 15, .a.ugust 10,
September 2, September 22, and Se pte mber 30. During the negotiation pr ei c ess a tentative ag r e em~n t was reached. on
Transfers and seime areas of compensation. At the Sep tember 30 session, t he Association declared ~r1 impasse. A mediator was appointed, and three mediation sessions were held .
l .. •'
During mediation a tent~tive agreement was reached on 2 related compensation issues. All other initial proposal items
3 were dropped by mutual agreement. A tentative agreement was
4 signed by both parties on December 8, but the FCEA members failed
5 to ratify the agrcem~nt on D~cembe r 1~, 1982. On February 14, . 6 1983, a letter from the mediator, addressed to the Public
7 Employment Relations Board, stDted thAt the parties had f ailed to
8 reach an agreement through the mediation process and recommended 9 factfinding. The PERB Regional Off ice declared factfinding to be
10 appropr late on March 14, 198 3.
11
.. 12 POSITION OF THE DISTRICT: 0 ... 'f ... II G 13 SAL.ARIES: ~ ! 0 I:! f'I z 0 " • Cl a: al ;:: 0 'f 0 CD 14 The District cuntends that the tentritive agreement between ~ lo. I w < I( ... II: Q. J N "} .. Ill "'u 15 FCEA and the District of a une time payment equal tv 3% of the .,,)• \ . ;;: ...... II. Ill 0 ) .0 .~ i:: 16 ~ enployees annual salary is fair and equitable. In light of the ~ ~ ") z < UI 17 fiscal dilemma facing the District, caused by the lack of state
1B funding for 1982-EJ. The District's pusi.tiun ·is that the
19 increase cannot be applied to the base salary schedule to f urther
20 impact the District's financial obligations in the coming years.
21 'I'he tentative agreement on salary was reached after much
22 discussion on the following cornpunents: 1) Comparison of the 23 Consumer Price Index and school district funding, 2) the issue of
24 the District's nbility to pay, and J) r;c,mparability vf
25 settlements for surrounding districts.
26 There has never bt:!en a oir~cl cvrrelatiCJn betW(:eo the 27 Consumer Price Index and the level uf St a t e funding for public
28 sch o c,I s • When i n f 1 a t i on wa s r u n 11 i n y i n t' x ct:! s s o f l O% , and the .. i . ..
1 Consumer Price Index indicated such , schools rece ived
2 considerably less from the State with which to operate thei r 3 budgets. This past year when the inflation level dropped under
4 4%, the state legislature responded by providing school districts
5 virtually no additional money. This lack of State support has
6 created an inability on the part of many districts to pay their
7 bills.
8 The District is currently pr~paring its budC)et fo r the 1983·-
9 1 984 school year and is faced with the hardship of cutting in 10 excess of $1.2 million to reach a balance budget. Any addi tions
11 to present salary schedules would further impact that serious
N 12 :: 0.. financial condition of the District and require even gre~te r cut~ ~ .,Ill r.: 13 in services and personnel for next year. ~ ! 0 f'I z 0 ::: a: G I: ~ s:: 0 .. 0 G 14 ':,; ~ ~ I During the bargaining sessi0ns, there has been no dispute ... I' - :; =: ..... I J ~ Ill ;. 15 over the District's budget f igurc~. Without additional money ....• I: . c ;:: < ~ .: " 0 I:0 -" 16 ~ from the State , the District agreed to pay the increased cost of •~ ~ z •., 17 step and c lass in addition to increases in employee medical a nd 18 fringe benefits. The District be liev0s that it can afford the
19 tentative agreement reached with the FCEA ~nd feels that the
20 offer is very reasonable sinqe the money being offered on a one
21 time basis was received and made available as one-time money to
22 the District during the 1982-83 year only. 23 The third component of the salary issue is the comparabilit
24 and appropriateness of the District snlary offer of 3% off the
25 schedule for 1982-83 only. s ~l ary data for this year indicates
26 that the District's off the sclwdulc offer is in line with many
27 other settlements in surrounriinq school districts.
28 Of the thirty-four scttle1a~rits on Sillary in the g n .·a t e r ~
I Sacramento area , only ten agreements plnced additional money .on
2 an existing salary schedule. Over 2/3 of the agreements reached
3 provided either no increase at all or maintained current salary
4 levels and allowed for off schedule increas~s only.
