All right. Uh, welcome everyone here to continue our, uh, negotiations. Thank you. Um, I would love for us to do introductions to start off the night again. Um, we're happy to go. First start. Okay. Start off. Yes. Um, my name is Barbara, um, um, office support Edison Elementary in lay of member April Drake, Denberg, day Secretary, and 14 year DPS educator, Alexis Mater. Um, office support, approximately 15 year DPS educator and yeah, tech.
Katie Riddle. I'm coming up on my first year as a DPS office support, um, and I'm almost 20 year educator. Kate Martin. I am Denver staff and supporting Dale. I'm Rachel Brown, labor and Employee Relations. I'm Christina Sylvester. I'm the Operational Service Director for Denver Public Schools. Lawrence Garcia, labor and Employee Relations, compliance and Compensations. Bobby Coleman, senior Manager at hr. Alrighty. Okay. So we will go first as we've talked about. So let's go ahead and get started. Thank you. Sure. We'll start with Article six.
Ready. There are two open items in this, uh, article here. We down to the first, uh, d proposed reduced employees will be invited. All dps priority and internal hiring fairs include classified positions. Uh, what we would like to, uh, add to that is reduced employees will be invited to all dps priority internal hiring fairs that include D positions through the end of the reduction cycle. So typically that's the end of the year, I believe, is that, or the end of that period of time. So the reductions typically happen by March, and they would be invited to all hiring fairs through
the end of that school year. That, And then this one, we thought, we thought long and hard on this one and couldn't really figure out a, a different way to do this. And that's fair. Um, the, the key here for us is that it says when an impacted employee accepts a position or classification, so they weren't placed there, they accepted that position. When you accept a position, you're subject to the paying conditions of that current position. So we're, our proposals be set the same steps, our previous assignment. Now, I do want to clarify. If you're reduced in the spring and, you know, let's say you're at step four,
then you secure a position for the following year, you'd go up to step five. I'm not saying that you, you don't move up your step, you would get it in that situation. Just that's the guidance for setting it. Well, you're previous then, if you're owed a step, you would get this. Uh, one other concern that we had on this is the way this is written, and I think I've talked about this before, but I just mention again, office Support three could, uh, accept a position in lower classification of office support. Two, because the salary's higher could increase their number of steps, basically to get to the, to that current rate or to what's within that rate. And then they accept an Office three position now
where the language was written, then they would get a 5% increase, go the next step. So they could artificially increase their number of steps where they were on the, uh, office three schedule by doing that. And so, uh, we've seen that happen with other barn units. That's one of the reason we're so cognizant of this language. And that was, those were the only two outstanding items. Okay. I don't have any clarifying questions there. Attempting to do the switch without looking, that was kind of a bit scary. All right. So your counter said that you would accept the changes in yellow if we accept the pink. So we were not able to do that. And there were some things that we, uh, were not able to do.
We now the problem with, but in the spirit of your, of your proposal, we did not say, okay, we'll take this part, not this part. If it's offered as an entire package, then it's not up to us to pick and choose what parts we like. So we're decline the package, we'll go through this as far as what we can talk about it. This was our previous language. And so that, that remains as far as part of our proposal. This language here, as far as the information communicated, uh, multiple measures to provide a comprehensive, fair and reliable picture of employees' performance. We're really concerned about the subjectivity
of comprehensive, fair, reliable. Um, in most, in most of our systems, you cannot argue the content of the evaluation. This would allow that argument to happen as far as, Hey, my evaluation's not fair. If somebody thinks that, then all of a sudden we're dealing with the actual content of the evaluation. So those are things we're trying to avoid. So I guess my question would be then I think that you understand the spirit of what we're trying to propose here, right? That the evaluations be data driven, that they be comprehensive, but they not be biased
or have unclear language that doesn't support the employee. I guess I'm not quite understanding why we're just striking out the language instead of maybe having some kind of additional language proposed. Or are you just saying that we need to do the work to come up with different language where you're just not gonna accept it? We, we didn't find there to be much in a sim in this language that was able for us to work with. Another, another piece is the multiple measures in the, in the, uh, classified reimagine. There's, there's different indicators, and you find evidence for each indicator.
It's not always there. You're not always gonna have multiple things for each indicator. That's why we struck that piece. I mean, I think that, do you have examples of where there wouldn't be multiple measures? No, I do not. Because it feels like, to me, the, the categories of the measures are pretty darn broad. And if you can only find one thing, then clearly don't know what your is doing. Well, I don't know if that's true or not, but we don't necessarily believe that multiple measures works in this particular evaluation system. So if on, what's one of the indicators, um,
being, I don't know, being organized is an example and they could only find, they only say that the employee is disorganized. How does, like, I feel like that's not a, an equitable way or a supportive way to evaluate somebody. So is there, Well, I'm assuming they would, they would give a, uh, a rating within that, not to say that it's organized and then provide their, uh, their evidence. I mean, that doesn't always happen then, or it happens in a way that's unclear or not data driven.
Um, and in mid years you don't get scores. So I mean, I think we're gonna continue the conversation here because we absolutely feel like there needs to be some clarifying language around how validations are, um, completed to ensure that things are, that the evaluation is actually driven by something measurable. Okay. No, that's totally fine. And this was new language that you all proposed. So when you say, you know, we want you to do the work, there wasn't stuff in this language we found that was able for us to work with enough to try to do.
Kevin, uh, you would propose or propose the reasons front satisfactory assessment must include suggestions for corrective measures and a reasonable timeline for the correction. But we were not able to agree with this. We, we actually don't think that this does what, what you all may think it did would do. Uh, what we believe this would do is incentivize someone to use evaluation systems of gotcha system. If you remember three years ago, we negotiated the contract. There was a provision where if you had an unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory observation, the PIP was mandatory. And we brought the idea to remove that language, I think.
And the idea was, we don't want, okay, I'm gonna give somebody an unsatisfactory evaluation, so now I can do something to try to get rid of them. The evaluation supposed to be a measurement of success. And you can use that or a measurement to, you know, rate ourself to, to figure out where we can grow. It's not meant to be punitive. And with this where it says there's gonna be corrective measures and a timeline to correct that, we think that that's punitive. And it gives the manager potential avenue to come after, Hey, I wanna use the evaluation to get somebody these corrective measures. Mm-hmm. So, I mean, we'll certainly come back with some, some different language if you feel that this isn't
the language that works for you. But, um, like I said before, if there are concerns and they are simply written in there that, oh, you're not doing well on this, but there are no actual like, supportive measures in place, that's where we're trying to create some accountability on what the evaluation looks like in terms of support and coaching and those kinds of things. And so, um, No, I get that. We're just, we're just in very different places on this one. And I guess a question that comes from that statement is, we're in very different places
because you are not willing to accept additional supportive language in the contract at all, or you just don't like this language? Well, I don't think it's, I don't think we can make a blanket statement like that. It all depends on what the language is. This language we're not comfortable with. And these were all your proposals. We didn't, we didn't see anything here that we could, and I've given you reasons for our specific feedback. So it's not that we're, I mean, just this is language we're not able to deal with. What would additional language change it? I don't know. It depends on what the language is. Can I, um, ask a question, just a clarifying question. 'cause one thing I I was listening to
what you were just saying, and it sort of seems like the assumption that you're making is that the status quo is that these evaluations are not currently being used in a punitive manner. So I sort of feel like we're starting also from different points there, because part of what we are seeing is that they are, and that we're, so that's what we're trying to change. Um, but the assumption, I think, on your side seems to be that as the way they are now, they can't be used in the punitive way that you're worried that it would be. Is that right? No, because I, I never said that. I'm not making any assumptions.
