WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=TSf7N_Uhdf0

Part: 1

1
00:00:05.040 --> 00:00:20.320
recording. So, um, Mr. Harmon, if you would like the pleasure of, uh, introducing us to session number two. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Everybody hear me? Okay, too on this. >> Yep. Yep. We do. >> Awesome. Well, welcome to session number

2
00:00:20.320 --> 00:00:35.440
two. I know this is a followup from our last session, which was on July 6th. um our first session where we discuss some compensation pieces. Um again, I know we're on camera, but always good to introduce ourselves so that everybody

3
00:00:35.440 --> 00:00:50.960
knows who everybody is. Uh I'm Terry Harmon. Um I'm counsel and chief negotiator for the district. And also along with me virtually here is another attorney in our firm, Esmeralda Mcgrron, who's going to watch our our our session

4
00:00:50.960 --> 00:01:08.400
today. and I'll let uh my two colleagues at the table introduce themselves and then we'll turn it over to you for intros. >> Sure. >> Good afternoon. Jeff Raymond from human resources. >> Good afternoon, Raquel Queen. Um director of financial services.

5
00:01:08.400 --> 00:01:23.520
>> Liz Rocklage, MCA. >> Cody Wilson, MCA. >> Gary Simmons, chief negotiator, MCA from FBA. >> Kelly Coleman, president of MCA. >> Lonnie Burch, MCA. Kim Love, MCA.

6
00:01:23.520 --> 00:01:39.360
>> Great. And is everybody here from your team today? Are we good to go forward at this point? >> Yes, we are. >> Awesome. Thank you. Um, so I guess I'll start um if that's okay. Um, I know just as a kind of a brief session recap from

7
00:01:39.360 --> 00:01:56.640
where we left off last time to those who may be watching this and who who don't know what happened during session one. Um, I know we we talked a lot about TSIA funding and how TSIA funding needed to be completed um in an expeditious

8
00:01:56.640 --> 00:02:13.599
manner. And I know your team did a lot of homework and started off the session with a pretty um comprehensive proposal as it relates to not just TSIA but overall compensation. Um, and I know anou was passed and so I

9
00:02:13.599 --> 00:02:30.319
will say I know our team appreciated the efforts that y'all put into that to try to get that. It was very ambitious out of the gate. Um, I know our team discussed with you TSIA only thoughts as opposed to global

10
00:02:30.319 --> 00:02:46.319
compensation at the table. And since we left that session, we did our homework and I know we've still got some budgetary issues that we're working through. I think we just got some FL DOE reports either on Friday or Saturday

11
00:02:46.319 --> 00:03:03.120
that we're diving into. And so I'd say from an overall global compensation perspective, I think we're just a little too early on our side to be able to finalize being able to come up with overall

12
00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:20.319
district compensation outside of just the TSIA. Part of it is just the budget and um our fiscal year and understanding kind of where we are from a financial condition perspective. We just need more time to be able to assess that. And I

13
00:03:20.319 --> 00:03:37.519
think when you butt that up against the July 31st deadline for TSIA, it just it makes it very challenging on our end. We did the homework. I think what you've done with the presentation that you've made is at least given a

14
00:03:37.519 --> 00:03:53.280
jumping off point for when we are able to talk full compensation to be able to take some of the work that you've done and to be able to provide some responses to it. But I think we're just a little bit ahead of it um right

15
00:03:53.280 --> 00:04:10.239
now. And I know from our perspective the the foot has to be on the pedal on the gas pedal for TSIA compensation. And so I think from a counter perspective if we were going to use that terminology

16
00:04:10.239 --> 00:04:25.919
um I think we need to really not so much counter but shift focus to only focusing on the TSIA for the because we've only got 9 days to wrap this up. Um, but I do want to reiterate that we appreciate the

17
00:04:25.919 --> 00:04:42.479
effort that y'all put in to trying to get that across the table early. Um, but for the reasons I explained, we're just in a little bit of a of a timing dynamic and a timing crunch issue. When it comes to the TSIA funding, um I know we talked

18
00:04:42.479 --> 00:04:58.000
about a couple of options that we were we had explored on our side at the last session on July 6th and wanted to kind of revisit that and and give a little bit of updated interpretation. As you all know, this is pretty fast