5 In reaching a tentative agree~cnt on salary, the District
6 and the FCEA considered many variables inc luding the District' s
~nd 7 ability to pay, comparability, the level of State funding a s 1
8 it relates to the Consumer Price Index. Even with serious budget
9 cuts in excess of Sl.2 million (acing the District, payments f or
10 step and class and increased costs for employee benefits were
11 paid this year. Additionally, the District offered an amount .. s~lary ea~h N 12 equal to 3% of the employee's annual to employee. s:: 0 "G 13 This money was offered on a one-time basis consider ing it w·as ! 0 ~ ,, z 0 't: c I: II s: 0 0 GI 14 received by the District as one-time money for the 1982-83 yea r ~ ~ "Iii ... I II: 0 ::; ~ -) ~ II ~ Ill 15 only. The tentative agreement was justi fi ed in Decemuer when tht"? . c. -... fl 0 -) 0 ... agreement was reached and it is equally justified at th is time. II: - 16 " ~ ~ cz fl 17
18 AGENCY FEE:
19 The Distri c t i s firm in i t s p0si ti0n 0£ rej~ c t ing th e
20 Association's proposal which seeks an agency shop or a
21 maintenance of membership claus~. The District is
22 philosophi~ally and fundamentally opposed tc, the concept of 23 requirlng me~bers to jc,in an organization for th~ right of 24 continued employment, or to have to pay .a fee to the Organization
25 for the r i g ht o f cont i nu in CJ ~ 1:1 pl <1 yi:ie n t •
26 'fhe District recognizes th~ right of employees to form, join
27 and participate in lawful _activities of employee organizations
28 and the equal alternative rigl1t of ~ mpl Gyees to refuse to form, 1 join and participate in employee organization activities .
2 To extract additional dollars for member dues or to require a contribution to a recognized charital>le organization approved 3 by the Folsom Cordova Education Ass0ciation would create 4 addjtional hardship on the individual reducing the dollar 5 by 6 amount in his/her pay warrant.
7 Additionally, FCEA has ~dmitted that there are no benefits to students, to the District, or to . ~n individual teacher that 8 9 might be forced to join or pay an agency fee.
10 On numerous occasions the term "negotiating fee" has been
11 substituted for the term and concept of agency fee. Throughout the duration of the agre~~ent, the District h~s paid for all IW 12 0 i:: ~ Ill release time and substitutes, and provided facilities for 2 G ~ 13 II; ! 0 z 0 ".: c ll"' It GI meetings. The only cost incurred by the FCEA appears to be for i:: 0 0 Cl 14 ~ ~ •JC lo. I ... " J ~ their printed materials. The As5ociati0n willingly asked to be ~ ~ Ill 15 p.,.)• I. c~ < a: Ill 0 ) 0 ... the exclus~ve representative without the negotiating fee. This Ir. - ~ 16 ~ ~ z responsibility was not forced up0n them. It they were initially •lft 17 willing to be recognized as the exclusive representative without 18 . a tee attached, why shc.iuld their individual membersbip be 19 required to pay for the service nvw? 20 Under an agency fee provision, there appears to be no 21 opportunity foi:ao.employee who is dissatisfied with the 22 Association to demonstrate his unhappiness by wi~hholdin9 his 2.) membership. 24 The position of the District nut to su~port an a~ency fee . 25 c 1 a use i s c <> m mo n i n o u r geog r a p h i c n 1 a re a • Qn 1 y 9 d i s t r i ct s , o r 26 less than 25.% of those districts in the greater S.ucramento area, 27 have an agency fee provisic•n in tht>i r employee C
7 If an employee assoc iation is performi ng i ts duties in an
2 effective manner and providing a viable service to its mem bers,
3 the members will bring more dollars to the Asso~iation, but wi l l 4 not guarantee a better level of service to students, which is the
~ only reason for the existence of Folsom Cordova Un ified School
6 District o .., I The Distr ict recogni zes the individ ual rights eif employees
8 to join and participate in employee organizations and their equal
9 alternative right to choose not to join and participate in
10 employee organization activi~ies. The position of the Folsom Cordova District is not uncommon in this geographical area. Le s s 11 I
N 12 then 25% of the districts have an agency fee clause in thei r ..0• G 13 contract. ~ ! 0 ~ ., z 0 " "'l:S I: I) a:: Ill ... 0 0 m 14 An agency fee would not prov i de a di rcct benefit to a t !; •)C ... I ~ :; ~ ~ ~ Ill specific employee that was reguireo to pay such a fee ; and i n . 0 15 ""'-> ll . - <( ...Ill 0 I ~ a: 0 .. I: - fact might creat~ a financial burden by having dulla rs removed ~ 16 -~ ~ z ~ •.. 17 from his/her pay warrant.