We're we're bargaining here based on the contract language. Uh, the default, the, the status quo for us is the contract language. We're not making any assumptions about anything else. But what we're looking at is when we put in language, how, how that language is going to interact with how things happen and, uh, any potential confusion in the language, any potential grievances that come forward. I mean, we want language to be a good language. We want to be enforceable language. And so that's Okay. Um, the classified reimagined fairness guide, there's, there's already a, in the language up
above there it says adapt to provide feedback on the process. The fairness guide outlines the process. We believe that this already happens. Um, so we think that by giving feedback on the process, that is a feedback into the classified reimagined fairness guide. I mean, I, I wouldn't say that this has happened a lot. And I would also like to mention that I wasn't even aware that there was a classified reimagined fairness guide until I did some digging on the comments. So, like, we've never discussed
that informal meetings before. Um, so it's not happening, Well, it's not part of the agreement, but the process is, and the process can be discussed all along. So you're saying that the Fairness guide is part of the process? No, the process is outlined in the fairness. Mm-hmm. Okay. The, the, the other, the other piece of this is if the fairness guide, if this was the, uh, day op, uh, reimagined evaluation to make it up the name mm-hmm. It would be a little different story. 'cause this applies only to your bargain unit. This applies to many bargaining units.
And so we're also concerned about giving one group feedback and not giving other groups the same feedback. Well, I mean, I'd love for you to give everybody feedback so we can be the well initiators. Uh, well, we're not gonna write that a contract for bargain unit. Okay. I mean, we, we changed this language because, um, we understood that there were issues last time with some of the other language in terms of like, um, supervisor accountability. So we took that out. Um, and I, it's okay. I mean, we put that in there for a reason,
and I'll see what we think about the strength group. Uh, this language here, the language that was proposed by DAP would mandate, uh, counseling, coaching and or training. And if that was not successful, then the manager would be allowed to, uh, work on developing a performance improvement plan. Uh, there are some situations where we think that it may be we're starting with that performance improvement plan, if there's already been coaching, if there's already been supervising, but to actually make that a mandate in the agreement, that's not something that we're going in or to do,
But it was, and or, right. So you use counseling, coaching, and or training. So if there's an employee that's having challenges in certain areas, why would it be unreasonable to mandate at least one of those things that's happening? Like, how, how can you not support your members if you are the one that is identifying areas of, of struggle as a supervisor? So this mandates that the supervisors follow process one before they can move to a per, uh, performance approval plan. That's what we're not comfortable with.
Can you explain why you're not comfortable with the process? Yes. Um, the, the, the employee, the manager would have the ability to make that choice to do that first. But under the current contract, it's not a mandate that that has to happen first. This changes the process to where it is a mandate that that has to happen first. We believe it's important for the manager and able to, uh, to, to manage to have those choices as far as the best way to, uh, handle this, this particular case. But why do we think a performance improvement plan shouldn't come after supportive measures for employee?
Well, what, what I just stated was we believe that it's the manager's discretion to decide if they should come after not a mandate that it has to. Okay. I mean, we disagree there. Not, I'm not surprised not, and I don't mean that with any other intent, which things we disagree. Absolutely. Um, the original proposal was, can, uh, adapt changes to will. Um, we didn't wanna just like change your coloring because the way that you presented the proposal, so we've included can here, 'cause that was the original proposal. Uh, the not the types of evidence considered can include these things
depending on the timing. Mid-year or end of year might not be relevant. Uh, one of the reasons, uh, specific coaching and the use of a mentor from mentorship program, uh, we have not, not, we're excited about working on, uh, reimplementing this program and get it moving. But the way that it currently sits, we're not able to put this into the contract as far as part of the PIP process. Um, there, there's no, it's just not something we can consider with the current state of the mentor program. I mean, but we're also saying that it must be offered, it doesn't have to be accepted. Right. But again, we're not sure
of the current state of the mentor program. What was written in the agreement under that article was that DAP would pick the first five mentors. I mean, that's doesn't necessarily mean that who you pick and another, I'm trying to be rude, who you bit may not be the best mentor for this person. Mm-hmm. And the way the contract's written, I believe, frankly if I'm wrong, Rachel, is that, that people self-select their mentor. Is that, does that accurate? Yes. I mean, we're working, we're working on that development in terms of like appropriate pairings. But this is, this is gonna live in this agreement
until we're sure of how that works. We're not able to come up to this. We are, but what, the 25, 26 year you're going to appoint five. Um, sorry, I'm reading the contract English until, um, uh, as I mentioned, I am very excited to, to work on a mental program with you. Um, I think the concern with putting this language in the contract at this time is I think it would be prudent to get the mentor program up and running and robust
before putting language like that in contract. If, if somebody were placed on a tip, there's nothing that prohibits them from working with, with mentors within the process. Hopefully they'd wanna access that and that would help them. But the idea is mandating it here. That's, It's not mandating mentorship. It's mandating the offer so that folks know it is available. Like we will do everything in our power to ensure that our members know it exists. But a supervisor should be aware that the program is in existence and it should be offered to a member
that is being placed on the PIP so that they know that they have that research. They don't have to accept it. That's what this language states. So I just wanted to provide that clarity, um, because it sounds like we're kind of on start pages in terms of Interpretation. Well, it says it must be offered, however, if there's gonna be a pit process, uh, the employee is allowed to have association representation there. And I believe the association representation could certainly advocate for them to have a mentor if they chose to that at that time. Of course we would. So, so for us to have that
offering, I mean, that, that can be offered by the person there. Okay. Well, we'll look it over. Um, we had originally post 30, the original contract line, which was 40. As part of your package proposal, you put 35. Uh, because it was offered as package, we didn't think it would be equitable to say, okay, we'll take 35 because that would not honor what your proposal does. So that's why we're back in our current language, the previous language. That's all right away. Okay. All right. So we're going a little bit out of order. Um, we have three. Does somebody have, they can mute it.
