001Michelle Breen here. DJ Donier here. Stephanie Edman here. Randy Hidman here. Sarah Spear here. John Ward. All right, we will do the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. This meeting of the Brainer School Board is being conducted in accordance with Minnesota statutes 13D.02. This meeting is being recorded. We will look for an approval of the agenda as presented. I'll move that we approve the agenda. Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, we'll do a roll call vote because we do have people that are not present in person. DJ Doner, here. Stephanie Edman, yes. Randy Heiden, yes. Sarah Spear, yes. Michelle, yes.
002All right. Um, public input. Due to this being a special schoolboard meeting, there will be no public input allowed during this meeting. We have one action item under new business, and that's to discuss the approval of EMD's level three grievance. Um, just to give a little bit about the context or how this will go, we'll we'll allow the the union to spend some time talking a little bit about um the grievance. We'll give uh Ali some time to talk about it as well. And um then we'll ask the board to bring their questions to either or both groups and um go from there. Go from there. Sound good? All right. Thank you. First, I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that this is maybe the nicest day we've had since
003last summer. So, spending our time sitting in the boardroom having this meeting is probably not not your first choice. I appreciate your time and being here today. Um, I did put a copy of the grievance that I initially submitted to uh the board chair. Um, it does have contact information for the three uh families that were representing uh both current and retired employees of our district. And rather than refer to them by name, we'd like to refer to them by uh by number. So, if you look at number one, if we can refer to that uh that couple as family number one, uh if you look at number two, family number two, and number three would be family number three. So, we can avoid using names of current employees in our district. Um, so I'm
004not used to this. We haven't really had this before. So I hope you'll give me the indulgence of kind of telling a story. Um, I'm a contract negotiator and I'm on our health insurance committee. And this fall I was looking back at some of the information shared to us by HR in terms of what the contributions are to different health plans. and I noticed that there was a different way of presenting some of that information than we'd had in the past. So, I set up a meeting with our our benefits manager to ask some questions about what was going on. And that's when I learned that um family one had received a retirement health benefit starting in 2020 that was a little bit different than my understanding of what had happened in the past. and
005that family two had received that same benefit in 2024. So I went back to talk to family number three who had retired in 2020 to say is that the information that you received as well because I didn't track the retirement situations very well once folks retire. We often you know just touch base here and there and he said no that is not what I received and so he scheduled a meeting with the benefits manager to talk through that process a little bit. All three of these families had been a teacher married to teacher um in our district. So all three had been receiving a teacher married to teacher benefit upon their uh during their employment and then um each family had uh one spouse retire prior to the other spouse. So that really prompted me
006to go back and look at our contract to read sort of what's there on certain pages. And so I'll I'll if you'll indulge me a little bit more, I'll give you the page numbers and the articles so that you can research them if you want to. On page 15, which is article 8, section two, subdivision one, it says, "Teachers who retire will have their medical insurance premiums compensated at the rate identified in the agreement that was in effect during the year of their retirement." So then I started thinking, well, maybe that's appropriate. Then later on page 16 article 8 subsection 4 subdivision one again um it kind of defines eligibility for single or family plan will be based on participating status as of sub September 1 during that last full year of teaching. Um it
007further says in the next paragraph um you have to be at least 55 have 15 years of experience and it says at the time of retirement will have their medical insurance premiums compensated at a fixed dollar amount equal to the percent the school district contribution to the representative insurance plan identified in the master agreement that was in effect during their retirement year up until Medicare age or uh 12 years whichever is less. And then the last one to look at would probably be page 19, article 10, section two, which explains the teacher married to ISD 181 employee benefit. Um and that's kind of where we we then met to say we think we have a bit of a problem because the our me or our um our members and our retired members received a letter
008in uh January I believe stating that that benefit would end like at at that end of that month. And so we um scheduled a meeting with Holly and the benefits manager and started to kind of talk through our process and concerns because looking forward we would have a fourth uh family employee married to employee uh retiring this spring. So kind of the idea is we got to figure out what's going on here because it can't just be a stop. Um and we talked through it. I also contacted our education Minnesota lawyer who mentioned um a phrase called promisori estoppel which is when you have a promised benefit that is denied moving forward and that's not a legal practice and so we've kind of wanted to get together and try to find resolution for what we
009should be doing here because I feel like there the the language is clear if you read it with one eye and it's differently clear if you read it with a different eye and that's often a gray area that could be a problem. Um, so to have the contract interpreted in two different ways for two different um groups of retirees who both retired under the same contract language in the same circumstances is problematic as you can imagine. Um, our two uh both family uh one and family two who both retired under the promise of this benefit. Um they they retired in part because of that benefit because as they met with their financial adviserss and they met with the district uh to determine whether or not retirement was feasible for them at that point. They use
010the information that was provided to them by the district um in order to make that determination if they were able to if they were able to retire, if they were able to move forward with that or if they needed to continue their employment um in the future. And so both of them made the decision to retire based on the information that they were provided by the district about what they were eligible for for retirey health benefits. that's the only reason they retired. At least one of the couples said that's why he was able to retire would not have been able would not be able to remain retired. Um, so one of the changes that we we think about, so I brought a bunch of contracts to try to track where these things came from, is
011remembering that in 2010 we moved into the Affordable Care Act, which allowed for dependents to stay on your health insurance until age 26. I think that was actually done by Bill Clinton, but whatever. I get you. Yeah. the So either way, um the um the point there was that a lot a number of our uh retirees weren't retiring with dependence that could still be covered. And so in both family one and family 2's cases, they retired with the need for a family plan because they still had aged dependence rather than being able to go on two single plans, which was kind of the practice prior to that because very few people who retired had dependence under the age of 18. And uh kids at 18 or graduation out the retirement. So having the dependence be
012able to be covered until the age of 26 changed that for many families because suddenly they needed continued coverage until their their youngest child turned 26 rather than 18 years old. They used to be able to stay on your insurance while they went to college, didn't they? I don't remember. I think so. Regardless, doesn't make any difference. Things have changed, that's for sure. So, what we're looking for is moving forward, we have we have we have two families who are currently receiving a benefit. Um, and the district did continue that benefit um while we go through the resolution of this process, which we appreciated. Um, we have two families who uh who we need to have resolution of what their benefits look like moving forward. We believe that they should be given the benefits that
013they were promised upon retiring. Uh, family three um is not asking for or expecting any sort of retro, but would like to have his family moved on to the same retirement. uh plan as everybody else is who retired under the same contract language and the same interpretation moving forward. There is no everybody else. That's not exaggerating. I'm the car salesman and I'll do the exaggerating if you don't mind. Well, two people. Well, you make it sound like it's like a community and and we do have another two families. We do have another family retiring again uh this spring who would also be impacted in this way for a short period of time because I believe that their youngest children actually age out of family health and insurance at sometime this winter. Don't you think we