19
00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:14.080
moving. We got the bill language from the proviso. I think it's House Bill 503 E. Then that was followed up with the Department of Education, uh, excuse me,

20
00:05:14.080 --> 00:05:30.320
jump in the gun, Department of Education FAQ, as well as some different guidance. And I think what that did was help us understand what is a classroom teacher, how do we determine years of eligibility, some of those things that I

21
00:05:30.320 --> 00:05:46.960
think we had some difficulty with before the FAQ came out, that really helped narrow those Um, and so I think understanding who's eligible and and and how many years of experience and what group we I think we're we've made good understanding on

22
00:05:46.960 --> 00:06:03.360
that. I think the area where we want to focus on and bring to your team's attention and kind of talk through with you was when we had presented last session on the sixth we had talked about two

23
00:06:03.360 --> 00:06:19.759
different possible ways to address TSIA funding. One of them was a tiered approach which was you know 10 to 15 years 20 to 25 like different year of experience may equate to a different

24
00:06:19.759 --> 00:06:36.880
approach from a TSIA perspective and I think we had shared some numbers that that could have fluctuated between 1230 to 2000 just a rough estimate and then the other approach was really more of a flat base if you have 10 or more

25
00:06:36.880 --> 00:06:52.080
years of experience in Florida public schools as a teacher a flat rate approach to expend all the TSIA funds and that number was 1,638 and that was based on a calculation of

26
00:06:52.080 --> 00:07:09.199
there being 504 eligible members um for that and I know and I I'll I think it bears repeating this right now um and I think I repeated it a couple of times during the last session the

27
00:07:09.199 --> 00:07:24.400
and and I know a lot of your members listen to this. Um these TSIA funds that have been allocated to the school district to spend are very narrowly defined in terms of who is eligible for

28
00:07:24.400 --> 00:07:40.319
them. It is only if you have 10 plus years of experience as a Florida classroom public school educator. And so that leaves out a number of folks, a number of folks who have 30 years of experience but may not

29
00:07:40.319 --> 00:07:56.960
be in the state of Florida. And I don't think that's anything your team did or any proposals that your team made. I don't think that's anything on the school district side. That's what we are, you know, we're given in terms of how this money can be spent. What we're

30
00:07:56.960 --> 00:08:11.840
primarily concerned about too from the district perspective is when we give this money out that we give it the way that the legislature and the department of education expects that we will give it out. So we really focused in on since

31
00:08:11.840 --> 00:08:29.039
our last session digging through any supporting documentation to make sure that when we revisited the table with you today that that we had clear understanding and direction. And I think our our takeaway from the last edition

32
00:08:29.039 --> 00:08:45.519
to now was one of the FAQ documents that the Florida Department of Education issued speaks to how should the growth allocation money be spent. And what it says is, and it's consistent with the

33
00:08:45.519 --> 00:09:01.040
budget proviso language, and that is that we should be spending, we should be getting every teacher who's eligible 3,000 up to $3,000. And then if there's anything outside of 3,000, it can be paid out in different ways.

34
00:09:01.040 --> 00:09:17.360
But there's a question five in that FAQ document that I'm happy to share and I can I can put it on the big screen if we need, but I'm sure your team probably read this thing five times at least. But the the last sentence in the first paragraph in the answer to question five

35
00:09:17.360 --> 00:09:32.880
says that if you cannot get to $3,000, then you should get to the highest amount achievable per teacher. And our concern with that language is it doesn't seem to give flexibility

36
00:09:32.880 --> 00:09:50.000
to differentiate based on years of experience when it when you're determining how much money to pay out. It says if you can't get to 3,000 then you get to the highest amount achievable per eligible teacher. And so I think our

37
00:09:50.000 --> 00:10:07.600
view of that was if you have 10 or more years of experience and you qualify for TSIA funds, everybody gets the same amount. you take a pot of money that's available to the district which I think our I think what we thought it was

38
00:10:07.600 --> 00:10:29.040
after um benefits was 825,552 and then when you add back in benefits it gets to the total TSIA distribution which was 1 million 9,732 but that we essentially take that $825,552

39
00:10:29.040 --> 00:10:44.480
$2. We divide it by the number of eligible employees and all of those eligible employees receive um the TSIA distribution um that gets added to their base.