The only one, The owl. Hello? Hello. Yeah, you were showing on mute. Mm-hmm. It's beautiful. Okay. Acknowledging it was showing. I, I agree. Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. So yes, we're going a little out of order tonight, um, because we are excited about getting an article off of our plate. Um, article 15 is the professional behavior language, and you can scroll it is all green. Sweet. So, um, we're accepting
the, I think it was just in 1571 that we were still working. Um, but we are accepting those minor edits and are better to be in agreement. We we Are, we are too. Thank you for that. We, um, I know that there's times where we're disagree at the table and all that was a totally brand new article that both of us had the same idea to bring it forward. Again, y'all did a much better job bringing it forward than we did. I wanna give you credit for that. But, uh, just appreciate that one we worked through really.
I mean, that's, that, that was a really good example of, of lo bargaining process, you know, and now I'm not saying that y'all don't do a good job. We don't doing a good job. Just sometimes it's hard because it's our topics. This one worked really well and I'm really proud that we were able to work together on this. So I think this is an important thing for us. Yeah, it a step in the right direction. Great. All right. So that's article 15. Yay. Um, Put that on the sheet in the right in the column. Yeah. Beautiful. Okay. All right. So yes, we are, um, also proposing counters for article seven and article nine. Um, we'll start with seven.
All right. So, um, article seven is regarding transfers. Um, we've agreed to a lot of the language already, um, but there are have been a couple things that are still on the table. Um, I think all of the changes, yeah, were down here. So, um, we know that there had kind of been a back and forth and DPS language has been that you want it to be contingent on 6 3 2. I know you pre, uh, presented 6, 3, 2,
and, um, there were some minor differences. We do have an idea for what we would like 6, 3, 2 to look like. I know that you just presented 6 3 2. And so I don't know if you wanna look at what we are thinking at this time, or do you want us to just go through article seven and then we'll respond to your Let's go through this one. I mean, I, I, I will, I will state in that no way. Trying to influence your policy polls is what it is. Mm-hmm. We did take off the contingency language only because if we wanna, if we want to agree to this, then deal
with that in that article, we can do that too. But we're happy looking. Okay. Um, come before we dive in. I'm not seeing this article. My apologies for interrupting. There you go. Thank you. All right. And My confluence to your, uh, moving that around that quick. I would unplug mine because I won't want anybody to see me do that. It's alarming ajs r but she does no seriously. Good job Tech genius. Okay. Um, so yes, we'd like 7 5 2 to, um, keep the language around, um, salary being placed at the same step
as previous assignment when a promotion taking release. Um, we do have an idea about 6 3 2, and we can talk about that. Yeah, sure. And then, um, on the seven seven, yeah. Yeah. So transfer within DPS, um, this was all brand new language for us because we truly do believe that, um, DPS experience should count towards salary scale placement. Um, so we, we know that the district hasn't been comfortable with a lot of the language, so we came up
with some additional, um, clauses here that are more aligned with the salary setting guidelines that you had sent to us. So the additions would be when an employee transfers from another DPS role to a day op role, two years within a previous DDPS role will count as one step on the day op salary schedule with a maximum allowance of step three when transferring into the day up. Um, and this aligns very closely with the, um, salary setting guidelines
around an external candidate being placed on a salary schedule that has direct clerical experience. Um, so we would like for you to really seriously consider this is, we know that experience within DPS should count, and especially what we've seen with our members where paras coming in with sometimes 18 to 20 experience years of experience in the district are getting absolutely no experience counted towards placement on the salary schedule.
We think a hundred percent that it should still be more than this, but, um, in this moment, and with the conversations we've had over the last couple weeks, um, we felt that this would be kind of a medium ground towards giving us to a good place. Sure. So any DPS role, not just, 'cause I, I, I heard you mention the external role about any external role that is relevant to the job experience. Yeah. But, so this doesn't, It would be any DP DPS experience.
We have seen, I mean, we are all educators, right? There is a ton of work that every single educator in this district does that is applicable to every other role, especially when you're in school. Every single individual and a DPS job assignment works with children and does behavioral stuff. We do that in the office. We know it's not technically clerical, but those job skills do transfer and they are very valuable to an office role. Um, there are lots of other ways, like we support students with academics when they come into our office.
We support the district on so many different things that transfer and those other positions that are outside of DAB have skills that are valuable to our roles. And we absolutely believe that that experience is relevant when you are a DPS employee, you know about DPS processes, you know, procedures, like, there's, there's a lot of stuff that is transferable. And to just kind of touch on your question, this article is specifically about transfers within DPS. So not external campus,
Right? She just mentioned external Experience. I'm talking about like what on the set salary setting guideline. This is very similar to an external candidate that has clerical experience. This would be within the district. Can we scroll up just a little bit? Um, we had agreed to strike 7.7. Would we still want this to be called transfer with NDPS? Oh, yes. Yeah. Oh, okay. I mean, with I, I'm, I'm not trying to like, like we be a jerk for technicality. No, no problem at all. Just I, if we're
to accept this language, we would want to keep that pattern. Yeah. Got it. Yeah, I think the confusion is we had accepted that strike through Correct. But there was the additional language below that that hadn't been agreed on yet. And so I think it was just an error, the title. No worries. That makes sense. It's up to you. I mean, I, I just wanted to make sure that we're, I, I thought that's what we're talking, I think we're talking the same line. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah. Yep. We just wanna show us tech skills again. Do you have any other questions on article seven? Think so. Okay. And we'll move along to Article nine hours and selective working conditions.
Um, so nine is one of the articles that we had more things to work on then similar to others. Um, so we can go through, we can scroll down. All of this had been agreed to prior. Um, here is one where we were kind of, we've been going back and forth, so, um, pay and inclement weather, late starts and closures. So we had been, there are two separate articles here. One that was on inclement weather late start days,
and one was that on, um, the inclement weather closure closure days. We were hoping to, um, have the pay be over one and one half times, um, because we believe that our member safety and their time is valuable. Um, but we are willing to go back to the original language around paying one and a half times. If we can add closures to 9, 4, 4 1 prior, it was just for late start days. But we do know that there are some day off employees
that have to work on district closure days. And, um, we'd like to make sure that they're being, um, compensated for that time. And we'll agree to the one and one half times for both of the pieces questions. Okay. Um, staffing ratio. We've already agreed to strike the, um, student based staffing ratios. We are not yet ready to accept your strike through the language around. Um, if there's only one office support in a building, um, we really do
believe that the work of an office support that is on their own doing all of the operational work, all of the financial work, they may have a financial specialist, but they still have to do my school bus. They still have to do, um, a lot of the, uh, kind of logistical things around finance. In order to get it to the financial specialist, they have to do all of the infinite campus stuff. That is a very, very large role. Um, we acknowledge that it often happen in elementary schools, um,
because there are smaller numbers of students smaller, but those office professionals in elementary schools wear a thousand different paths. Supporting behavior, supporting safety measures, supporting instruction as needed, supporting lunch and recess duty, financial, infinite campus registration, um, school choice. I can't even tell you how much these folks are doing. And so to say that they get simply office support to pay is not equitable. Um, but we are un we are proposing to untrain that language.
