By LESTER CHANG
Teacher contract talks took a big stride backward when Fremont Education Association negotiators stormed out of a session May 30.
Forty-five minutes into a meeting at the UC-Santa Cruz Extension offices, FEA lead negotiator Jim Dawes picked up his briefcase and abruptly left with his six-member team.
Dawes was angered over what he claims were accusations by district negotiator Bebe Sellers that his team made contract condition proposals for class sizes and parttime employees and then recanted on them.
"We resent her accusations when she is unable to show examples," Dawes said. "The district has made some serious charges."
So-called "retro-bargaining," if confirmed, would put the union in violation of state collective bargaining laws.
Sellers said after the meeting, "I am sorry they feel that way. I didn't charge them with an unfair labor practice."
The confrontation offered the public a glimpse into the high-energy and sometimes volatile "horsetrading" that goes on during school contract talks, which normally take place behind closed doors.
The Fremont Union High School District board opened negotiations last month because of public concerns about the slow progress in the talks, which began in January.
Following the walkout, negotiating teams resumed talks in the afternoon and disclosed cost estimates for the union proposal, a key element of the dispute.
The teachers' association maintains it would cost about $1.9 million to cover salary increases for about 400 teachers and to pay for incentive bonuses to attract top teachers to the district.
District officials claim it would cost $3.3 million to cover the FEA's entire proposal, encompassing salaries and health and retirement benefits. The union, meanwhile, wants to maintain the cost of existing health benefits for teachers and has questions about the cost of retirement benefits.
Should the union proposal, as presented, be adopted, the district would use up about $9 million worth of reserves in three years, leaving little or nothing for contracts for other district employees and school programs and projects, Seller said after the meeting.
Both sides are at odds over how to use about $9 million in reserves, accounting for about 20 percent of the district's $43 million budget this year.
The state requires the school district to have at least a 3 percent reserve on hand.
Since California's economy and tax revenue can't be predicted, there is no guarantee the district will receive sufficient state funds to replenish the reserves, Sellers said.
The existing three-year contract expires in August. Both sides are scheduled to resume talks at the UC-Santa Cruz building on June 14.
Only three members of the public attended the May 30 meeting.
At the meeting, Dawes became upset when district negotiators noted the union had unilaterally dropped a word out of a proposed contract condition on teacher-student ratios and the combining of classes from different school departments.
The intent of combining classes such as history and English is to enhance learning by showing students how subjects connect across the curriculum.
Dawes said the teachers' association isn't opposed to combining classes and wants the district to consult it before doing anything. The district apparently wants flexibility on that issue.
The union also complained that its negotiators didn't propose language for a condition for parttime employees and then recant on it.
The district wants to be able to hire part-time teachers after July 1 and require them, in certain instances, to work early in the morning and late in the afternoon. This arrangement would allow the district to be more flexible in the scheduling of classes and meet the educational needs of students.
The union said, however, the classes taught can be separated by no more than two periods. The union maintains the district should revolve the curriculum around fulltime teachers.
Just before leaving the meeting, Dawes accused Sellers of "grandstanding" and of trying to influence the audience, thereby violating a rule both sides agreed upon before the start of the open meetings.
Sellers said she was doing nothing of the sort. "I only wanted to be sure of the language we are negotiating," she said.
District negotiators are confused at times because the union has, in a few cases, removed conditions both sides appeared ready to agree upon, Sellers said.
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, June 5, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.