40
00:10:44.480 --> 00:10:59.519
And I so I think we're a little bit pigeonhold in terms of how much flexibility that we have. And I know um I'll just say I know there's other districts that may have done things different ways.

41
00:10:59.519 --> 00:11:16.480
My view, at least in my experience being at the table and having reviewed these is over the last couple of weeks, it really seems that from my interpretation, the expectation is we'll be getting every teacher the highest amount that we

42
00:11:16.480 --> 00:11:32.880
can. if we can't get 3,000 which would place a limitation on our ability to do a tiered approach. So um when I said ear a moment ago we may have something to share. We do have anou that we wanted to share. I think we would

43
00:11:32.880 --> 00:11:49.120
like to do it after caucus that implements what I have just said, but really what we wanted to do is make sure we articulated it to you first and didn't just pass a piece of paper and say here's our proposal is to give you the reasons why. Uh particularly you all

44
00:11:49.120 --> 00:12:05.839
put a lot of work into your salary compensation proposal and so we wanted to make sure that we were really explain to you our position and the why. Um, and then separate from that, and I know we're a little bit probably way

45
00:12:05.839 --> 00:12:21.839
early, is um, just a reminder that we're in open books. So, once we can get past this financial urgency with these funds, I think we would love to shift some some chat to that. So, I'll stop talking. That's probably the longest opening I

46
00:12:21.839 --> 00:12:37.200
think I've given since I've been at the table with y'all. But, I felt we needed to really explain the the why behind the position that we think we're we're we're we're in right now with what we can do with these funds. So, Mr. Simmons, I'll like I said, stop talking

47
00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:53.519
and I'll let you add anything you'd like to that Tina. >> Thanks for your explanation, Terry. So just to um respond to some of of what you shared, the interpretation that the district came to um the conclusion of

48
00:12:53.519 --> 00:13:10.000
the interpretation that you guys came to isn't a foreign conclusion. Right. So I've seen I've seen um these TSIA proposals uh get tentatively agreed upon in a couple of school districts that

49
00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:26.639
implemented it the the exact same way that you explained. like one um everyone gets the same amount. Our neighbors to the north and St. Lucy County did it in that in that manner. Um I've seen some that have taken a tiered approach. I can explain to you the reason why some has

50
00:13:26.639 --> 00:13:44.320
taken a tiered approach cuz um for record speaking FBA has taken a position that we don't negotiate with the with the um Florida Department of Education, right? So their frequently answered questions are meant to be used as a

51
00:13:44.320 --> 00:14:01.519
guideline, but that would introduce them as a party to negotiations, which we feel that they're not a party of negotiations. So there has been some districts and some presidents that have rejected that theory and they've still put forward um a tiered approach. So some of those exist. our neighbors to

52
00:14:01.519 --> 00:14:16.560
the north in Indian River County, they took the uh they took an approach where it's um one flat amount for those that have more than 10 years of experience, but they did a hybrid of of what we introduced um when we were here the last

53
00:14:16.560 --> 00:14:33.279
time. They took care of everybody. So, it's just a split down the middle. Either you have 10 years of experience um less than 10 years of experience or more years of of um than 10 years of experience. If you have more than 10 years of experience, they utilize the entirety of the TSIA to give those

54
00:14:33.279 --> 00:14:47.600
individuals um that flat rate and then they matched it with the district contribution for those that were ineligible for that amount and then those that were less than 10 received a separate amount. So, I've seen it done in in a majority of of

55
00:14:47.600 --> 00:15:02.880
ways. As you said, the majority of these are um like this this whole process is is unprecedented. So there's no established uh or established route that that has

56
00:15:02.880 --> 00:15:17.519
been finalized up to this this point. So it's a couple of different approaches that that exist. I think that MCA's major position and I've shared that at other tables that wanted to take a TSIA

57
00:15:17.519 --> 00:15:35.920
only approach. I'm happy that you've mentioned in your explanation of the need to whether it's not if it's not taken care of now, but in the future we have in the immediate future, we have to try to take care of everyone else that falls outside of of