We know that there are managed for manager rights and it's hard to mandate what, uh, a principal can hire for and that there is a budgetary impact. But these employees deserve to be paid at a more equitable rate for the incredible work that they're doing. We, we, we, we understand the proposal. It's, we're not, and We, I I understand we're probably going to agree to disagree on this. We may, but I don't, I don't think that it, like, I,
I'm not looking at triable point. Yeah. I do appreciate you, uh, talking about it and what, Um, the blue is language that we're accepting, it just was getting really confusing to identify what was different and what wasn't. So, um, we highlighted it in blue that this is language that we are responding to and agreeing to. Gotcha. Um, and then professional learning, we've had a lot of conversations about this and we have changed some language to address some
of the concerns that the district had around capacity, um, for providing professional learning for our DF employees. So, um, we have added this language. The district will provide a meeting space for all day off employees for self-directed professional learning lab time equivalent to at least three full days per school year. This time will be during non-student contact days and will be scheduled in conjunction with essentially offer professional learning days. Supervisors may not prevent or refuse day app employees attendance. Um, and then 9, 9 2 employees will be given uninterrupted time to complete district mandated trainings
and certifications during regular work hours. If trainings cannot be completed during regular work hours, supervisors will approve overtime to complete all these TPS training considerations. So really this article is, um, to ensure that our employees are feeling effective in their jobs. As far as the professional learning piece, um, we are not asking a huge lift of the district other than providing space for our members. Um, we as day op, we'll lead whatever is necessary. Um, we would like to have our mentors at all of these days
to be sure that they can support whatever members have questions as they're doing, um, trying to catch up on things or working on things that they are confused on or need a little bit of extra support on. And it would be in conjunction with the centrally offered days that DPS already offers for other staff members to DPS. Um, so it would be on non-student contact days. Um, and we believe that the additional time and space to work together with each other
as office professionals to ensure that everybody is feeling effective and supported will be really beneficial for members. And, um, in the proposal talks about meeting space, all app and tools. Could you speak to what you're envisioning by that? We need a large room with tables and chairs. Not a lot of those exist, and I, I only say that because of our search for bargaining spaces, it's not easy to find big spaces. Mm-hmm. I mean, it doesn't have to I day there's no students, so there's a lot of space. There's more students would've otherwise been No, and I understand that,
but like some odd terms it might work. But if we're talking table space, which I'm assuming to do work that's much more, that Would be better. Agreed. But I'm not sure Criteria. I'm not sure. Cafeterias whole four. Oh, they may, I don't know. It's, it's false. So JJ just wanted, just wanted to ask that question. Yeah. Well, well one, one thing that was proposed on some of the school closures was to reallocate a building for like a professional development space. I, I really wish that would help. I think that would be a wonderful do this there. We could all, you know, could be off there.
It'd be pretty cool. Mm-hmm. So, okay. Thank you. I just wanted to, I wanted to understand what it is that you're thinking about now. Uh, visualize that. Yep. And I did read both 9 9 1 and 9 9 2 at the same time. So that might have been a lot. Do you have questions about any of the other information there? Um, no, I don't think so. I think the second's very good. Okay. Yeah. And part of what we wanna offer in 9 9 1 is also uninterrupted time to complete those district mandated trainings.
So folks could do them on the professional learning days or make, can do them in their buildings, um, messenger. Um, and then duties is signed. So we are proposing some new language here as well. We know that there were some concerns about some of that language being a little too big. Um, we understand that other duties as assigned are in all of the job descriptions
and that people do have to do things that are not directly related to their job descriptions. But, um, our jobs are big. Our workloads are sometimes unmanageable. So we'd like to propose this new option. Um, so 9 11 1 would be when duties are assigned that are distinctly outside the key responsibilities of the employee's job description. They must be mutually agreed upon by the employee and supervisor in writing and must be temporary, all them slower. So I won't read that.
So I don't know of any employee who gets to mutually agree upon the duties within the job description or any additional duties. I certainly don't get to do that. So I'm just curious why this makes sense for your bargain. We're seeing outside of the responsibilities. Correct. But if other duties as assigned is part of the job description, it's not really outside of responsibilities. So how, how do we deal with that? Well, it, we're talking about the key responsibilities being the primary function of day professionals. Those jobs are big.
Like I said, the workload can often be unmanageable because there are so many things that are expected of office support. Um, and so we are saying when there is something that potentially could be taking away significantly from the key responsibilities of our job duties, that it needs to be, there needs to be some kind of agreement that it is appropriate for the employee to have to do that. And that it's not going to be a permanent thing that takes away from their, their key responsibilities. When you cannot finish payroll
because you are doing hours of lunch and recess duty every single day, that is not there for our members. When you are being pulled for hours and hours of certain tasks that are distinctly outside of our key responsibilities, it's, it's not fair. We, we addressed this in our last part three years ago, where if somebody is being pulled for those things, 'cause in the contract it says we have to support the operations of the school. So that is already in the contract that if you are pulled away to do things like that, then a conversation would occur with the manager to talk about what, what needs to change in priorities.
Because I agree if you're, if you're doing other things, you know, and I appreciate the willingness to do that on true duty or the playground duty. Sometimes we do need to make sure kids are supervised. So I appreciate that. But if that happens, then you can't be expected to do all the things either are gonna normally do that day. So that's why that conversation occurs. And if they're not wanting change, that there is conversation about overtime. That's part of the Language. But that language is distinct to like overtime, not to the expectations. Well, It talks about expectations as well, Sort of, I mean, doesn't it, it more talks about like,
if you are doing the duties of other people, well, not being assigned things that are yours only, It doesn't say about other people. It just says if you're, if you're doing other things, that there's a conversation about what the expectations are for your priorities or overtime. If that can't be done, I'm just gonna look here. I wanna make sure that we have the best understanding of the language. I missed that it's Article nine. Right. I would assume employees who are designated to perform non clerical duties such as playground lunchroom or bus supervision, be paid at their regular rate of pay,
which may include overtime as required by applicable federal and state laws and board and district policy. Um, and then it says, as education professionals are expected to support the general safety, productivity, and operations of the school, the leader, our day of initiated a discussion on the employee's duties that must be completed within the workday. So I mean, it's, it's similar. We added this language because we felt that it was addressing any event that didn't address. Okay. Um, 9 11 2, the district will notify the Association of changes made
and adapt job descriptions within 10 business days of publication. Um, it's really challenging to understand what changes are made to job descriptions. And we don't have knowledge that they are changing. And we wanna make sure that our employees and their supervisors understand what their job descriptions are and what is changing in the job descriptions. And so we'd like to be notified of those changes. Um, so we're, we're changing the language that we have proposed around collaboration and agreement
and adjusting it so that we wouldn't just be notified. We don't necessarily have a part in determining what the changes are, but we need that notification to ensure our members know and know. Understood. Thank you. Um, 9 11 3 newly assigned job duties that require additional trainings will not be evaluated prior to being play receiving the training they need during work hours. So we're adjusting that language, um, just to ensure that if there is a change
to a job description or a job duty that they're getting the training they need before they Before yeah. Before being evaluated. Because if you don't know how to do the job because it's a new job duty and then you're immediately evaluated on it, that doesn't feel appropriate. And that's number nine. And that's all of our proposal. This is a longer article. It is a longer article. A little more processing necessary. I think last time we were doing the camera, I'm just like, yeah, this goes on. I don't know. Yeah, it's a big one. Yep. Okay. And just to clarify,
you didn't wanna see R six? We should come back. Maybe we talk about what, Um, we're willing, we're willing to accept the language without the contingency. If you do wanna do a contingency to show us, we're happy to look at it. It's, I mean, we, we don't wanna demand how you write your proposal. If you wanna do a contingent, we'd love to see it. Okay. I mean, I think that we can, Or if you wanna talk about that first, you can too. So with are, are you saying you're ready to accept Article seven without a contingency? Or you need we, that, That portion of Article seven as far as the same step mm-hmm. If for, uh, promotions we're will accept that please.