18 The FCEA requested the. right t <; be the e x c l u s iv ~
19 representative without a direct cost to every employe e in their
20 barg~ining unit. They should not expect to receive financial
21 support from employees not wishin~ to contribute. Forced
22 membership doesn 1 t make an association stronger, nor the level o f 23 service better. 24 The tentative agreement was justified in Decembe r and it is
25 justified now, without an agency f.ee cl a use. 26 I I
27 II
28 II ASSOCIATION POSITIONS:
2 SALARY:
3 The 1982-83 salary schedule shall be increased by 5% .
4 The Consumer Price Index has increased 62.2% from September , 5 1977 to August, 1982. During that same period of time the salary
6 schedule has increased 23.5%, a loss to inflation of 38.7%. (CPI I
7 used: SF-Oakland, ~11 Urban, accordinJ t0 the practice of the
8 parties.)
9 When the 1981-82 salary schedule is compared to salary
10 schedules of comparable districts at the maximum salary step,
11 Folsom-Cordova rnnks third lowe~t out of forty-six districts . .. IN 12 When the 1982-83 schedule is compared, Folsom-Cordova ranks 0 .,~ ~ II second lowest out of thirty-seven if no increase is applied to ~ 13 0 {1 ... i"' 0 It Cl a: OI ...... 0 ~ 0 II 14 the salary schedule; third lowest if a 2% increase is applied to 'O.l ~ ,. ... I 0 :i ... ~ 'I Ill ~ IJ"' Ill 15 the salary schedule; and fourth lowest if a 5% increase is • .,; ;;: ... ,, 0 a: 0 ... ~ c - 16 applied to the salary schedule. ~ .. 3~ "';i 17 F 19 schedule in this group of compctralile distri<.:ts. 20 When the 1982-83 salary schedule is compared at the minimum 21 salary step, Folsom-Cordov~ ranks lowest out of thirty-seven 22 districts if no salary schedule increase is granted; lowest if 2% 23 is added to the salary schedule; and sixth lowest if 5% is added 24 to the salary schedule. n The nverage salary schedule maximum salary for l~?.2-83 was 26 $28,291. With a 5% increase, Folsom-Cordova will be $1,865 below 27 the 1982-83 aver<'lge salary schedule maximum. 'l'o re~ch the 28 average maximum an 11% increase would be required. 9 •' I SCHEDULE: 2 The 1982-83 salary adjustment shall be on schedule . 3 If the salary adjustment is off schedule (bonus}, the 4 teachers will begin the year with a 5% salary cut. ~· 5 If the salary adjustment is off schedule. (bonus), the 6 teachers will suffer a life-time earnings loss. 7 If the salary adjustment i s 0ff schedule (bonus), a teacher 8 who retires in June, 1983, will lose $6,111.48 over twenty years 9 because bonuses cannot be counted as salary for purposes of 10 retirement. 11 ~ .. 12 1\G ENCY FEE; 0 •Ill I Cl 13 The agreement shall contai n an agency fee provision. 0 t f'I "i 0 ~ II: Ir:: GI s:: 0 0 Cll 14 The purpose of the collective barguining law, as contained ... !( "){• ... I ~ ~ .., ... J N ~ "'u Ill IS i n Government Code Section 3540, is to improve employer/employee • ... / c~ 19 allows the part ies to carry on thei r obligations without the 20 exclusive representatives having to politicize the uwrongs of 21 rnanagementn and conduct membership drives using the emplcyer as 22 the reason for increasing membership. 23 Agency fee creates parity with the employer. The State of 24 California reimburses employ~rs for ~11 bargaining-related 25 expenses. The fact that the District is reimbursed may encourage ']_(, the District to utilize costly legal prvcedures which is 27 otherwise might avoid. The exclus i ve representative ;:ichieves 28 parity to the District with an agency fee provision which lll ' - 1 provides the exclusive representative with the strongest possible 2 economic base . Since the passage of AB 404 (Ed Co d e 45061), many more ,.. 3 4 contracts are including agency fee provisions, i.e., Ventur ~ 5 Unified, Redding Elementary and Vista Unified. Many more wi ll b E·I: I l 6 added in the next round of bargaining. Seven districts had full 7 agency fee in our comparison group before the passage: of AB 404 8 (Ed Code 450G l). 