58
00:15:35.920 --> 00:15:53.519
the TSIA eligibility cuz it's a huge huge chunk of employees in this school district that falls outside. Um my last calculation was 511, right? So, we have 1 employees in the district. So, if we have 511 that's not

59
00:15:53.519 --> 00:16:09.199
getting anything, it's a complete insult for them to have to ratify language where they don't see themselves receiving any financial compensation in that documentation whatsoever. So

60
00:16:09.199 --> 00:16:24.639
it's with that I just think that the theou needs to reflect that this doesn't conclude the economic bargaining for the 26 27 school year and when those I call it the

61
00:16:24.639 --> 00:16:41.839
district's economic forecast right so what we could see what's on that that financial doppler radar it's kind of hard to see a couple of months in advance what's going to be on the Doppler radar radar, you can give an estimate, but you don't know exactly how much rainfall you're going to get 3

62
00:16:41.839 --> 00:16:55.920
months down the line, right? So, when your forecast gets a little bit more clearer and we see the images on your radar a little bit more clearer, that's it's at that moment we have to look at the other 511 employees that weren't

63
00:16:55.920 --> 00:17:14.720
taken care of um through TSI TSIA. So, I just want to make sure that having those discussions, I I'm loving the approach of having this conversation before putting proposals out. Right. So prior to any umou being created, I think

64
00:17:14.720 --> 00:17:31.200
that's the main thing that MCA wants to get out of aou is that we make it very very clear to anyone who may look at theou online um who may want to read it prior to ratification that they clearly

65
00:17:31.200 --> 00:17:46.320
see that we want to make sure that it's not we're not concluding the economic negotiation for the 26 27 um school year and that conversation would would continue.

66
00:17:46.320 --> 00:18:03.280
>> That's fair. So in and to kind of summarize it, what I'm hearing is if it's going to be a TSI and I'm not committing say you're committing to anything by by the way, but if the district is going to want to go and

67
00:18:03.280 --> 00:18:21.120
we're going to do a TSIA only approach, you would like it to be made clear to your members that this does not mean that your team is concluding compensation discussions or believes that this concludes compensation discussions. This is only this this pot

68
00:18:21.120 --> 00:18:37.039
over here for this specific group and that there's more to be done. Right. And I also wanted to check with your interpretation with respect to what's considered finished or an agreement because

69
00:18:37.039 --> 00:18:53.679
MCA along with um FBA and and the rest of our our colleagues who are are negotiating these dollars around the state believes that this deadline is a requirement to get a tentative agreement. Um, do you guys have a belief

70
00:18:53.679 --> 00:19:10.799
that is a requirement for it to be ratified and all of that prior to the 30th? >> I don't believe so. My understanding, my take on it, which we're all learning as we go on this one, is if there's a TA prior to the 31st and then it runs

71
00:19:10.799 --> 00:19:25.919
through its normal ratification process, which will occur after the 31st when most of the teachers return and can vote. that that complies >> that as long as we've reached an agreement on how the money is going to be spent by July 31st that a TA would

72
00:19:25.919 --> 00:19:47.600
meet that requirement. That's how I >> All right. That that's our that's our um understanding of it as as well. >> Yep. Okay. I think that that's um so now I do have have one other approach because

73
00:19:47.600 --> 00:20:02.720
as as you saw in in the presentation last week, I'm I'm very passionate about the work that we've done up to this this school year and I think that we all should be incredibly um proud of the work that we did. Miss Queen, you've inherited wonderful work that we've done

74
00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:19.679
over the past um couple years. And just thinking about the continuation of it, I've seen where some folks have created an additional um salary schedule to reflect these changes. And I wanted to

75
00:20:19.679 --> 00:20:36.080
have a conversation with respect to implementation because I I can see this just simply being implemented because it it includes um a specific class of of educators. Can this be treated the same way we treat like

76
00:20:36.080 --> 00:20:51.039
advanced degree supplements on a on um a yearly basis where they get paid that outright number? We don't have to create a um a separate salary schedule just to reflect the increases from TSIA to the base

77
00:20:51.039 --> 00:21:06.480
schedule for these small individual of of um of educators. How do you guys envision the implementation of of that? If that's too early to ask, then I was just curious. >> Yeah. um when we take our caucus, we'll get the answer to that question. Okay.