Okay. But if you, if you want make contingency, we, again, it's not all right to tell you how to write proposal. So if that's something y'all wanna hold on to, we can look at it or y'all can talk about anything. I think that I'm comfortable with waiting because we'll look at your, the proposal that you just gave us and determine what we want our counter to be based on. Maybe some of the things we were thinking would be contingent, but, um, because you up the contingency, that kind of allows things to be a little bit more flexible. Yeah. On both sides. Don't, we don't see the reason to like our, our, our rationale.
This isn't anything but this, our rationale is if we can get one article, then we should try to do that and not try hold it to. Okay. That's Okay. Great. So I think that we should take some time to caucus and let's figure out what we want our timeline to look like. Should we go for seven o'clock? Do you want go sooner than that? Um, so we are looking at six and eight and you're looking at seven and nine. I don't think we would need longer than that necessarily. Do you feel like an hour is right for you guys? Yeah, I mean, potentially we could bid on sooner,
but, uh, nine's a longer one. That might take a little longer. Yeah. Okay. We can, um, plan on nine and then if things change, you can 7, 7, 7. Don't make us say nine o'clock. Got a little up. We'll talk about seven If we, if we, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it. Yeah, Nope. If anything changes, you can text me. Yeah. If we're, if it looks like we can wrap up sooner. Okay. Four. It is now. Okay. So we are going to present our counter two article six.
It was a strategy. Yeah. We're, we're ta everything we heard. Um, alright. So, uh, welcome back. Welcome back. We are counter proposing article six, reduction in staff language. Um, we can scroll down. This office of talent took us a lot of time to talk about, but, um, so this is in the disposition of impacted staff.
Um, we couldn't quite remember why the purple language was still purple. Um, was it because you were, would only, um, agree to it if we agree to the blue language? Uh, No, that was just, that was just to signify that was your language last time. Right. But you agree to it, uh, because you propose, you left it purple and then you proposed the what's currently blue, which we are accepting that, but the whole sentence goes together.
Yeah. So we were, we didn't, you didn't remember exactly how that conversation had gone. So, so sometimes it's really clear, but I also don't wanna make the assumption that Yeah. Like we'll accept this part but not the other, you know what I mean? Ju we're, we're not in a, in disagreement with the rest of that. Okay. We, we just don't wanna make assumptions on that, what the agreement was. That's Okay. So we are accepting your language proposals up to the, the reduction cycle language because we just wanted to make sure that it was clear what the reduction cycle was
and you know, there was a little back and forth there. So we changed reduction cycle to school year. Um, and so that was our only change to this language. Um, just, just throwing one thing out here and that is that in the, in the, in the spring. That absolutely makes sense in this school year. I hear what you're saying. Mm-hmm. If there's a fall adjustment and the school year is a lot longer, that would part break the next spring. Mm-hmm. I mean, I think we'd probably be amenable to the end of the semester is that would cover the end of either like from fall to the end of that or the hiring cycle to the end of that.
Okay. I mean so is that what, like in the fall for fall adjustment, is that what the reduction cycle is? Like what, yeah, so the tell cycle Was the fall reduction cycle on the spring Reduction cycle. Mm-hmm. And so fall is considered up until the winter until Before. So the date changes depending on the year, but it's like you report until the end of October or November if you're reduced in fall count. So if enrollment numbers are down in the fall, that's when the school reduces in the fall.
Right. Um, and that goes through November. Yeah. And I mean, and we also don't wanna shortchange people just make it like you're invited for two weeks. I mean, that, that's not our goal. Our goal is just to make it magical for both hiring sites. That's, I guess the question here is can we then somewhere clarify what the red reduction cycle would look like? Yeah. I mean I think we had kind of talked about like we could leave reduction cycle in there and maybe add something to the definitions where we would like maybe more length in a more lengthy way.
I, in other like language we use is like the, the, um, typical the the normal school-based reduction timeline. Like we could do something like that. Is that what you mean? Like what is your want for clarifying the moving the production cycle? We just, I mean, 'cause we had to ask you what the reduction cycle was and it seemed like there was a little, like, not just hard to fast thought of exactly what that date was. So we said the end of the school year, It depends on which, Right.
But like we had asked, is that the end of the school year and you said Yes. So it, it kind of wasn't clear that it also Yeah. Lied to the fall reduction cycle. So I think we're just looking for some clarity. Well, and, and on That. And most people in any bargain unit would look at this. I don't know what a reduction say. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So we, you know, we can come back with some other language. I think it'll probably be available this semester just to clarify that. Okay. But we, we can make that close. Okay. Um, and in three we are
accepting a kind of going back to the original language here. So What's remains there Is all current language. Yeah. So basically going back to current language Right. No addition, which I think is what you were also Yeah. Agreed. You doing Okay. That's all prior. So, um, this article and another thing we wanna kind of bring up is when we come to a final agreement and we're going through the writing process, some
of the numbering systems are very confusing. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So we'd like to reevaluate because you know, there were bullet points under six three that are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but now 6, 3, 2 here. So that's just like for the future we can do that. Yeah. When, when we, we do the final writeup this, we'll make sure to do all that and send it to you for pooling and you can make any additional changes if we missed it. Yeah. Well, I mean, or, or you could do it too. I mean we, We, we can collaborate on it. Mm-hmm. That would be luck. Typically the bargaining units are like, okay, get us
that edited copy as soon as possible. We, we take that just 'cause that's part of our job. But we're, we're also happy to share that to then. Sure. We'll, we'll we'll discuss, come, we'll come to that conclusion. No problem. At the end of this process. So, uh, for 6 3 2, we, um, are proposing the change being, um, that their new rate of pay will be set at the rate closest to their previous rate of pay. Um, you know, in our previous conversations we understood that the,
the current contract language of remain, their pay remaining the same could be really challenging because it might put somebody outside of a sale that exists on a salary schedule. And that would be problematic down. Thank you. Um, so, you know, this would solve that problem. I think we understand that it doesn't solve the problem of somebody going from like an OS three to an OS two back to an OS three. But our perspective is kind of that,
that would probably affect very few individuals. Um, we wanna make sure that folks that are being reduced, that their, um, experiences being valued and that we're able to retain the employee by not forcing them to have a really significant pay decrease. Because in looking at our salary schedule, the difference between an OS three and OS two is pretty significant. Um, and the, the value of keeping, um, professionals in the district that have important experience kind of in our our view
outweigh the probably limited potential for folks to sleep from or have that kind of inflated, um, promotion at a later date. Any questions? No. Um, no, but I'm gonna make a comment. We certainly prefer the same step. I think that's obvious at this point. Mm-hmm. But, um, I do want to say thank you. We appreciate your creativity in trying to come to a new, new, uh, solution and um, we'll try to work off for that as well. Okay. I dunno if we'll come to an agreement on that, but we'll try. Okay. So thank you. Sure. Uh, I think that was it for this article.