9 The benefits of collective barg~ining are shared by each 10 member of the bargaining un~t. The costs of bargaining should ~ c ! I 11 . shared by each member of the unit. 12 Association members· have be en ~aking charity donations to ..0 •Ill Is.;; • 13 non-members • c Q ,. i Q fl ~ C> It al 0 0 GI 14 =~ ~ • .. I ::w •~ J ... ') c N u .. 15 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS ON AGENCY SHOP: . J - '"-.J c. ,... ..c ~ a: "'0 ...0 It - \) 16 The panel representative for the District has accepted the '~ ~ z ~ c 17 District position and the panel representative for the "' 18 Association·has accepted the. Association position regarding 19 Agency Shop. 20 The Chairman has the following comment: 21 · The panel has been form ed for the purpose of making 22 findings of fact for the 1982-03 f isc~l year. 23 That fiscal year will have passed by the date thi s 24 report is published. A recommendation on the Agency Shop 25 provisions for the 82-83 year at this time is of little value. 26 If this report were bt=?ing presented in ~lune of 1982, 27 the chairman would have recommended that the Agency Shop issue be 28 put to a vvte of the teachers. 11 . .... ~ ; ·· .. ·' J The chai rman now recommends that the parties consider 2 and negotiate on the terms of an Agency Shop language along wi~h 3 the other contract terms for the 1 983-8~-f_iscal year. The terms 4, of Education Code Section 45061 sheiuld be considered. 6' PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS ON SALARIES: 7 The panel has discussed in detail the position of the 8 parties taking into consideration the negotiations that took 9 place prior to the factfinding and make the following alternative 10 recommendation : 11 The panel recommends: 1) A salary of 3% off the salary Ill 12 scale retroactive for the 1982-83 school year, or 2) the 0 •Ill = G 13 alternative of a 1.4% incre~se on the scale. The cost to the ! ! 0 a: t'I 'Z 0 ~ Cl II: Ill District of the 1.4% retroactive increase on the scale w0uld be s:: 0 0 (I) 14 • lo. I ~ ~ x .. 0 ...- ...Ill di ·~ ~ 11'1 15 the same cost to the District by Decembe r 1984 as a 3% off t:be 0 i" .,c 0 .. ti. 0 ... ~ II: - salary scale for the 1982-83 year. '1 16 ~ 'Z ~ ~ 17 DA'I'ED: e;kf?/P\.S Ill I 18 19 20 ON, Aro1tratur 21 22 -000- 23 ?4 25 26 27 28 FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT .. CONCURRING ANO DISSENTING OPINION DISTRICT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO FACTFINDING PANEL Case #S-R-34A; S-F-89 I concur in part, and I dissent in part to the factfinding report in the above entitled matter. I concur with the Chairperson's report recomnendations, except as noted below regarding agency shop. Agency Shop - While the Chairperson did not recor. r.1end an agency shop provision for the 1982-83 impasse which resulted in factfinding, he has stated a personal opinion that such a provision would have been put to a vote of employees if his recommendationin had been made a year ago. I must voice strong opposition to that opinion for the following reasons: 1. There were no pertinent facts introduced in the hearing to support an agency fee of $270.00 per year for each individual unit member. In fact, the Association's own exhibit (#3-s·) listed only 9 school di.stricts {out of approximately 1100 in the State} that had an agency fee provision, and more than half of those 9 are located in Southern California. In contrast, the District presented evidence to show that the prevailing practice among school district contracts in the greater Sacramento area is overwhelmingly devoid of an agency shop provision . 2. In an economic era of limited raises for employees, it does not seem prudent to unwillingly reduce an individual employee 1 s disposable income by forced service fee payment. 3. The Association failed to present a shred of evidence to show that an agency shop provision would be beneffrial to District students - which should be the initial point of consideration in any school district decision. 