014should be dis I mean the the two families that are going to be retiring? What there's one that's going to be retiring? Um to me that's a separate issue. We are willing to have conversations. Yeah. all sorts of conversations about what makes the most because I mean, you know, before retiring, I mean, I So, all we did was look at IRS rules and regulations and law. I mean, you know, you talk about a promise. Was this in writing or was it verbal? Well, I mean, if you if you consider the fact that they were given the benefit, I I think that would be considered in writing. No, wait. I'm serious. I think that's a valid question. Do is this in writing from Angie Bennett? They were provided with the benefits. So, no, it's not in
015writing. Not that we know of. Okay. We weren't part of those meetings. It was just it was just a question. Yeah. So, what does a contract actually say to me? I see three options according to the contract. Well, it um tell me more about what the options are. Well, I mean, in article article 10, section two, uh, first of all, you have in order to give TMT, you uh, you have to be married to an employee. If you're retired, you're not an employee, right, anymore. So looking at the, you know, the the the options, you get one paid family, two fully paid single plans, or a specified dollar amount. That's it. Three options. Well, and and our understanding would be that that's how the previous uh benefits manager interpreted that as well. The flow, however,
016going page 15, then 16, then 19 gives me some question about that because 15 and 19 clearly say you get the dollar amount you were receiving in your last year of employment when you were an employee married to employee. So, I feel like there's a there's a question there about what does that mean? And because um I totally understand your your logic where you're at. All all three retirees uh retired as the carriers of their family insurance. So the family insurance was in their name. So they were receiving the full value of the family health benefit on their as their benefit. So when you look at a fixed dollar amount for family one and family two, that dollar amount was looked at as this is the dollar amount that you were receiving upon retiring, which
017is why you're entitled to that fixed dollar amount moving forward. Oh yeah. I didn't read it that way. I read it that it you got the fixed dollar amount of what a single plan would be is the way I read it. But regardless, I'm not an attorney. So, no, I'm not either. Don't plan to be one either. Well, then um any other questions? Who are you? Who is the union? Who are you filing a grievance on behalf of? I'm the president of Education Minnesota Brainard. So, we are filing a grievance on behalf of these parties. Okay. Which parties? Family one, family two, and family three. Okay. Let me ask this question. Can you file agreements on a retired employee? According to the law, yes. As of right now, there is a legal proceeding, I believe,
018going through the courts right now that could change that, but has not yet been has not been established as a change in law. We also have from each of the families, one of the spouses is currently a teacher. So, Oh, right, right, right, right. We could be representing the current employee as well. But I would say more than anything, we're we're um we're representing the contract language itself because there's a question here whether that is the correct interpretation because we also need to discuss the interpretation of this move forward. This will not be the last time that we have a situation in which we have uh two retired teachers receiving teacher married teacher employment where one retires before the other. Sure. Not on the flip side, there's a cap to it because people who were
019hired after 2009 have a different retirement benefit. So this isn't something that goes on infinitely by any means. And it also would only be people who retire with the need for a family plan. So Misty and I, for example, when we go to retire, we will have no need for a family plan because our youngest will be aged out no matter what. So, um there's there's a real finite look on that. Plus, we are currently in contract negotiations, which gives us an opportunity to potentially clean clean up that language. But right now, we are still operating under this other contract. Have you talked to family number three? Yes. In depth? Yes. Okay. Um uh his family number three does have a spouse employed by the district, not as a teacher, but on an NEA contract
020actually still. Correct. Okay. Um, did he state that what he was receiving as far as the contribution that it was correct according to the contract? I would say that he said that He is receiving what was explained to him verbally, not in a written fashion, by the benefits manager before at that time. Okay. So, he understood what he was doing. Family number three fully understood. He he did not agree with it, but understood that that's what Yeah. And he I'm assuming he didn't agree because he was looking to get what family one and two were going to get. Well, he didn't know that because family would come afterwards. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So really what you're looking at is a transition from three to one to two but I I don't know all of the details.
021So in January uh families one and two were notified that their benefits would discontinue and it may not have been January. I don't have the actual letter in front of me but sometime this winter. Yes. They were uh notified by letter. uh that their current uh uh retirey health benefit would be would be retired as of uh I believe March 1st was the date that was used at that time. Um which caused some uh significant amount of alarm as you can imagine for both uh for both family one and family 2 as it raised their uh health insurance premium significantly into the future. Just so I am clear Michelle made it sound like they got kicked off the policy. They still have the policy. Correct. We're just not the school district just isn't funding him
022for as much money. Is that right? Or are they had to start over? No. So, a letter was sent that there would be cease and desist for January, but then we met with the district to say stop paying them what they're um receiving until this is settled. And there was agreement with the district to extend that. So, right now they're receiving the same thing that they were receiving. I understand. But are is their policy still intact? I'm sure it is now. Is it going to is it going to stay intact? That's what we're trying to like they would still have access to the policy, but the rate at which they're receiving Well, they'd have to pay more out of their pocket than they were before. That's what we're talking about. Just money, not the actual
023policy. They're not getting kicked off the policy. No. Okay. Just to make sure. Yeah. It was just a stop contribution. Their contribution. And the reason that they were given that they would be um make their own personal contribution was what? That the district had made a I'd have to go back and look the exact letter, but the the and maybe Olly has a copy of that. um that the district had uh upon further review uh recognized that their benefit was in in erroneously applied and I'm the one family number one's been receiving the benefit since 2020 2022 okay family three family three has not been receiving that benefit at all retirement was in 2020 but if the other ones forward. Yes. Okay. And then family two is as of 2024. Yes. Okay. And family uh
024family one uh their youngest child would age out of uh requiring a family health benefit in uh October I believe. Uh whereas family number two has a significant um more time than that. So the intention is when uh a child uh or ages out then the two people would go in single plans and that is the understanding. Okay. Which is I'm guessing cheaper. Y know how much it was our numbers guy. Okay. And that's one of the three options under the master contract. Yes. You're wondering how much they have to pay. I am wondering what the Yeah. Either what they have maybe what they have to pay and then I'm also wondering what the difference is. One's paying three something and one pay four. It's in here. information about whatamilies will be impacted. Okay. Uh
025we have it. It's that in the 407 a month for Okay. Uh one family two. Okay. And 371 for family one. Yeah. Okay. That that's in that other that's what we're talking about. That's that's basically what this is all about. And the difference when a family moves from that family plan to two singles is roughly $450 or $500 depending on the year that they were. Okay, back to family number three. Um, is his grievance within the time frame for making it according to the master contractor? Well, once you know you have a concern, that's different than not knowing you had a concern to start with. So, he didn't know he had a concern until that there was a there was a discrepancy in how the retirey family health was being applied to other retirees. So