That was it. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So that's what we have for you right now at this time. Pass off the, yeah. Article A is fairly length too. Yes. Yeah. Eight and nine are a little, And our, our play offs takes a ton of thought. So I mean, I we get it. I'm not sure diminish that. Yeah. I mean we're certainly getting there. It's just, um, trying to think outside of the box a little bit so that we can have our, that makes sense. The needs of our members meet, align a little bit with
what the district is having questions about. All right. We'll start off with article six or seven. I'm sorry. All right. Can you put it in the quarter please? It's Yes. If it was me, I would absolutely forget. That's why she told me. Mm-hmm. Mar Wayne, you wanna hear a funny story? Yeah, it's in There. So this is like the rage, like everybody has cool cups like this and I was feeling so left out. I like saving my stars to get one. Saved your star. Oh, sorry. Yes. They have a lot of stuff. It's giving you very summary by what the close to our 52 degree.
But I'm also jealous, like I see these all over the place. People have one more. Do I need to get you a Stanley with some charms? I was gonna say my kitchen spin over your, Um, we, we left this part not knowing if the contingency's still there or not. Um, like I said, we're willing to accept that as is or work wait till we do succeeded ones. Okay. But I mean, we, we'd be happy to accept this piece right now. And I mean our, our whole goal is just to show good faith that we think we can solve as well. Yeah. But Right. Um, here we weren't able to accept your language, but we tried to make this something
that, uh, would, we'd be acceptable to both parties. So when an employee transfers from another DPS roll to a day, apple experience will consider with a maximum allowance of step three. So what we're not willing to do is put into the, into the contract how the experience is counted, uh, two to 1, 3, 1, whatever like that. Um, but we would consider all previous experience with a maximum ounce. And then, uh, we changes to the, the salary setting guidelines. That's which what they're called. And they wanted to make sure that that was accurately reflecting the agreement. We're be reviewed with dap
and the advisory council of classified office professionals in the 25 26 school year with DAP might provide feedback on the salary placement procedure. Okay. And, and I, I can give you a little details on this if, if it's helpful. Yeah. Um, I'm trying to understand a little bit more about how experience considered and what that would look like. Yeah. So, so we're gonna consider experience there, but, and that's doesn't mean that we're gonna be like, um, no, I mean we're, that means we're gonna use experience, but there are some jobs that we believe would be considered for a two level event as you suggested. There's other jobs we believe would be more relevant in
three to one, uh, ratio. And Can you give me some examples? Um, Sure. Potentially like a facilities or transportation position because they don't deal with, we think a pair would be a lot more transferrable, probably two to one where, uh, bus driver, bus shaver maybe would be a three. Now for other, for other jobs, just for your knowledge, and this isn't bargaining units are pretty pretty standard. Like for non bargaining people, we give three levels of experience. We give same level, which is one to one. And that's not exactly what's in your salary setting guidelines. But that's what we do for someone.
We give other experience that's, uh, not quite there two to one and other experience, which isn't necessarily super relevant, we still give three to one up to maximum. So this would be consistent through other salary setting analysis. So it would fall into a, into two to one or three basically. But that'd be our discretion to determine that. But we'll share that with you. Um, so it would be two to one four. Three to one. Yeah. And then I guess like, I, I mean, I think we would want to see the salary setting guidelines that we're agreeing
to language that's pretty vague around just being considered. So we, we don't put our salary setting guidelines into the agreement. Right. We're willing to take feedback on it from you, but we're not gonna put those actual like, experience levels in the contract. So we are willing to grant experience up to step three though, which is what request was. Just we have the right to deal with the summer setting guidelines. That's a management function that we're gonna reserve. Right. Are we able to see those salary setting guidelines, just see them during this process? Uh, Alexis, the, The current ones, but the, there would need
to be new ones. Yeah. There, there would Need. And So if we agree this language, we'd have to update in our senior. And So I guess we'll need to consider whether we trust that that salary setting guideline will align with me what our intention here is. Um, I mean I I think that we trust that that will happen, but we just need to, we need to be at all in agreement. I understand that we're ready to accept this language without being able to see
what the salary setting guidelines are. And so we need to about that. Obviously maybe not. You're doing great. So, so just as a comparison, like the D agreement says it looks up to so many years of experience and then we do have salary setting guidelines that outline what types of experience can we accept. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean I think the difference there, what they get 10 years of experience mm-hmm. Right? From outside the district or within the district? Outside. Outside,
Yeah. Outside. But I, I, I do wanna stress. So we really try tried to meet your need here and we're mm-hmm. We're not, we're not able, we we're excited. And we, we also think it's, it's exciting that we're gonna allow more people that, you know, access the DPOs. We can just justify food. We really do. But I, I do wanna stress that, that adding additional specif specificity in this would be really hard for us to do. Okay. So, but hopefully you see attempt here to try to match with your touchness. Yeah, I do. And this conversation is just around like,
No, I, Clarity and understanding exactly what we're, we would potentially be agreeing to. Makes sense. And of course y'all, you know, we discuss we don't, but I don't like to show the Right No, it's, it's embarrassing. Yeah. But AJ's not. I, aj aj you, you don't even, I can't even keep, I can't keep up. No, I, she, I can't look at the screen because I get busy that the thing Sheila, or how to do what I, All right. The language here for, uh, inclement weather, uh, pay,
we, we weren't able to accept that. That we, um, we've talked about this lot, we've talked about it with, with other people in the district and where it's not something that we're able to agree to as far as, uh, changes to, uh, weather closure pay. Uh, we're, we're only able to agree to the current language When there's a weather closure. Are there people in central office that are working, like a lot of people or most people get the day off? Um, most people are, are getting paid day off for district closed closures. I don't, Yeah. I, I don't know. I mean, I do know that I don't remember course where I didn't work.
