Every two years, the Edina Teacher’s Union and the district administration come together to create a two-year contract. The contract stays relatively the same throughout the years, but edits are made biannually in regards to payment of teachers, spending, benefits, etc. This year, the contract has encountered an unusual amount of trouble. The contract has some especially controversial aspects, and agreement has been hard to reach. If a solution is not reached that makes both the teachers and the district happy, there is a possibility of a teachers’ strike.

Now that the first attempt at the contract failed, the Union and the district will reconvene to try again. “It is our intent to work collaboratively with the union to create a tentative agreement that will be approved by the teachers and school board in the near future,” said Gwen Jackson, the director of Human Resources and Operations at Edina Public Schools.

There are always disagreements about the payment of teachers when new contracts are being made, but this year it has been especially difficult to come to a conclusion. “It is my understanding that the president of the union has sent out a survey to teachers to gain a better understanding of their priorities.  Hopefully this information will give us better insight on where we should focus our attention,” said Jackson, when asked about what in the contract makes it so hard for agreement to be reached. Ms. Guerin, an English teacher at EHS and a member of the teacher negotiator team offered some more specific information:  “It used to be that the district would pay all the teachers’ insurance premiums… and now that’s no longer true. Now teachers have to pay some [or all, depending on their status] of their insurance premiums… The district’s proposal that was voted down would not have given teachers any increase in insurance coverage,” said Guerin. The new contract also increased insurance premiums and offered only 1% raise. The district did offer to pay teachers a $1,000 bonus, but that payment would not go into their cumulative salary (meaning the percent raises would be less money). “It’s a way for the district to save money,” said Guerin. The 1% raise Guerin refers to would impact teacher salaries for the 2015-2016 school year; the proposed contract also included a 3% raise for all teachers for 2016-2017.

The last issue is the fact that the district has a very large savings account. A few years back the district voted to keep a savings account of around 6-8% of their spending, but that amount has grown to about 11%. “There’s no reason for the school to really have a savings account because their money is raised by taxes… [the district said] they were saving for the next generation of learning facilities,” Ms. Guerin said. “It seemed as though they cared more about infrastructure than the people.” Margo Bauck, director of Business Services at EPS explained this savings account. “Prior to the GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) changes in 2011, the Board had a fund balance policy of 6 to 12% of the district’s general operating budget.  In 2011, they changed the rules,” she said. “…areas like capital expenses, which is restricted by the state to be only spent on buildings and equipment, severance pay (the majority of this is for teachers, who will retire in the next two years, since they are our largest employee group), and carryover dollars for equipment and supplies.  We cannot use these dollars for salaries or benefits.”