AEA Reopener Negotiations

CSEA 27 – Job Study Committee

CSEA 27 – Contract Negotiations

CSEA 860 – Contract Negotiations 


Labor Negotiations FAQ

 

Negotiation Public Records

Tentative Agreement between AUSD and CSEA, Chapter 860

AEA and AUSD Contract Negotiations - Background Information from Public Documents

District 4.27.12 Response and Proposal, Article 8

2012-2013 Draft Calendar

AEA 4.13.12 Proposal, Article 20

AEA 4.13.12 Proposal, Article 14

AEA 4.13.12 Proposal, Article 11

 

District Redirect (Diversion) Analysis if Revert to 20:1 for 2012-13 School Year

 

District CSR Incremental Cost Analysis

Tentative Agreement between AUSD and AEA 3.22.12

AEA 2.27.12 Proposal on Article 8, Teaching Hours

District 2.27.12 Limited Proposal on Article 8, Calendar

AEA Proposal on Article 9, Class Size

Open House Grievance Documents

AEA Demand to Cancel Open House

CA School Funding Reductions for Average District, 2007-13

Summary of AEA Step and Column Increases 2010-11 to 2011-12  

AEA Step and Column Increases 2010-11 to 2011-12 - Raw Data  

Joint Letter from AEA President and AUSD Superintendent

AUSD and AEA at Impasse Press Release

Request for Impasse Determination and Appointment of Mediator

Measure A Funding for Teachers

Preliminary Fiscal Analysis of AEA Nov. 7 Proposal

District November 7 Proposal, Article 9 

AEA November 7 Proposal, Article 9, 12, 14

AEA November 3rd Notice

K-3 Class Size in other Districts

District's Last Best Final Offer, Article 9

AEA's August 17 Proposal, Article 9

District's Proposal for 11-12 Work Year

AEA's Initial Proposal to Modify March 2010 MOU

District's Initial Proposal on Article 9

AUSD Initial Proposal for Reopener Negotiations

AEA Initial Proposal for Reopner Negotiations 

DISTRICT OFFICE Human Resources Labor Negotiations AEA Negotiations

AEA Negotiations

For the latest news and answers to the latest FAQs about negotiations, please click here to return to the Labor Negotiations home page, where that information is posted in the middle and on the right side of the page.  Below on this page are notes from past negotiations sessions.  These will be updated in coming weeks.

AEA Reopener Negotiations on Sucessor Contract Articles and the
Summary of 2010-2011 Negotiations between Alameda Unified School District and Alameda Education Association 
November 7, 2011
Fiscal Impact of AEA salary proposal: Approximately $4.1 million for the three year term
Fiscal Impact of AEA medical benefit proposal: at least $19.2 million for the 3 year term
  • In exchange for salary and benefit increases, AEA proposed a temporary agreement on K-3 class sizes of 25:1 for 3 years; returning to 20:1 on June 30, 2015.
  • AEA’s proposal also offered to Return Open House to the calendar for 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015.
  • The District rejected AEA’s proposal based on the fiscal analysis that it would cost the District millions of dollars in on-going costs.
  • The District reiterated its desire to negotiate class size of 25:1 for grades K-3 and offered a proposal to reopen negotiations on class size in the event that class size reduction legislation is altered. Click here to view the District's proposal.
  • The Association unequivocally stated that it would not negotiate class size without an offer of additional compensation.
  • The District responded to AEA’s demand and stated that, without on-going new funding, it would not be able to negotiate on-going additional compensation.
  • There are no additional dates scheduled for negotiations.
October 25, 2011
  • After several unproductive bargaining sessions regarding class size, AEA stated its intent to make a new offer at the bargaining table. Based on this new information, the parties will be resuming negotiations on November 7, 8, and 10.
September 23, 2011
  • The District proposed and explained its counter offer on Article 10.
  • After several hours of discussion, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective proposals on Article 10 and to revisit their proposals when full contract negotiations begin later this calendar year.
  • The parties also discussed their respective positions regarding Article 9, Class Size.
  • AEA stated that it is not interested in changes to permanent contract language and the District reiterated its need to permanently change contract language to reflect increased class sizes and changes in state class size reduction funding.
  • The District also reiterated that its proposal on Article 9, Class Size is necessary for the District’s solvency as it cannot maintain class sizes of 20 to 1 in K-3 which will be required under the Contract upon expiration of the MOU on June 30, 2012.
  • The parties have no further meetings scheduled and the District stated that it does not appear further meetings will bring the parties to agreement on Article 9, Class Size.
    •  
    August 17, 2011
  • AEA provided new proposals on Articles 9 and 10. AEA’s August 17 proposal on Article 9 can be viewed here.
  • The parties discussed AEA’s proposals at length, including several significant changes from the Contract and/or March 2 MOU.
  • After much discussion, the District stated that AEA’s proposal on Article 9 fails to acknowledge any of the District’s stated interests in class size flexibility and instead introduced further restrictive language around class size. 
  • The District stated that AEA’s newest counter offer on Article 9 contained at least 16 provisions which were more restrictive than the status quo of the Contract.  In light of AEA’s counter offer on June 2, 2011, that it wanted to maintain the status quo, AEA’s August 17 proposal appeared to be moving the parties further from agreement rather than closer.
  • The District reiterated its Last Best Final Offer on Article 9.
  • The parties agreed to meet on September 23, 2011 to further discuss AEA’s counter offer on Article 10.
    •  
    July 7, 2011
    • District offered to meet and negotiate on July 18, 19, 25, 26 and August 2 and 3.  AEA declined to meet.
     