4. The Association willingly sought and received an exclusive representative status without the condition of an agency shop. The question must be asked. what circumstances have occurred since that time that would now justify an organizational security provision? The answer, quite simply, is nothing. ~ . . . 5. The law specifically gives employees the right to joih or not join an employee organization. Forcing an unwilling employee to pay the full fee of membership would have tbe effect of denying a.n employee his/her legal · right, as well as the opportunity to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the employee or.ganization. 6. While the Association should be accorded the right to be philosophically corrmitted to an agency shop provision and to seek such a clause in bargaining, the District must also be allowed to philosophically oppose such an provision and reject it at the negotiating table. FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONCURRING ANO DISSENTING OPINION DISTRICT 1 S REPRESENTATIVE TO FACTFINDING PANEL Page 2 7. The Association reached a tentative agreement with the District earlier this year that did not contain an agency shop provision. It should not be allowed to gain through the factfinding process that which it could not gain in its tentative agreements at the bargaining table . . 8. l believe the Chairperson realizes the bargaining magnitude of an agency shop provision, which is why he merely suggests that this topic be integrated with 1983-84 bargaining; it is extremely significant that he has not reco111T1ended the election process for a 1983-84 resolution of this issue. for the reasons stated above the District should reject any speculation that the Chairperson's opinion on a June 1982 election for agency shop be applied to 1983-84 bargaining. Respectfully submitted, Bruce J. Juli an / District Advocate / /..., L u" · .. · . . , /c.,."-:::> Date BJJ/mp I approve the foregoing factf inding report , subject to any 2 supplemental or dissenting commen ts to follow, and respectfully 3 submit it to the FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFI~D SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of -i Education and to the FOLSOM CORDOVA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. ..~· 5 DATED : 6 --- 7 ; i ! t ~ 8 .- BRUCI:: .J •• ~JULI/\N 9 Districi Pa nel Membe r 10 l1 -oOu- • Ill 12 • 0 ~ ti" :t Cl 13 ~ 0 -.. • z 0 ..... ll r a: OI ... 0 ~ 0 CD 14 !( JI ... I ~ llC ::i ~ ~ ) " tjl . ~ 15 ..l ~ .c ;::- a: Ill 0 ~ "' ~ ~ 16 ?: ... ~ z ') c ti 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l J . ' 1 I approve the foregoing factf inding report, subject to a ny 2 supplemental or dissenting comments to follow, and respectfully 3 submit it to the FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of 4 Education and to the FOLSOM CORDOVA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. 5 6 7 ;) - /.' ) 8 ~£~~~<-DENNIS L. BAMBAUER 9 Association Panel Mumber 10 11 .. 12 0 ;:: i G The Association rcprC'scnt:itivt• di:'scnt s re .~arding the rec - i$;; 13 ! 0 { ,, z 0 I: ID It OI ;: 0 0 Ill 14 Olllllll'!Hlatjo11s ror ltw S:ilary i\d_i11 st"llH'lll° for Folsorn/C:ordov;1 Har- ~ !( )( .. I I: " 0 J N ~ " ~ u ii gaining unit 1111.'mhers ror thl' yl':1r l~lH.~/83 . Th<.' rationale.' for my • c ;:: 15 ~ a.: '1 0 ~ 0 " t.) a: - 16 di ssent is :is follows: ~z ~ c .The Chairman the F:1ctr i 11di11g l\lllL'l chOSL' to grl'ate r Ill 17 or 18 i:nport:1nL:e to ihL' h ; 1 r~ : lini11~~ hi~tnn · hl't \\'een th<' p :1rti es. o\·er - 19 1 o o k i n g th c r a c t t ha t t h c p rod ll L" t o r t he ha r g a i 11 i n g I> l' l'\\! c e n t h c 20 parties fa~~.£~.~ to r0solve th<.' iss11t's. There is no qttl'stion hut 21 that the -statute al lows the Fact rinding P:rncl to cons i der other 22 rclcv~nt fact~: however. I Jo not hcl il'H' it \\'tlS thl' i ntent or 23 the Lcgislaturt' for factfi1Hlin1! p:1nl'1~ to total l ~' l'Xt.:l1alc con- 24 s iderations o r J t('lllS I thnrngh h in tht' statute, \d1id1 :ire : 25 1. S tatl' ;snd federal l :1ws that :1rt' :1ppl iL· :1hle to th0 c m ployC'r . 