026he he retired in 2020. The other family retired, then the second family, first family retired in 2022, the next one in 2024. And so he didn't learn until four years after retiring that it had been applied in a different way to different families. So upon that, that is when he looked into the information, communicated with the district to find out what was happening. And we started the process of of uh determining what was happening to try to, you know, we did we had no desire to file a grievance. was certainly not our our best case scenario. The the goal was to have this um to have some sort of a resolution to this uh prior to that. And so when it became clear after our meetings and conversations with the district that the district was
027not going to be um making any changes to their original decision, that is when the grievance uh the grievance was filed. So yes, it would have been time which we got. I want to let you guys know that I'm He's here. Excuse me, madam chair. Yes. Hi, John. Um I've been able to connect I've been able to connect via phone maybe. Okay. Welcome. Thanks for joining us. Um the the one thing I would say, Director Ward, is if we cannot see you on video, uh you can join the meeting and be a part of it, but you are not able to vote unless we can see you. I wonder about Okay. All right. But thank you for joining us and yes, definitely please listen in and ask questions. Well, I tried to join by video,
028but um it didn't work down here. Sounds good. I have a question. Um, what is the cost to the district if we were to continue with what appears to be what we promised? for you. Ali, I I was just asking what is the cost to the district if we were to continue um in this arrangement that we had promised to these two families or yeah two families. Thank you for that. Marcy, Lord, and McKenzie has done calculations and based on their calculation, it will cost the district 1.6 million. I don't not for the two families that are not the district. Yeah. Right now, I think we're focused on the two families. We're not. You're focused on the two families. I'm focused on the school district and the 6,000 kids that are enrolled here and the,200
029uh people that work here. So, you guys are worried about too. That's your job. I understand your job, but let's not get confused what my job is. Or tell me what my job is. Well, that's what it'll be because we'll set the precedent. For the three families that are outlined in the three families, first of all, number family number three, it you had, you know, I guess you can whatever. There's no reason for us to argue about this. This isn't our job. Let's move on. We have questions. Let's have the questions. My question was, what is the cost to the district if we were to follow through with our agreement, our alleged agreement on these two or three families? Well, it seems clear to me that if the additional premium for each family, we've got
030one at 371 and one at 407. Okay. That's the difference. How about the one you're talking about that's going to retire now? Are we going to have to pay it on that one? Uh, I don't think we are addressing I don't think we're addressing that one right now. Well, then are you going to say that that the number that that uh Marcy Lord came up with is wrong, 1.6 million? Are you going to agree to that or not? I don't know that I can. I don't know that you can either because it's the first time I'm hearing it. Um I think we have a difference also in terms of um where we are. So when I understood this practice to begin, it was under a teacher married to teacher situation. It has grown to an
031employee married to employee. And I'm not here to litigate that conversation, that practice where we're at. That's a part of the bargaining conversations. Correct. and what we entered in with and and I appreciate you asking this because at some point we bring forward something and we were willing to talk about have always been willing to talk about to try to find a resolution to this situation which maybe doesn't meet everything that we have listed here but we do want to talk about the farreaching uh implications if we don't come up to some sort of resolution but that wouldn't be a part of the grievance process right the family who's retiring this spring. It would be a short window anyway because their youngest, they have twins who are 25 and will be turning 26 shortly. And
032so whatever the the cost of the district for that would be would be roughly $400 times however months until their children age out. And the part that I don't know is um because it's a retiree health benefit, it's out of the under the OPED fund and I don't know to what level we are drawing OPED at a maximum per year or if there's more access that could happen through OPED. So the and how much of this comes out of the general fund. That was one of the questions that we posed during conversation with the colleague and the was whether or not OP funds could be used in order to pay for this. um we were not provided any actual information from the district. Um after asking that question funds would not feel like tonight we
033are dealing with these one, two or possibly three families. The family that's retiring at the end of this year would fit under that bargaining um discussion. Although we won't have bargaining is just starting. So, right, they're retiring under the same contract that these three would be receiving benefits under and we will not have completed that bargaining language prior to retirement, which is why it gets a little tricky. We've always been open to conversation. We we've always been open to we're not unreasonable people. just want to do what's right by members who retired under a benefit that they were promised and not have different members retiring under the same contract language but receiving significantly different benefit from the district. But again, when you use the term promised, that was something that was a discussion based upon
034the existing contract language. Correct. Yes. Okay. I'm seeing. Yeah, to me there's only three options. But again, I'm not an attorney. What concerns me is going down the road, too. I mean, you got, you know, Well, I'm not going to get ahead of And we understand that. We we absolutely understand that. We understand the continuing issue. Um we don't think that the number of families impacted by by this is is very many to be perfectly honest. Um simply because typically when people retire they often don't have children under you know under the age of 26 which is why tonight we really need to focus on on the the immediate issue of families who are currently receiving a benefit. Um and we can have those conversations moving forward into what that looks like for our future.
035Absolutely. outside of outside of the grievance process. We're happy to do that. Again, I I really struggle with family number three uh only because of the fact that he he kind of was the one who understood what the benefits were at the time that he retired. And in fact, he he he knew what the benefits were. And I think the union even agreed with him. We didn't actually have any we we have no uh we have no unless we are invited into those meetings. We don't have conversations with our employees who are retiring. They meet with the district to determine what their benefits or eligibility unless they specifically ask for our input or support. In fact, I've never sat in one before. Uh typically our teachers make those appointments on their own. Um they trust
036the information that is being provided to them by the district and they move forward without involvement at all. My concern about family 3 truly is that we have uh we have then different different people retiring out of the exact same contract linkage who are receiving a significantly different benefit from the district. There's a lack of fairness there that I think is significant. Which one is fair to address? Well, that's the question. What what's not fair is to have two different benefits being applied to the same to people applying retiring under the same contract language. It's not about one number being more fair than another number. It's about two two different applications of the contract language. So clarifying the interpretation of it going forward to be advantageous. Absolutely. Yeah. There's no doubt that needs to happen.
037Absolutely. Okay. Right. [Applause] I'm slow. But did the contract language talk about employee married to employee or is it teacher married to teacher? Not that that probably really matters, but so our contract says teacher married to employee. Okay. Um like I said, um for many years, the other bargaining units, their health insurance just said same as teacher. And so um a teacher married to employee was going to be paid at the same rate regardless of the bargaining unit. Okay. over the last few contracts that has tended to separate um but at the same time employ it was uh applied to all employees married to employee and that actually started under our previous HR some time ago and so there's there's a number of different items there at play. So how did you guys address this
038issue? I mean, obviously I mean, I'm just I'm assuming some teachers contacted you or talked to you about some of these issues or I mean people talk. Yeah, of course. You know, people talk. Um, so I would say that there are not that many people who have reached out about these specific cases. Um, when we met with Ali and we met with the district, we talked to them and advised them that this was not the best thing to go and spread around and try to either garner support or or whatever. Okay. And that we would try to just work through it through the regular channels. Um, but as Misty said, we in in in first of all, Misty became president in like 2020, right? 2018 co-president and then 2020. Yeah, it was a great time.