78
00:21:06.480 --> 00:21:23.200
>> Um cuz that's a great question, but we want to be prepared to give you an accurate answer. >> I respect that. Totally. Totally. I just wanted to give you food for thought on on on that. >> And to confirm, you want to know would we need a separate salary schedule for TSIA? Was that the question?

79
00:21:23.200 --> 00:21:39.600
>> Or what just how we would want to change >> how it would be implemented? >> Right. I I'm not making any suggestions. >> Yeah. Not that it was a suggestion. You wanted to know though like would we have to or could it just be part of the regulars? Yep. >> Cuz um >> I've I've seen in in some scenarios where they discussed having a completely

80
00:21:39.600 --> 00:21:56.080
different >> salary schedule. And when I heard that reality, I thought about the um what we what we've done over the the years and it pretty much puts a a a stick of dynamite to to the work that we've done. So, I was just curious as as um

81
00:21:56.080 --> 00:22:11.280
with the I didn't see it in the in the FAQs or or anything like like that whether or not that was addressed according to you guys' interpretations. It was just a curious curious thought. >> Foreshadowing. I know we would strive to not have a separate salary schedule. So,

82
00:22:11.280 --> 00:22:27.440
when we caucus, we'll >> get you some clarity on that. >> Yeah. Because I I I speak to Kelly and the rest of the team all the time. It's so difficult for a lot of our folks to understand the want. So to introduce a second salary schedule and ask them to figure out two separate ones is a tall

83
00:22:27.440 --> 00:22:44.080
ask. >> Okay. Any Does the team have any questions, comments or concerns? I think we're good. All right. Do we want to take a caucus, Terry? >> Yeah, I think if we give a caucus now. Give us maybe half an hour or let's say

84
00:22:44.080 --> 00:23:00.080
4:00. If we get done quicker, that's great. If not, then maybe meet back at 4:00 and we can revisit this conversation. >> Okay, good. Now we are back up. >> Great. Thank you. So, thank you for the time. I know um y'all needed some time

85
00:23:00.080 --> 00:23:14.880
on your end to talk through some different things, too. So, um coming out of the caucus, I think Mr. Raymond may have in front of him a copy of anou that we wanted to pass um across if you don't already have it um to give you an

86
00:23:14.880 --> 00:23:30.240
opportunity to take a look and it it is anou that is a proposal that um consists of of TSIA funding expenditures. Um so I give you a chance to get that and take a look at it and

87
00:23:30.240 --> 00:24:19.320
see if you have any questions. Thank you. Oh, we were shy. >> Thank you. Here you >> cuz I have the email. for a second.

88
00:24:51.679 --> 00:25:50.640
Open the beer. I'm good. And if you need a caucus to take time to talk about it, absolutely understand that, too. >> Well, we could just go out in the in the um area right there. >> Do you want to head outside and we'll just stay in here for a few minutes?

89
00:25:50.640 --> 00:26:11.679
>> I think that'll be quick. >> Okay, Terry. Uh 4:32 p.m. 4:32 p.m. we are returning from caucus to hear from MCA. All right. So, um back from

90
00:26:11.679 --> 00:26:28.480
from um caucus, we just had a a a couple of of concerns. Well, not a couple, just one concern with respect to theou. It looks good, but the fact that there's not a number on

91
00:26:28.480 --> 00:26:46.960
there for um that that those eligible members would would receive the um the planned in intention of implementation is is clear, but the amount isn't. And I just wanted to

92
00:26:46.960 --> 00:27:10.080
provide something from it because I know the district concern is that the number could possibly change, right? And so if if we can include a an amount to it and then just a caveat that is not the final amount. Um, one of the

93
00:27:10.080 --> 00:27:27.360
language that I I put in in another um, proposal um, that we was negotiating says that the parties agree that the following figures reflect the current proposal model and shall be reconciled against final district payroll eligibility and

94
00:27:27.360 --> 00:27:43.440
benefits data prior to final implementation. So if if we can put a number on there and use that as a a caveat, I think that that pro protects you. If if the concern for not putting what the the amount that that each

95
00:27:43.440 --> 00:27:59.039
eligible employee would be receiving, that would um satisfy the necessity if the if the number that we divided into equally would have to change um before implementation. So

96
00:27:59.039 --> 00:28:14.640
>> that also just so teachers can get an idea like what am I actually getting >> exactly? >> I I can read this but that doesn't tell me what it means for me >> exactly. Yeah, that makes I mean and I I'll take your I I hesitated cuz I originally had that in the draft and I

97
00:28:14.640 --> 00:28:31.120
had put something like you know the parties uh estimate that the amount will be approximately 1,638 based on 504 eligible members cuz that's what we presented last session. Mhm.