    June 10, 2011
  • The parties met for approximately 4 hours.
  • AEA responded to the District’s June 2nd offer to do an MOU restoring the full teacher work year from 182 to 185 days with 3 full paid days of professional development in exchange for the restoration of Open House and staff meetings as required by the Contract.  AEA stated that it would not consider the District’s proposed MOU.
  • District reiterated its disappointment that after waiting several weeks for the Association’s counter offer on Articles 9 and 10, the Association provided a verbal response that it wished to maintain the status quo of the Contract.  The Association indicated that it would not be providing a further written counter offer in response to the District’s proposals.
  • District provided the Association with its Last Best Final Offer on Article 9 and expressed a willingness to continue negotiations in the event AEA provides a substantive written counteroffer.   
  • District requested meeting dates in the months of July and August and the Association stated that it was reluctant to meet during the summer months.  Parties agreed to meet on August 17, 2011.
    •  
    June 2, 2011
    •  The District states that it will not be opening a third Article.
    • The Association responds verbally to the District’s proposals for Articles 9 and 10. The Association responds that it wants to maintain the 2006-2009 contract language; no counteroffer is provided. 
    • The District proposes an MOU to restore the ’11-’12 work year and salary to the status quo:  180 teaching days, 2 teacher work days, and 3 days of professional development for all teachers. The District's proposed MOU can be view here. In exchange, the MOU proposes that the Association agree to return all staff meetings and Open House.
    • The Association expressed concern that the District’s MOU needed to be publicly noticed (or "sunshined”) before negotiations could commence.  The District stated that these were not new topics in negotiations as AEA had already provided public notice that it wanted to negotiate the work year, salary, and site time as these topics related to furloughs.  Nevertheless, the District agreed to sunshine the MOU within 24 hours. 
    Note:  The District’s supplemental public notice of the MOU proposed on June 2nd can be found in the kiosk in front of the District Office, the display case in Kofman Theater and here.
     
    May 18 & 24, 2011
    • Negotiating dates cancelled by mutual agreement.
     
    April 29, 2011
  • The District shared its proposal for Article 9, Class Size.
  • The Association clarified that it had not opened any contract articles when it proposed changes to the MOU.
  • The Association reiterated that it would not respond to the District’s proposals until the District presented its third and final proposal. 
    •  
    April 18, 2011
    • Robert Shemwell, Chief Business Officer, shared the District’s financial information and explained how the Board would allocate Measure A funds.
     
    April 14, 2011
    • The Association presented its proposal to modify the March 2, 2010 MOU.  You can view the Association’s proposal here.
    • Discussion regarding which articles are specifically affected by the MOU and the logistics involved in implementing the Association’s proposal, including the proposal that the District restore 5 instructional days to the current 10-11 school year.
    • The Association stated that it would not respond to the District’s proposal on Articles 9 and 10 until the District presented all of its proposals.
     
    March 16 and 17, 2011
    • The parties renew calendar negotiations and agree upon a tentative 2011-12 calendar. 
    • The calendar tentatively agreed upon on 3.17.11 can be viewed here.
     
    March 14, 2011
    • The Association informs the District that the AEA negotiating team was without authority to negotiate the calendar.
     
    March 4, 2011
     District provides its proposal on Article 10, Transfer. Parties agree to discuss and negotiate the 11-12 school calendar.
  • Parties tentatively agree on an 11-12 Calendar.  The calendar tentatively agreed upon can be viewed here.
    •  
    February 3, 2011
    •  Discussion of each party’s Sunshine of proposals
  • Discussion of District’s desire to conclude negotiations as quickly as possible and the Association’s concern that agreement would be difficult before the results of the Measure A election are known.
    •  
    January 25, 2011