039So um in our in our history and in the previous president's history, it is unknown of any level one grievances. So most of the time things have just been handled and tried to work out. Um meet in the middle compromise, which is how we like to operate when whenever possible. We, you know, we're not excited about filing agreements. We're not excited about the possibility of arbitration. You know, we would really like to we'd really like to handle these issues without having to go uh go to this level. I don't believe you. Stressful for everybody. Yeah, they're they're not easy. What do you What do you I have some information I got from um Marcy. Want me to share it? Yeah. So, according to Marcy and McKenzie, family number one has one year left. Family number
040two has five years to go. Yes. On the plan. Correct. Yes. And right now the total is $28,872 prior to them reaching um med eligibility for Medicaid. Well, they would go to two single plans prior as soon as their children age out. It wouldn't be Medicare eligible. It would be going to those moving to those two single plans rather than family plan which is significant less expensive. So that's the number we would be looking at is the second time their children age out. You've sworn in abort me. Do you know what that number is? Oh, that would be 21,000, right? 872. I It would be family number two that has five years to go because I'm assuming they have a eligible. Yes. Dependent, right? Two, I think. Okay. Maybe not just but So you don't
041think there's anybody before 2020 then because this has been since 2011. So you don't think in the last in those nine years anybody had this situation? Not that you know of? No. Not not that we're aware of because nobody nobody because everybody got what they were supposed to get. we went back through. We don't believe that there was a situation like this in which we had um we had one retire, one stay employed and have dependent under the age of uh of health insurance eligibility. So, we we did our due diligence. We we looked we tried to find more information and we we couldn't find anybody else that would have um that would have that would have been impacted by this. So Peter, you said 20 about 287 29,000 29,000 for family one and family
042two combined, right? Not bringing in family three. Okay. And then of course there's the family we can't talk about that's going to be on the program in June. Uh only for one year if that were the case. Well, whatever. Maybe they maybe they adopt a baby. I don't know. I think that's highly well. Whatever. It could be un highly unlikely. I don't care if it's highly unlikely. To be perfectly I'm just telling you what could happen. I'm not even sure. I don't even know if they're dependent from fire. Well, whatever. We can't information that to be perfectly frank. The reason why we haven't addressed that family specifically is because we didn't want to promise uh something to them too. So that's why we've kind of left them out, but also recognize that we that they
043need to be dealt with because they will be retiring under a similar situation. So we don't know the circumstances of that. All we know is that they would that they have children who will age out uh and turn 26 within the next calendar year. I don't know if their children I know some of their children are professionals. I don't know what that means for their for their health insurance needs, but we do need to address that moving forward. It's the one other family that's going to be impacted by this before we have an opportunity to address this in any sort of bargaining language. which we can't do. It's not up to us. Can Can I We're not We don't have that ability. Sure. Just take a for a second. You know, we can't change the
044rules for that family that's retiring. And the big deal is is exposure. Um they don't know if anybody from 2011 to 2021, they don't know. They looked back. They don't remember. I That's a long time. Thank you. Is it when we start promising stuff to people that when does Ali get his turn? All of a sudden people start saying, "Well, yeah, let's let's swap." I know we need to negotiate, but I think we're really fast. Well, you guys are fast. Together. We did a lot. So, I'm going to go back for a second and and I again appreciate you guys so much for being here. Um, where we entered into the conversation was the hope that we could make some proposals along the way that might be more amicable than just, you know, take it
045or leave it or this is all in or nothing. So, I think what I'm going to propose is that the board could move to support something that then we could decide if that something was good enough to drop our grievance, especially if that something included like anou about what would happen, let's say for family one or or three, three or four. if the bargained language which we settle for our next contract brought it so that they should have received something but I pose that as a very hypothetical resolution to the situation because I'm confused. Not only am was I not super excited about level three arbitration sounds worse. What just I didn't hear that Eric question. Arbitration sounds worse as I read what's in there or whatever. So, I'm hoping we could come to a
046resolution here if possible, but I won't tell you how to do it would be really inappropriate considering we're in negotiations with EM and to start having the board making that kind of a decision. You're out of line for that if you agree because you're not letting then the negotiation team function. you've already made a decision which impacts the negotiation process coming up or that's already started. Well, it wouldn't be anou it would be never end. And I'm just telling you don't let that happen in its normal process because that's what we have Ali me and Marcy and John for. Do end if there's an end date. I'm just telling you. And we also have to take into consideration what our legal counsel tells us to do as well. That's kind of oldfashioned thinking. [Laughter] Why
047are we here? That we were supposed to do this on Monday, last Monday. Why are we here today? Because we decided the attorney doesn't know what he's doing. Do we want to get a new attorney? Is this something we should talk about? I mean, do you not feel comfortable with him? Is there something wrong with this guy? Like, what is the deal? How could this happen? Why can't why am I here again? Back to the actual conversation and we can talk about that. I do think that's something we need to talk about but I was not comfortable talking about employees in an open meeting and at that point um there was not a lot of ways around it. I didn't have a lot of confidence that we could have this conversation without saying names out
048loud that people and people that are our employees right now and they should have the opportunity to say if they want things discussed about their employment um out loud. It it just put us in a really I thought a bad a bad position to we're in the same position today. We just took another day. But anyways, let's just keep on trucking. my perspective and I've been an employee of this district for over 20 years. My husband's been employed here for 25 years. Both of our children were uh were raised in this district. They both are successful young women. Um we're very very very thankful for the education that we received here. A huge part of the reason why we stayed in Brainer. We don't have roots here. Um is because of the really high quality
049education that our children receive. So appreciative of that. Um really what this comes down to in large part for us is that this is our home and home needs to feel like a place that you can trust. And we have two employees uh two retired employees now and two employees who are still being impacted by this who are who are told in good faith by our district that this is the benefit that they would receive that it would be preferred upon them in retirement. So my concern is that when we look at this as a home we look at this as a place to belong uh that our employees can trust that when they receive information from the district that they use when determining life choices. I mean, I'm not sure there's a much bigger
050life choice other than when to have children and get married than when to retire and when you can financially make that work and when you can start moving forward with the next stage of your life. And so, if we no longer have a a school district in which our employees can trust that the information that they receive from the district when they're making those huge life decisions is accurate, then I have concerns about what that means for us moving forward as a as a district at a positive place. My biggest concern is none of us were there when these the people that made the mistakes aren't here anymore either. But they they received the benefit which means the promises were were followed through with by the district. So it doesn't matter what was said verbally.