98
00:28:31.120 --> 00:28:47.120
>> I think that's fine to put that in there with just the language to say like this is the estimate, but the final list will be determined on July 31st. Um I think that's fine. >> Okay. >> I think that's a good idea. >> All right. Cuz that that's the only only

99
00:28:47.120 --> 00:29:03.039
um issue that we've identified with with theou as it's currently written. So if we can get that um adjustment Yeah. we can um sign off on this and talk about next. >> And we did have a response to you about

100
00:29:03.039 --> 00:29:19.679
um we do not foresee a separate schedule needing to be created because what we currently have in place is an initial salary schedule placement. So that wouldn't impact an initial placement if you're in agreement with that position. >> I am in agreement with that position.

101
00:29:19.679 --> 00:29:35.679
>> Um and then we also sought clarity for Mr. Harmon that um Miss Coleman you had asked about ratification date and Mr. Harmon if you want to confirm it would still be October 1st. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The the key dates I had was we

102
00:29:35.679 --> 00:29:52.320
have to have an agreement by July 30th. Then the salary distribution plan gets submitted by the district before October 1. But we also have to serve uh which we would do with a TA for instance. But we

103
00:29:52.320 --> 00:30:09.679
have to submit the approved distribution plan before October 1st. So I believe what that means is you'll have to ratify process and the board will have to approve it separately prior to October one so we can submit it completed on package. That's how I read. Is that kind

104
00:30:09.679 --> 00:30:27.520
of where you all are too on that? We was just to tossing it tossing it around cuz the elephant the the the elephant is is going to to be um having having this go the hope was to to

105
00:30:27.520 --> 00:30:43.039
be able to discuss the um economics for for those that were left out and ratify all of this together cuz I think that that's the we can add what we suggested um coming out of our caucus and this

106
00:30:43.039 --> 00:30:58.880
memorandum of understanding and sign off on it today. Right? And that's just the first half of the challenge. The next half is getting it across the finish line through the ratification process. It'll be a lot easier to get this ratified if everyone that's voting for

107
00:30:58.880 --> 00:31:14.159
it sees themselves in in their ratification process. If we're ratifying this independently without the economics for 511 other of the bargaining unit members, we might find ourselves back here to do exactly what we were

108
00:31:14.159 --> 00:31:30.960
proposing the initial time out. So, this is is perfect to go this this route. But I just think that we would need to um to ratify this along with um the economics for the rest of the bargaining unit or

109
00:31:30.960 --> 00:31:45.840
communicate with the state that we're still in the process of negotiating for the other ones. And this is is being ratified along with everyone. Both of those possibilities seem um well those options seem like a viable possibility,

110
00:31:45.840 --> 00:32:01.519
but I just know it will be very very difficult to get the TSIA um funds ratified alone where 511 employees don't receive anything. The um salaries are the most selfish aspect of

111
00:32:01.519 --> 00:32:19.919
it. And this is coming from the union that preaches unity and solidarity. When it comes to salaries, everybody's individual. Understood. I mean, I I don't want to comment too much on your ratification process, but I hear what

112
00:32:19.919 --> 00:32:36.640
you're saying. Best way with that. >> Yeah. >> Um, so that and let me go back. Would it make sense? And and we can if we continue to keep talking about that. If I just put theou up on the screen and we

113
00:32:36.640 --> 00:32:51.600
redlined a sentence to add in there to address >> I figured that might be instead of us going away drafting coming back. We all agree on what we want to do. Let's just do it. >> Um, >> okay. Let me put >> Well, you don't want to see my whole

114
00:32:51.600 --> 00:33:08.720
screen. >> It's okay. It's just a bunch of icons on my desktop. So, um, see if that comes up on your screen. theou and I'll zoom in. >> Yep. >> Looks good. Maybe a little bigger.