Yeah. Um, what, what's the, the hangup here around like the difference between late starts and closure date Late, late start was something that we agreed to last contract. Because there was a case where sometimes your employees were asked to come in Yeah. At the normal time of case kids come in and stuff. Yeah. We understood that that's a very unique situation to your bargaining unit. And that's something that made sense for us to, uh, to, to do as far as weather closure. This is such a rare occurrence that some bargaining unit works on a weather closure that we don't think it's worth, uh,
putting into the contract as far as demoralizing that process. I mean, it may not be a regular practice for like office support, but payroll technicians are also under our unit and this is really where that language comes from. Right. I, no, I understand that, but I don't, again, I, the chance of the closure day happening on the day payroll is due, not very likely. It's not just on a day. Payroll's Due Day seven. I gonna, in the day after that, I mean, it's, it's probably not gonna happen super frequently, but just like you said,
a late start day is an infrequent, like, unique thing who obviously, but, But it's all specialized. Your bar, you, I'm sorry. Mm-hmm. So you're saying that people get, who get called in on a soldier day should be treated, treated differently than people who get called in on a late start Day. Closure day is a whole different thing than the next time. I mean, it's a district closure. Yeah. I think we don't understand why. We don't understand the difference. I mean, yeah, it's, the amount of time is different, but the actual like function and the reason is not
So that jobs are essential. If you, you know, believe me, I, I would love on an en closed day to not work, but that's not an option for me. Get paid substantially more than anybody in our bargaining unit. I mean, I'm not making this, I'm not trying to make this personal, but like, no coming in and getting $24 an hour. It's, it's not equitable. Well, I mean, there's, there's plenty of jobs that are open, but people wanna apply for that is enough.
Well, well, no, if we're gonna talk about central office jobs, there are open jobs. So you just devalue the people who are doing this work. No, but if you're gonna say it's a matter of pay, that makes all the difference. Then if it's about pay, there are jobs that with other pay as well And simply about pay. That is a factor. Well, what I heard was you get paid a lot more. I did say that. Yeah. Yeah. That's okay. As an example of one of the reasons why it makes sense to compensate people who are having to work on a district closure day when the
majority of DPS employees do not have to work and get paid for that work or for that not work. A lot of your employees don't work and get paid for to school. Yes. And so we are saying that the people that have to work on those days should be compensated at time and a half. It's not like trillions of dollars, it's like $10. That's not something that we're gonna agree to. I understand your point. I really do. Well, I'm sorry it doesn't feel like it, but I do understand the point. It's just not something we agree to, But I still don't understand why
Staffing ratios, we're not able to agree to if there's only one off supports and off support. Three. Uh, we believe that it is the, uh, school leaders function for schools or for department, uh, managers to determine what the, uh, what the ratio should be as far as you know, what positions they need. Professional learning. Can you share this to the video? Yes. I'm so sorry. Sorry about that. Uh, the professional learning. So the meeting space that's, we're not able to do that. We're also worried about the idea of doing this on, uh,
on non student conduct days. Get that, that's an opportune time, but there's also work to do with school leaders as far as your managers on whether this is something that they would want to agree to. So same here as far as the, as the district mandate trainings. I mean, everybody's gotta do those trainings. We don't, uh, believe that we're gonna carve that out in the agreement. What we would like to propose with you is that, um, we, we create an MOU to talk about how we can discuss and try to get to a place where we can have a better discussion on professional development.
I know we've talked about this in the last contract, but what we haven't done is taken the steps. There's a lot of engagement that needs to happen with other groups and we've tried to do that on our own, but we think if we partner together, maybe we'll get a little bit better traction to actually have some of those conversations meet with different stakeholders as far as who creates the, uh, asynchronous trainings. Talk with the office of schools, talk with finance as far as how can we pull different departments together because your jobs live, the duties live through different departments, dots.
So it's, it's a huge effort to get everybody to collaborate. We think by engaging in this together for the next year, maybe we can make some ground toward some of the things that you want. But what we can't do is just go from zero to 60 right now. We need to go through the process to try to get to this. This is not zero to 60. This is I disagree. Provid minimal a space for us to actively work together to help each other with questions. So This is zero to 60. Thus, you can disagree all you want, but we're not able to make this big of a jump in the contract.
I, okay. I'm telling you that. So you, you can disagree with that all you want, but that is where we're at. And so Well, I don't wanna have confidence that working on it together over the course of this next year is going to make progress. I've been talking to you about this for two years. My entire presidency, I have been talking to in our one-on-one meetings about professional learning for office professionals. And so You're not here me, nothing has changed. We're not gonna be able to agree to this contract language. We're offering this as a path to try to get somewhere. You don't wanna go that path. That's fine. We're not gonna agree to this language. So when is an MOU gonna happen?
You, you mentioned an MOU and what does that look like? Well, I gave some description of what it could potentially look like. That would be up to the, to the parties to work on. We could come up with a draft, share it with you. We could try to work on it. So the worry here with the language that we proposed is that there is not a space available or the worry is that principals are gonna be mad because they don't want to let their office professional go and do necessary professional learning with one another. So I wouldn't phrase it like that. The room is a worry.
Yes. It's also a worry that we're telling managers what they have to do. You do that to teachers all the time. And I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but that is a requirement. That is why we propose that they would be on the district the same days that teachers are doing district required professional learning. So we're mandating things of another bargain unit in your contract. Where come What are we mandating? Other Mandating the principals, school leaders or department leader? School leaders desire contract department leaders would not be that they have to do something.
They have to allow three days, uh, for this task. That's something we're not comfortable without talking to them first Three days for us to learn how to do our jobs better. I actually think that a majority's principal will agree that this is an okay thing to do. I, but I think that that is the point of Lawrence's higher is that like, we want to get to that place. That's just not where we're at yet. So bringing the contract by which off of something that isn't real yet is not smart for us to do. We we can't do that. And so what he's saying is he wants to work.
And so I hear you that you don't have confidence that that will happen, but I think that then becomes a conversation of what does that look like for you to feel like what, what needs to happen, what needs to be outlined for y'all to be able to get to that place. Mm-hmm. But this is not contract language on this, on something that isn't real yet is not something that we Can bear. I mean, what it feels like to me by disregarding everything that we have said
and proposed on contract language is that you do not trust office professionals to do the things that we need on our, that is what it feels like to me. And When we ask for support from the district, like we've asked for you to provide things for us, and you can say, no, we can't do that. And we say, great, we just, we'll do it ourselves. We just need a day and a space to do it. And you're like, no, we can't do that either. So we have moved significantly on our hopes for being able to be trained and equipped for our jobs. And we're seeing no movement towards us.
We just, so that's But in talking about, but it's not, you can smirk all you want. That is movement. Okay. I You understand what an MLU is like if is the same, that's more disrespectful. I'm just trying to understand like why is that not movement? Like, Like how would that not be? 'cause the way that I understood the MOU is that it's more important to get the perspectives of other stakeholders than to trust us. In what, in what we are asking for as members of team.