051What matters is that they were told one thing and the district followed through with what they were told. So the the the we didn't have to be there because the district conferred the benefit upon them at that time. And my understanding is they read the contract the way it's written and interpreted that way. My understanding is they made a mistake. New HR. So you have your understanding. I have my understanding and my understanding is that they made a mistake. That could be their interpretation. Huh. Oh, district made a mistake. Not the employees. Oh, I'm not sure. mistake is I mean I I understand I do I understand it but I think that because it's addressed in three different places in the contract that there are multiple interpretations depending on well that's why we have attorneys
052so clearly we need to clean this number up there's zero doubt about that moving forward so the issue at hand today is in particular these plus three plus four families that are impacted moving forward um before we wrap up this portion This is Director Edman. Director Ward, anything board can't Oh, that's right. Okay. Director Edman, anything for this group? Um, no, not at this time. Okay. Then I'm going to ask Ali if you could come up and chat as well, please. Maybe he wants to sit at Mr. Ward's desk. We can move also. Whatever. Can I run to the bathroom quick? Yeah, go ahead. drinking all this water is logging hard work a five minute recess. So we'll come back here at 5 Let me go ahead. Can you hear us, John? He's muted. We
053might even start getting some green grass if this keeps up this warmth. Deal. Need a little rain. Did you all right? Um we are back in session at 519. Director Ward is now able to join us. Oh, look at there. Yeah. Um, and we'll move on to Ali if you would like to share. Sure. Chairman, spear, superintendent grant, member of the board of education. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to start with a statement and then it's certainly available to answer any questions that you may have. If I have the information, I will provide that. If I don't, I'll say I don't know. And so I can certainly do that. So from the district's point of view, uh the district administration and legal
054council recommends denying the grievance at level three because education Minnesota improperly argue on behalf of the retiree. In the collective bargaining agreement, it does define very clearly who is a teacher and who has a right to file a grievance and that does not speak to someone who is retired. And so at this point I want to share that um what I also want to share is prior to the grievance um I've had the opportunity to meet with Eric and Misty and family one and family two. It was important to meet with them uh to really understand where they're coming from, to hear their perspective, to hear the difficult decisions that they had made with respect to retiring. And I thought that was important. Um I pay pretty close attention in that meeting. Uh Eric and
055Misty, you'll remember that each time we had a conversation throughout that meeting, I would summarize what we agreed upon, what we talked about. I walked away from that meeting even more perplexed because when I connected with Marcy Lord and McKenzie, who was also a part of that meeting, they understood what we walked away from that meeting. Our understanding was different. And so I wanted to make sure that I understood clearly what Misty, Eric, and family one and family two were communicating with us. And so I did send an email for clarification sharing this is what I understood. And our goal of meeting family one and family two was that we made the decision to move forward away from TMT with the understanding that we need to understand where family one and family two was that
056we need to if we could honor family one and two. So after that I sent an email and the communication I received back was that this wasn't just about family one and family two and family three. It was everyone else. It would come after that. And so that's why we stay firm with our decision to uh to move forward and that's why the letter that Misty mentioned in terms of April March 1st, April 1st and then eventually the deadline being June 1st uh continue. So today I'm a little confused whether this is about family one, family two, and family three or if this is about TMT uh and applying that to everyone that would qualify under TMT. The grievance today is about families one, two, three, and sort of four um moving forward is something
057that we need to address outside of the boundaries of this grievance. So there was a misunderstanding there or a misinterpretation but our grievance specifically is for these families. Thank you. So what I wanted to share is that we did have a meeting to understand what that would cost with the 28,700 $29,000 and to meet the those two family where they they're asking. Now, we're at a point where the union has followed grievance step one, step two, and now we're at step three. And so, because we're following those steps in terms of grievances, our position is still that that the grievance is improperly filed because these the two families are not currently member of the union. And so because of that, it's an improperly file. Our understanding for our legal council is that because we are
058supporting the contract and how it was applied that we are able to file on behalf of retired members. We also do have two current employees uh current teachers in our district who are even being impacted by this decision as well. But also our understanding is that there is a there is litigation going through the court process right now that could change our right to um to file on behalf of retired employees but that that has not been completed to address your comment director the spouse in family one family two is the two that she's refer oh yeah I understand that sorry I thought maybe we had another one So, so our concern is about these families as outlined that we file the agreements on behalf of moving forward. We need to clearly clean up that
059contract language so that we have a much more specific understanding of that contract language interpretation moving forward. But our concern for today is these three baby born. Madam Chair. Yes, Director Ward. So, um, my understanding is, as was just stated, family one and family 2 each have a full-time ISD 181 employee employee. Um, and my question is I thought family three also had a a ISD 181 employee. So, um uh they do actually. So, um the spouse, um for family number three, uh is a retired teacher who was working full-time as an education assistant in our district. So, that that met the requirements then is that correct? In in this case, in this case, we're more concerned about making sure that the contract is applied evenly across all people who retired under that same contract
060language. that consideration at least that consideration I mean I understand any questions for all oh so it would cost us reply superintendent grant said about 29 grand so Ali are you saying that you want us to deny this grievance based on the fact that the grievance is representing retired teachers. That's correct. You can look at family one and you can look at two the two spouse but the spouse that is impacted is a spouse that retired already. So, uh we can say are they attached or they're not they they're individual employees. We don't hire them as two individ as as a family. We hire family one with the two spouse. We hire them separately. And we are looking at spouse that retire that is impacted, not the spouse that is still currently working because they
061each have a benefit plan. So when we met with the EM lawyer, she also mentioned that an arbiter has ru ruled that when you have two people, they co-own that policy and which uh is I believe reflected in the way that the EM benefit is now listed this year as basically each person getting half of that which would then mean that it wasn't applied in that way either to our current employees. Madam Chair. Yes, Director W. Um Ali, um Ali, when the grievance was first put in on a level one or even a level two, were there proposals shot back and forth between the union and and and our administrative team? Were they in other words was it had have there been discussions and talks about trying to work this out um without without extending
062agreements to level three? I mean we're at level three now but one and two were there proposals shot back and forth. Holly director Ward thank you for that question. There were exchanges between the district and the union prior to the grievance. So there were discussion of solutions and such prior but after that the grievance went into effect and there they were not after that because it occurred prior to the filing the grievance. My memory was that we met and we put proposals out that were taken back to the administrative team and then the response was that the administrative team denied it. that there was a counter proposal. Maybe my memory is wrong. There were no counter proposals. What were the proposals? Why would there be a proposal? There's a contract. Why would you need a
063proposal? I don't understand. Deal is a deal. They just said there were proposals. Well, they said there are no proposals. She just said there's no proposals back and forth. So, you said, "What are the proposals?" You said there were no proposals. Allie said that there were proposals. Well, they turned down the offer from That's how I understood it. Well, it's right in the letter if you read it. I did read it. We did not feel like there were openings to have further discussions with the uh admin team based on the communications we received from them after our initial meeting with the three impacted families and Ali and our benefits coordinator. We would have been happy to meet Madam Chair, director, I just heard um Misty say that they would have been happy to try to
064write an arrangement out. I thought I heard that. And is that is that still on the table for both sides that the the uh arrangement could be worked out? It is for us on our side. We we we I I've spent my entire my entire tenure as president of this organization meeting in the middle and working on resolutions and compromises. Do you believe that there were potential mistakes, heirs, whatever you want to call it on both sides or is this a one-way street? Not having been in the room, I can't say that we could answer that question. We have only people's responses to what they said that they heard or were told or whatever. Um, what I would say is this, in just true fairness, we changed from one HR director to another HR director
065and a situation came up and it was interpreted differently just based on their quick read of a contract and one benefits coordinator to another benefits coordinator. So, I don't know that I would view it as mistakes at all. I think it's it's just different interpretations of contract language that isn't clear throughout the contract. Okay. So, so you agree it's not 100% clear on either side. I I let me just ask the question. The contract language needs to be cleared up and clear. Okay. But just let let me ask this question. There's no doubt. Do you guys want everything here? We want to make it right for the people who are listed on the That's not what I'm asking. Do you want everything? What is your definition of everything? Everything. But you're asking for in the
