The main point I was trying to make when I commented on Steve's article
was, as I said, "blaming Ms. Stevenson's layoff on the seniority system
does not tell the whole story. Before the seniority rules took effect
the decision to cut vocal music in the district was made. No seniority
rule or state law dictated that vocal music should be cut. That was an
administrative decision made with varying amounts of parent and teacher
input district wide."
Ms Stevenson was let go because someone decided that the district didn't
need as many music teachers as it had on the payroll last year. The
important question is why and how was that decision made - not how the
teacher seniority rules work. The fact that all music teachers are
treated as one department throughout the district is another
complicating factor in the "seniority issue."
I do think it is important to be clear about the rules. Too many
notions are being tossed around that aren't fact. I appreciate Steve's
attempt at clarification but I need to further clarify as below:
Steve Brandt wrote:
Some days ago, Dan McGuire commented upon an article of mine thusly: " Later in the
article Brandt says, 'The use of seniority to determine layoffs is mandated by state law.
Its defenders say it's a fair system in the absence of another means of determining who
stays and who gets cut.' I'm not sure which state law Steve is referencing or why state
law is being referenced." He makes the further point that reverse order of
seniority for layoffs is a requirement of the district contract.
Here's the relevant portion of the Teacher Tenure Act, M.S. 122A.41: Subd. 14. Services terminated by discontinuance or lack of pupils; preference given. (a) A teacher whose services are terminated on account of discontinuance of position or lack of pupils must receive first consideration for other positions in the district for which that teacher is qualified. In the event it becomes necessary to discontinue one or more positions, in
making such discontinuance, teachers must be discontinued in any department in the inverse order in which they were employed.
And that precise language is in the contract in the Board Policies part
(way in the back.) My point was that making a reference to an
unspecified state law doesn't explain much. It leaves the reader with
the possible notion that this hasn't been discussed at great length and
agreed to by all parties involved., when, in fact, it most certainly has
been discussed and an agreement reached. There is a state law and the
union and the board have incorporated that law as written into the
contract.
The Minneapolis contract relies on seniority for many situations involving the excessing
of staff from buildings and transfer among buildings. But it appears to be silent on
order of layoffs, given the primacy of state law, and the procedure for recall from
layoffs specifically references the state law, to wit: "Teachers who have been
discharged because of lack of pupils and discontinuance of position and who retain rights
to be recalled according to the Teacher Tenure Act MS ยง122A.41 shall receive first
consideration for other positions in the District for which they are qualified."
The contract isn't silent on the issue; it just states what the law says
- way in the back in the policies part.
And I will state again for the record, I'm not a defender of the
seniority system. The only practical way to change the system is for
more people to understand clearly how the current system works (or
doesn't) and to make changes from there.
Dan McGuire
Ericsson
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