Well, yes. That you need to get invol the other district or the other departments in the district involved in making the decisions that affect us for us. Mm-hmm. Because we're a whole organization. It's true. But we have been on the bottom of the pyramid for so long. We are asking to be able to make a decision around helping our members feel successful in this moment without a year's delay. We have already been delayed for three years. The two years that, like all of the years
of the concern contract and prior to that, when people had even less professional learning than they do now would be off summit. Professional learning is good for employees. And I, I don't disagree. We don't have the in infrastructure yet to do this. We're trying to get there. You don't wanna work on that one. This fine, this is not a language we're gonna To tell me. Tell me what the infrastructure is that is needed. Tell me more, please. I already did, Already didn't disagree. Do you want us to come up with a draft mou? We can do that, but if that's not something worth exploring, then we're Not going to, I'll need a draft event
before I to just saying an MU will be fine. Well, I wouldn't expect you to agree to that. We're not saying here, I'm, I'm asking this is something that we be willing to do. 'cause we can't do the language and what I heard was No. So we don't wanna grab something if it's not even something that's worth its wrong. I'm not saying no to anything. I am simply explaining the disappointment and the mistrust mm-hmm. That I have around this being implemented in a way that will be effective for the admin. All right. So at this point I'd like to caucus. Thank you.
Yeah. Back bat and my 85 pound pound dog who is terrified of that cherry nose. So nobody in your neighborhood was happy? Well, no. It was just little annoying. Just was to cherry abuse bar. No, she just, she wasn't like, she was just like shaking, doing the whole Yeah. Said my hound dog. That's terrified of all things loud noise. Yeah. All right. We left off here at nine 11. Duty to sign. So It to the folder right now
This is was already there, wasn't it? Nine? Oh yeah. Nine's already in there. Okay. So we're not able to agree to have a job description or duties mutually agreed upon, let's imagine, right? That we're willing to reserve. Uh, we thought that the ASK care was reasonable as far as, uh, notifying the Association of changes. And what we'd prefer to do is to notify at the next advisory, uh, council classified office professional meeting. We meet very soft with this in the agreement that one of the standing items would be, are there a job description changes? So the proposal is to cross out the within 10
business publication. Yes. Can you cross that out? Sure. Yeah. Sorry about that. We do think, yeah, we have a right to know of job description changes. We just wanted to set up a mechanism to have that reviewed and then newly assigned job duties that require additional training not be evaluated. Um, sometimes people are new in a job, it doesn't make sense to wait on potentially evaluations. Hopefully the evaluations are happening immediately, but we think that could be inconsistent with when somebody's hired. That was all of nine. Anyone wanna have a question? Just to clarify, on 9 11 3, we're not saying the evaluation needs to be held up,
we're just saying they won't be evaluated on those specific duties. I, I understand, but based on things like we talked about earlier organization, that it could be some rare area. We're not comfortable with that. So people can be evaluated on something before they've been trained on it. Um, ton That just feels really interesting that well, Like sometimes it's an expectation of the job and like your previous experience would give you the experience to do the things like there's some duties of your job that,
But the language says newly assigned job duty that require additional training. Yeah. I guess like, wasn't those What would require additional training? I mean, we could, that's not necessarily fairness language either. The employee could say, Hey, this requires additional training. The manager says, no, it doesn't. Okay. I mean, we'll think about that question as we look at countering. I would also like to shower at the sixth. The six. Sure. And can you put up at the top that this is your counter? Can you put that up at the top? Mm-hmm.
Oh, I see it in the title, but I don't think it's helpful to have it in the, sorry. My computer's being wonky. You problem man. You can put that in there while we're going. You don't need to be, As we discussed earlier, I understand the confusion that could go with the reduction cycle to be consistent with what we said earlier. We would, uh, propose to change that through em to the end of the semester and everything else. That was fine. We did highlight it this time. It seemed like we're both on the same page. So that's the first change. And then down here, as far as sellers say we appreciated, uh, what, what you had stated. So all we said is the new rate of pay would be set at their,
uh, same step, our previous assignment plus one additional step on the lower grade up to the max. So instead of being set, the exact same step would be, uh, the lower grade, but up an additional step. So little movement. Appreciate that. That's everything in the arm. Okay. Can we go back up to the first level this semester? Okay. I don't think we have any questions on this one. Okay. Um, so now, um, article seven was in our court and, um, over the caucus
we had mentioned via text that, um, we're willing to accept your changes. Let, let's go ahead and, and we'll present it just so that Sure. We know what is that everybody's agreeing to. Thank you. All right. So, Uh, the agreement is to strike out the contingency language. Um, and we are in agreement that promoted employees will remain at the same step as their previous assignment. Um, I made a clue just for clarity's sake, but that is accepted language.
And then, um, we're accepting the, your language proposals around the, um, prior DPS experience being considered. Um, and we'll definitely be participating in the, in the feedback for the salary setting guidelines in that advisory council. Um, so that we can just be in the loop and provide any input that might be relevant to the consideration of that experience. But we are accepting your language. Please, please let us know when you wanna do it,
in which meeting you wanna do that because we wanna make sure that other people do it. Okay. Yeah, and I think that something that we need to have on our agenda is to set the dates for the council meeting And Likely we would want it to be at the purchase meeting. I, I want, I mean, I would be there, but I wanna make sure that someone else, Um, so that means we have agreement on article setting. Um, We have about 23 minutes left. Um, I know if that's enough time, I know article saying you work on that pressure. Is that enough time or No, understand.
So let's work on the schedule then. Mm-hmm. Um, so nine, eight and nine are in our court. And six, um, 10 and 11 are also in our court. Um, we had hoped to get a little bit more off of our plate just in general before next session. Since that is our last scheduled bargaining session. Um, we are gonna have to do a little bit of, um, thinking about
how much we can get through, um, by next week we would like to talk about compensation for sure next session. Um, but I think that we as a team are gonna need to talk about exactly what we're both hope we're gonna come with. Um, before we can say for sure. Because everything that's left is, is in our, I think in the report. Okay. Um, my, I think capacity over the summer is gonna be pretty minimal in terms of scheduling, bargaining sessions. Um, I can
definitely commit to trying to set some things up for beginning when, um, do you have employees them back to work? That's July 28th. Um, we would have to talk about anything before that. I don't know what your thoughts are. Um, I would like to see where we get next week. Um, we could also potentially stay later next week Like this. Will this building be open and available? We can Arrange it today. Okay. I think, I think we'll need to think about that because pretty hard. That's the last day.
Well, it's the second to last day of work for 200 day employees, which three of us are. Um, so we'll have to see what we think we can manage. We know That would be earlier. Yeah. I mean, again, it, it, it's tricky because for 200 day work year flight, the last day of school is on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are last two days. Blows up fiscal school year. Um, and our principals may need us
and we have job duties that need to be wrapped up. So we, we kind of have to feel out Any chance of Friday. I know that someone's gonna be starting soon, but Friday, Friday I six, I am in a full day training that day for something else. Um, work all day. Anyone who's not a 200 day employee works? I don't think so. Not, I mean, not for me. Um, Alrighty. So yeah, I think we're gonna have to see where we get on the fourth, but I'll email you with, um, the article that
we'll be able. Okay. So that's just presenting to anybody just watching both. Then we'll call. Okay. Thank you.