066grievance everything. Um, we are willing to come down from that, but we need to hear what it is that you would be willing to support. Here, here's what I think. Okay. Chairman, can I talk? Uh, so here's the deal. So, we are going to need to hire a superintendent in about uh a year. Okay. And if I was a superintendent looking at this job and the board of directors wouldn't back up the administrative team, then I don't think I'd want to work here. So, we don't have all the information, right? I appreciate you guys coming and telling us what you know. What's that? I I'm not getting interrogated, so I'm talking. I have the floor right now. So, I'm going to take my time if you don't mind. And I'm not going to um We
067have a deal from our attorney. We have our superintendent. We have our HR person. I don't know how we're getting drugged in the mud on this. You know, you you have to in our position, we don't run EM. We don't we're not in charge of the 600 educators here, right? We are, but we're not on a daily basis. It's kind of like if the principal told you, uh, you can't have Tuesday off, you can't come running to me, and I'm going to go around the principal and say, yes, you can. So, I think that, um, I could tell you how I'll be voting. In fact, if you want a motion, I can go ahead and make it. Um, I think that, you know, an arbitrator, if that's the next step on this deal, which I
068don't even think there's really a grievance. Uh, I agree with you, Ali. Uh, there probably shouldn't be arbitration, but then they can decide it. If it's fair, it'll get worked out. It's a waste of money. I agree with you, but we can't expose ourselves to $1.6 million in future claims. Now, I understand it's not going to cost us that much for family one. It's not going to cost us that much for family two. I feel bad for them, but no, we're not going after money back. We're not asking them to pay back what was paid for them. So, it's like, well, I I that's where I have to be on this deal. Anyways, I think at at a minimum, we're asking that two families which were promised something and made a retirement decision on that
069be recognized for that promise, the years of service that they had here and the understanding that they had to make their decision and that's why we've said we are always open to conversation and discussion. It just wasn't an opening that was really provided to us by the admin team. It feel the game is changing. It went from this is what's owed, this is what the contract says to now, well, maybe we can make a deal here, you know? So, you know what I'm saying? It's like that's not quite the same as we started. We started that you either give us the dough or you got we're going arbitration and now it's well, maybe we could take a little less. I don't I don't see it that way. I um am frustrated that we've gotten to
070a level three grievance on this. I don't think it needed to get this far. I think that there's lots of there are lots of reasonable people in this room that could have had a conversation and this could have been cleared up. I feel like what is in front of us is an error that we're as much at fault for as anybody else and uh making it right is not going to ruin the district. These are employees that are in our care and trusted us and I'm frustrated that we would make a decision against them after they put our trust their trust in us. I I agree going forward there probably needs to be conversation and something else. This isn't something that's probably sustainable for the district and I don't think that's what's being asked for
071either. It is not during this process. We would like to we would like to have that conversation outside of the grievance process. I'd like to make a motion. I make a motion that to deny the level three grievance and to authorize the board chair to work with legal counsel and district administration to provide a written decision to EM's representatives within the time frame set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. We have a motion by director John Derlinger. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Madam Chair. Yes. Director Ward. So, uh, Director Dunninger, does does your motion allow for, um, dialogue between the two parties to happen, uh, without furthering going to any sort of arbitration or process. Um, I'm that because I Randy, director Heidman's
072question about uh, you know, is there any ownership or is there any fault here by both parties? Whenever there's a grievance, there's a part there's some fault by both parties. In my opinion, it it it you know, it usually comes about because there's some wrong done on each side. So, you know, my my opinion is yeah, there's some wrong and and director Spear also suggested that. So, Director Doninger, did I just want to know if your motion allows for that dialogue and face-to-face um um working out an agreement to happen? I am not an attorney, John. Um but the way I would read this is is that what this motion is going to do is going to deny the level three grievance and get so we follow the timeline. So, the reason it got to
073number three, at least what's I've read, is that we didn't respond to the level two or it would have maybe got stopped at level two. So, it ended up to be level three. And we don't want to miss our window on time to get that in. Now, to say that they can't make a deal on the side without the whole board being there, I I'm not saying I don't know that. I don't think that this stops the ability to do that. Whether that'll happen or not, I don't know. But I don't read anything in this motion that would say that you couldn't tomorrow pick up the phone and call each other. Um it just it just keeps us legal so that we get our decision in to the EM in the time forth that's in
074the collective bar the CBA. You know we need to stay within the rules. We can't be messing around with the union. I just a point of clarification I don't know Ali or if you guys know is there opportunity to do that or once we make this motion does it go directly to arbitration what is the course of action we would file for arbitration so you don't have to file but you you would well I I'm not saying you shouldn't I think if a decision is made to deny the grievance at this level our only real legal recourse moving forward would be to file for arbitration. Does that mean that um I'll leave it. Okay. It it doesn't mean um you can resolve it prior to an arbitrator listening the case. This could take six weeks.
075This could take six months. We don't know what the arbitrator calendars are like, who gets assigned. Um, as uh DJ said, it really is following the criteria in order to meet the criteria. So, if you deny and it's approved, EMV can file, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with a solution. Well, when you go to arbitration, the first thing the judge is going to tell you is kick you out and tell you, you better go work on this yourself before you come back. I've been through it. That that is true. He will say, "All right, you guys get together and figure it out so I don't have to." Yep. But the other part of it is that if you if you approve this, this is going to go on for perpetuity until you
076figure it out in negotiations. I don't think you want to go down that road right now. That is not how we're interpreting it. Well, I disagree, but I feel like you could grant it, you could deny it, or we could modify it. I would also like to point out that the district has agreed to maintain these employee health bits uh through the conclusion of this process which means if we go to arbitration and it takes six months or it takes nine months or it takes however long they've agreed to maintain the employee health benefits as established right now. If I can ask a question it's been a long time but at one point I know that in bargaining we received a letter saying something to the effect of we want to end this practice and
077I don't know because then you have one contract to negotiate the past practice. Does that sound familiar, Peter? Well, no, but we shouldn't be talking about negotiations at a board meeting. Well, and that that's fair. I'm just trying to remember something about um past practice like practices. I made my statement. We should not be talking about negotiations at this board meeting. Fair. [Music] So I'm still I just want to get make sure that I understand. Um there still can be discussions after I mean depending upon how this motion goes. Uh obviously there's going to there's well I shouldn't say obviously uh there's going to be discussions or are we just going to call an arbitrator and say, "Hey, what's your schedule?" and uh have at it. I think we have a responsibility to try and
078not get there. However, if you do not deny it, there's really we're at the whim. So, let me ask a decision. Can we pass it? Pardon? Can we pass this motion tonight? I don't know. No, pass it. Well, approve it. Approve it. Whatever. Okay. And it's I have a feeling I know where this is going down that dirt road. Randy, here's the deal. This is the way I understand it. And and uh Ali, please correct me if I'm wrong. But the way our attorney is writing this and I our attorney could be I mean they could be wrong. I'm not saying that that's why there's judges, right? That's why there's arbitrators, right? So say our attorney I mean I'm not saying but that's what we have to believe because we hired him and we're paying
079for this advice. Our attorney says if we go ahead and accept this grievance, right, and don't deny it, then we have opened ourselves up for everyone that's on that contract to get the same benefit. And that's where the $1.6 million comes through. Okay. I don't know. The HR department thinks that's right. The labor attorneys think that's correct. Who are we as board members? I I I I don't feel comfortable making that decision. Now, we could make this decision, deny the agreements. They've got seven days to send it out. They can work it on the side. If they can make themselves a deal, great. But the contract is with the teachers is going to stay the contract with the teachers. The EM contract is EMB contract. And to think that we're possibly going to go readjust
080this this summer when these in these negotiations, which we're not talking about because I mean, I don't even know anything about them. But to think that that would actually happen, I think it's a pipe dream. So, That's why I make my motion that we deny it, move forward. What happens on that side will get worked out by the people that are involved. These guys, Ali, Peter, and we'll be moving on. Yeah. No, I I don't I don't disagree with that. Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor to deny the grievance and a second. Do a roll call vote. Stephanie Edman, I agree to deny it. Randy Heiden, yes to deny. Sarah Spear, no. John Ward, no. Shel Breen, no. DJ Dlinger. Uh, yes. So, the motion fails because we don't have a