26 ·) Sti1>ul:1tions of the narties. ... ;1 • Th l' . j 11 t (' r l' ~ t s a n d \\' (' '1 r; I re.. () r t lw r ll h 1 i c a 11 d t h (' f i nan - 27 c i ] 4 and w i t h o the r cm r l o ye c s ~~ l' 11 c r a 11 y i n pub 1 i c sch o o 1 employment in comp:nahlc communities. S . The consumer price in Only after weighing the evidence submitted hy the parties regarding issues covered in Items 1 _through 6, an .evidence which is helpful in framini~ the recommendations. Tn this partjcul:1r instance,· the Clwirm:m chose to look at the corollary evidence rather than tlic evidence put forth hy the parties relating to the mandntory ltcms 1 through 6. The Folsom/Cor The District fni.lcd to present any C'\'idcncc in support of thnt nllcgation. r hcli<.'Vl' that their : illl'.~:1tion \'WS rai s e and I was prepared to demonstrate to the P:incl thnt the District cou.ld afford thC' Association' s demand. Tf the purpose of the fact fine.ling panel i s to assi s t the part i cs in improving cmploycT employce relations, thC'n thi s Panel failed when it refused to consider the compar:ihi1ity of thl' teachers' ~nlary schedule to other like school distri cts. l\'hcn the Panel rccommC'tHb a sal- nry adjustment which cithc1· loh·ers the rclativ<.' ranking or con - t inllCS to pl:!<:C the t'mplO}'C'c.'~ in th<.' lowest quartile of salaries earned hy s imil:n cmploycc·s in like distrh.·ts, it is guilty of n11owing the c:rnccr to contim1c rather than recommending a prophylaxi ~ 15 In closing , 1 sha ll dissent c,11 thl' substantive matter or the salary ad_iustment. During the lwarings I oppos<.'d this recommendation for the oh\'ious n•:1son th:it ··one -or the choices continues the same dispute, which is, "Should the increase be a part of the Sal:iry Schedule?" Mr. Scifk i n, the Distr i ct ' s representative, on hchnl f of the District, made the fol l owing request of the J>nncl: "I wo~~ .~~- --1.:_~~p~~-t:tfully 1·cqucst tht• Chair person and members to anply tht' ...S: .. ~!!_ccpt of the h:ilanci _ ~~ test so often referred to in llcnr~ - ~!i ..Ll .. ~~-~r' s determinat ~ .~_ns..:... By this I mean an :ippro:ic..:h that_ _~ ~ ~·~~i_~l.t~1~.::_-- ~l~~-!~_::r>cc_!2_!]~e needs and jnterest of hath partics. 111 The choice of 3~, off the sc..:hellulc clearly Rc s.r cc t f u 11 y s uh mi t t c 1 • I> i s t r i c t ' s p r l' s L• n t a t i o n , I' :i .\..'. t • T,, . o • - •' PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - CCP 1013a, 2015.5 1 I declare that: 2 I am (a resident of I employed in) the county of ...... ~ 4 ?) ~. ~c~m.'!tX. ~e~te.i: ..l!r .•. ,_ .~u.i ~-" ..17_7~[\,. _La .. P_l~?'~ ..w!'.s t_,. !;a!}t":. R_os 5 on ...... -~~n~ .. ?~. ~ .. ~ ~.~ ~ ...... , I served the attached . .. .F'.~~~f~~P~.~0 .. ~~~~-~'!'...... I IDATEI 6 I 7 •. •...... ••• .• •••... - . . . • • . . . • ...... on the ...-~.~T.~~~~'.r:~~-. !?.~~-'1:~~~ .. , ...... 8 in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, In the 9 United States mail at ...... • • • ~.~~-~ ~ .. ~9-~?\. ~ . _c;T\~ ~ ~9~~ ~-~ .. , ... _.. _.... . addressed as follows: 10 Bruce J. Julian School Management Consultants 11 P.O. Box 6179 Laguna Niguel* CA 92677 12 13 Dennis L. Bambauer California Teachers Association 14 1714 West Street Redding, CA 96001 15 16 Norman Siefkin Folsom Cordova Unified School District 17 1091 Coloma Street Folsom, CA 95630 18 19 Joan E. Stout California Teachers Association 20 4144 Winding Way · Sacramento, CA · 95841 21 : . ~ . 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the taws of the State of California that the foregoing" - is true and correct. and that 23 this declaration was executed on Santa Rosa 24 .. .. --~~-~~-. ?.~ ! .. ~ ~.~ ~- ...... , at ...... • • . . • . . . • California. IDATEI 25 ' . £ ' . {. ANNET'rE · !-1.ARSH f /,l[ ·t) I I'' 0 Io o + • 0 I 0 .0 u 26 'I J Ul -LO rrw ITYf'I OR l"llllNT HAMEi a SICNATUl'!E ....l'ION 191USI ~OllM NO 21 ltEV "'UGiUST 18111