081majority. Entertain another motion. I'd like to move, Madam Chair. Yes. Um, I'm going to make the motion and then just somebody tell me if it could if that could happen. I'd like to move that the administrative team um get together with EM to work out a solution for this situation. I understand that we can I I understand that the board can direct the administration. I understand that we can't direct EM. So that's that's why I'm uh I'll make that motion, but we'll see what happens. Is there a second and then we can talk about I'll second it about whether or not we can do that. [Music] Are we further discussion? Um, I'm going to look to Ali and to EMB. Is this something we can do? I think we've signaled that we are absolutely happy
082to have conversations and discussions to find a resolution here. We had hoped to not be sitting here today. Again, we've never gone through a grievance process, so I feel like a baby on this one, especially when we're talking about, you know, we've got legal advice on one side. I talked to an EM lawyer for like a half an hour one time on video chat months ago and have not followed back up. So, um, I I really wish we w tied to dates and and all of these timelines and things like that and we're just hoping that we're doing things on best that we can. So, we're pretty much open to listening to anything. Can we ask for it to be for this discussion to happen in a resolution made within 30 days? So, this doesn't
083that would be amending John's emotion by mutual agreement. So, we have seven days to file it with an arbitrator. However, deadlines can be waved or extended uh on the mutual uh agreement of both parties involved. So, we would be absolutely open to something like that. We have until x number of dates and if that if there isn't a resolution by then then we would have seven days after that in order to file for application. We would be certainly open to that. So if if we add if we amended or added to John to yours agree um motion here to say the admin team works together to work out a solution by so many days or it goes to arbitration. We could do that. So my apologies. you did ask the question and I didn't have
084a chance to respond so I just want to make sure that I had a chance to respond. I think by doing this we're going full circle. We've we wanted to work out something and that's why we met. That's prior to the grievance and the understanding is that we would find a solution with family one and family two. That was the understanding. But then after the meeting with an email confirming, is this the understanding? And the response back from Misty was that no, it's not the understanding, it's family one, family two, and everyone else. And so TMT would continue. And so that's why we came back to the executive cabinet and say, what do we do? And so that's why the decision was we are firm. And so we communicated back that we are firm in
085terms of moving forward uh because there wasn't a sol resolution to uh family one and family two with that meeting and so that's why the grievance kicked in. And so if we were to go if we were to go this route we will go full circle. I think that there was a misunderstanding about uh about that email and about what it meant. Um, of course, whenever you are going into a situation where you're trying to negotiate anything or trying to come to a resolution, anything, I'm I'm going to go buy a car and I'm going to ask to spend $20,000, but the dealer is going to ask to me to pay 30 so that we can meet somewhere in the middle. And so, I thought that that was a part of a broader conversation that
086we'd be moving forward. And Ali took it as a it is all or nothing. And that was not the intent. Um, that's not how I recall uh communicating that. Whether it was a misunderstanding or misinterpretation or if I miscommunicated, I don't know. I'd have to go back and look at those emails. Um, but I didn't recognize that as a hard stop in any more conversations or discussions moving forward. And so we were frankly really surprised when it came back as a hard no and this is a final decision. Here's my my concern is and I I I understand why there were three no votes, but I when you think about it, why not let it go to arbitration and let a third party decide? There's more to this than just these two families. There's a
087court case that was mentioned. That way you guys you clean your hand. Someone else made the decision. Arbitration is lengthy and expensive. Well, that's your that's your after family one and family two. Yeah, that's your interpretation. Who knows? They may not be busy right now. They might be sitting on their butt. I don't know what's going on. I don't know. But my concern is the deal is is that we're not acting like a board of directors. We're trying to run the school. Correct. I I You guys have to decide. Do you This is the chain of command. So, we aren't supposed to be at on the ground dealing with stuff like this. We're supposed to be at a 20,000 foot level making big decisions on budgets and kids and and and the future of this
088Brainer School District, not arguing about somebody's health insurance. We've got an hour and 20 minutes into this. I know, John, your motion is to let it. They already tried to do that. They've already tried to reach an agreement. We would be happy to try again. DJ, I completely agree with you. Every you do. I I don't want this to be a board decision and I'd love to push it back to the teams to figure it out if that's something we can do. I'm sad that it would get to the place of arbitration. I just don't think that's who we are. Well, they can work it out. I mean, we don't have to file for arbitration on day one. We just have to stay within our time frames. We would have to agree to extend that
089time frame if we are willing to do that. If you're willing to do that, I don't know about that. I do know that we need to get you guys a written answer and we need to stay within our bounds so that we don't make any more mistakes on this deal, you know, than we've already made. So what you do with it after that, like you said, you'd have to file for the arbitration. You can I'm sure tomorrow morning you you guys could try to work this out. I don't know that for sure. I don't know what everybody's schedule is, but I know for sure that you're you're in charge of filing for arbitration, not us. Right. Right. So the only way there's going to be arbitration is if EM decides they want arbitration. So it's
090not like, you know, it's not like there isn't an opportunity to sit down and maybe try to hammer it out if it doesn't work out. That's always an option. Or if we run out of time, which is what you had mentioned. Well, time is like the this thing says we have to have an answer written by the 28th of of uh April, I think, and then we have seven days to get it to you. So, that gives you a couple weeks and then you said you have seven days after that. I mean, lordy me. In 3 weeks, I mean, holy cow, you can get a lot done in three weeks. What would be wrong with our um response to EM to be that we would like another opportunity for admin and EM to get together
091to resolve this within X amount of days? Maybe it can prior to it going to arbitration. Why do we need a motion for that? You think it's legal? Because we need a we have to make some kind we have to make some kind some sort of action. We can only we can only do this grievance language. It's all we can do. It basically would be an agreement. It would basically be agreeing to extend the time frame for this is what it is. Okay. With another opport with another intentional opportunity for EM and another intentional board meeting. Yeah, we don't need another We can't deal with this. We don't get to deal with this. Maybe we can say by May 12th. I don't think that we would need another board meeting if we came to a
092mutually agree. Well, you wouldn't. But if you don't, we have to have one because you filed a grievance. Well, we could extend. So, we're at a level three grievance here. We can sit here and talk about all these great ideas. We have a level three grievance that you filed against the school board and against the Brainer School District. Okay. Our responsibility as board members is to either say, "Okay, you'll win or we're going to deny the grievance." That's our only two options we have. See, I think we have three options because it sounds like there was a misunderstanding between EM and admin in terms of the possible solutions to this issue and we're hearing that now that there was a misunderstanding. So maybe they needed to have some time to clear up that misunderstanding. Why
093did he file the the grievance? Because they were told unequivocally no in an email. Yes. Wasn't worth a phone call. Wasn't worth can I get an appointment with you and come sit down? We had a an email. We had a very short window of opportunity in which to file the grievance. Okay. Well, you filed the grievance, not us. We didn't file any grievances on anybody. I mean, this is just to me it's just crazy training. I agree with you about the phone call. I wish I would have received some, but I didn't. So, and you could have made them to those phones go both directions, Misty. You know, I understand that. You're smart. I've You taught my kids. I know you're a brain. I I I I understand. My point is smart. My point is
094that this is more complicated than one side or the other side that this was you also have to remember that as a union we are working with brand new administration at every single level. And so our learning curve is really high on trying to figure out how uh everybody communicates and how to navigate situations that are challenging and difficult. It's very very very different than anything that we've experienced in the past and that's not necessarily good or bad. This just means it's a learning curve. And so we are all doing the very best we can under circumstances that are challenging, but we are not the enemy. Uh we're just trying to work together to create a healthy district for our staff and our students. That's all. Yep. I I don't doubt it. That's all we
095want. But today, that doesn't change the fact that you filed a grievance and we're at a level three grievance and as a school board, we had to be adults and make a decision on this grievance. The district did have an opportunity to respond um along the way. We'll get to a level three grievance without without I'm not saying that you're not right. It doesn't change the facts that we are in a meeting with a level three grievance on our plate. That's what this whole meeting is about and we have to make a decision. So, what's the decision going to be? John's got a motion. Michelle second it. I don't know. We could have a vote on it, I guess. I don't remember what the motion is anymore, but we should clarify it. Well, we should.
096We we have a motion on the floor to um direct the admin team to get back together and work with EMB out on a solution. Um and we didn't put a date on it. We could put a date on it. I think otherwise um arbitration is the next step. Call from an administrator. I'm Go ahead. I'm absolutely uh okay with the uh amending the emotion to include a timeline, a date uh uh finite and uh arbitration after that. That I'm I'm okay with that. I don't know if the secondary is or not. Um do you have a date in mind, John? Director Ward. Um no I don't. I you know um I think uh director Dlinger said something about 3 weeks. I don't know what that date would be but that seems I mean we
097don't want to extend this obviously out any longer than we have to. I'd like it done tomorrow myself but uh how long do you think Peter your admin team would we got a couple problems here. Um, as a 3-3 vote, the grievance is not denied or approved. Right. Would you agree? It failed. And I don't know what that does to April 28th date to be honest with you. This is new ground. And if you if you approve uh Director Ward's motion, then you're agreeing to the grievance. because you have to have a solution. I view it as more of an extension. Um, well, can you violate the contract on that? It's not a violation of the contract. The contract actually states that by mutual agreement we can extend um deadlines. You haven't even talked to
098an attorney. It's in our contract. Eric just told us you haven't talked to an attorney. Well, I don't I don't not going to go with what you say. Not for a million six. I can't do it. I can read it to you from I don't care if you read it. I'm not an attorney either. I don't know. I don't know law. Our contract states that by mutual agreement we can extend deadlines for grievances. Can you read that? I just want that I don't believe you. Okay. Yes. I don't want to violate the master agreement. All right. I got to scroll back up to the top because it's way under article um 18 grievance procedure. Scrolling all the way down to the bottom. Uh, I don't know if there's a section or I don't believe there.
099It's just subdivision. Subdivision 9. The parties by mutual agreement by mutual written agreement may wave any step and extend any time limits in a grievance procedure. By mutual agreement, by mutual written agreement, we may wave any step and extend any time limits in the grievance procedure. So this motion to my interpretation whether you agree with it or not is it would extend the school board's time frame that they have to respond to this grievance. The school board is going to be done with this today. We don't need to have another meeting on this deal. And I don't know they would need to if there was a resolution. Well, if you said if it says the school board is going to have to decide, we can't just all of a sudden fly by the seat of
100our pants and have an online voting thing. You know, back when I used to run skill and some of these other boards, we can send an email out and I go, "I'm for it." Michelle says, "I'm against it." Sarah says, "I'm for it." Boom. Boom. That passes. This is public meeting stuff. Open meeting law could be a part of the May meeting if there's already an agreed upon resolution by it, but wouldn't require a special meeting. Okay. Well, you got to come up with a 43 at least or 42. I mean, um, one way or the other. And if we wanted it on the May meeting, we'd have to have some sort of resolution before the 12th because isn't that the May meeting? I think you're right. Yes. That would be our imposed deadline. My
101guess is if there isn't an agreement, you would wave the level three and go right to arbitration. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. My guess is it it sounds like in the contract you can wave any step that you would wave coming back to the level three and going to other tra. I don't I don't know that there would be much other choice if we aren't open to having more continued communication to find a resolution. Right. Okay. I just want to clarify that. Thank you. Getting back to uh director uh Ward's a motion. Um, right now the motion that Director Dlinger made has been denied. The 3-3 vote. A 3-3 vote denies the motion. Correct. Okay. John's motion was to Would you repeat that again, John? Your your motion. My motion was to direct the
102admin team to get together with the EM team to work out an agreement. And if we want to put a timeline on it, I I'm fine with that. So work out an agreement, John. What does that mean? I don't know if they need to work out an agreement. I mean, work out an agreement. Working out an agreement. My interpretation. What if they don't want to make an agreement? What if the EM is not reasonable? Is it okay if they don't have an agreement? Then it goes to arbitration. Well, you're making a motion that they have to make an agreement. So, this is legal beagle stuff here. I'm not trying to be an but I mean, it's the facts. All right. Now, a motion's got to be a good motion. This is serious stuff we're dealing
103with. I'm putting my stuff away. I think you should have a motion that is absolutely clear what it's asking for a vote because right now I don't know if there's clarity. So, um, John, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, uh, I hear you saying the motion is to send this back to the ad admin team to work together with EM on a solution by May 12th. Otherwise, we go to arbitration. Correct. Any further discussion? I probably need to fix the second. Michelle, do you want to second? I'll second that. Okay. Any further discussion after that? If not, we'll do a roll call vote. Randy Hayen. Uh, yes. Uh, Sarah Spear, yes. John Ward, yes. Shel Breen, yes. DJ Doner, no. Stephanie Edman, Stephanie, what was that? Oh, you were on mute.
104Oh, sorry. I said no. No. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Kelly. All right. I make a motion to adjurnn. All right. We've got a motion. Is there a second? We've got a motion in a second. All those in favor? Uh, roll call vote. Sorry. Sir, yes. Don, yes. Yes. Don, yes. Stephanie Edman. Yes. Andy Heisman. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thanks, Kelly. We are adjourned. Thank you. All right. Thanks, guys.