115
00:33:08.720 --> 00:33:22.799
>> Yep. I can make it a lot bigger. >> Okay. >> Like that. >> There you go. >> There you go. >> Does that work? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> So, I'm thinking it goes right here, but I'm okay if we we come up with some

116
00:33:22.799 --> 00:34:17.520
language together. But I think around that same spot. This that spot is perfect. I think it's 1,638, >> I believe. So, >> yes, I have it here in front of me. >> Yep. 1638. >> Obviously, this is not good language,

117
00:34:17.520 --> 00:34:33.200
but at least it gets it concept down. But I am going to do 1638* 504 just to make sure. Yep. Data on the penny. >> All right. >> And then Gary, you had some good language you just said about, you know,

118
00:34:33.200 --> 00:34:49.679
however some um final >> the parties agree that the following figures reflect the current proposal model and shall be reconciled against final district payroll eligibility and benefits data prior to final implementation. I can email you that

119
00:34:49.679 --> 00:35:04.400
language if you want to use it or >> I'll type it. You said that the following figures reflect the current >> proposal model. >> Yep. >> And shall be reconciled against

120
00:35:04.400 --> 00:35:31.200
>> against final district payroll eligibility. >> All right. and benefits data prior to final implementation. So way I would say this, I would say for estimation purposes only, as of July 24th, actually it was the 16th

121
00:35:31.200 --> 00:36:56.480
is when we had that number, right? >> No, six. >> Six. >> Six. Yep. I like this line as a salsa for our submissions person as of July 26. Bear with me here. I think this without the doesn't

122
00:36:56.480 --> 00:37:14.280
this just get us there? For estimation purposes only, as of July 26, July 6, 2026, the parties identified approximately 500 employees who met eligibility criteria

123
00:37:14.560 --> 00:37:30.880
thereby resulting in an equal distribution of 1638 per eligible employee. However, the final list will be determined on and then just take this out. >> Doesn't that say the same thing? >> Yep. >> Yep.

124
00:37:30.880 --> 00:38:08.720
>> Okay. Does that give your folks enough like if they picked this up and read it, they would see if I'm one of those 504 um That good? >> Yep, that's good for me. >> How about you, K?

125
00:38:08.720 --> 00:38:27.119
>> Okay, I'm going to I'm going to try to bring this up onto one page. Um, but bear with me, okay? >> I don't want to mess anything up too much.

126
00:38:27.119 --> 00:38:58.880
Uh, two side bonds. Two side bonds. Other than this, we can get it printed up if that's okay with you. >> That's fine with me. >> That'd be great. I appreciate y'all taking the time to review it and um about your edition about future bargaining was a good one. So

127
00:38:58.880 --> 00:39:16.560
um I think I'll stop sharing. I'll email this Mr. Raymond to you if you want to you're able to print it up. >> I can and do we need you to sign it Terry or can I sign on our behalf? >> You can sign it on our behalf. Maybe I'm there. So >> Okay. And then um before we close the

128
00:39:16.560 --> 00:39:32.000
meeting in terms of uh what's being recorded, should we also address when a next meeting would take place? >> Yeah. >> Although we had the 30th >> um one of our concerns is um from a district standpoint, the books haven't been closed on the prior fiscal year.

129
00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:49.200
>> So until that happens, we wouldn't know what we could negotiate in terms of the total compensation. Mhm. >> Um so our thinking was that we would wait for a directive from um Raquel to kind of share with you all right we are ready to return to the table unless you

130
00:39:49.200 --> 00:40:04.880
have an appetite to start talking about articles and things of that nature. >> We can just take care of non-economics. Um, and it it the the way that I envision it is that we can keep the date that we have for next week and

131
00:40:04.880 --> 00:40:22.079
>> we can present some of our our non-economic proposals for the board to review. And our ask is that um >> between now and and next week we start pulling dates of availability in the months of September cuz I'm going to have a lot of fle flexibility.

132
00:40:22.079 --> 00:40:39.200
>> Yeah. August and September. So, I'm going have a lot of flexibility because we we finished up my other full book. So, this is the only full book that I have left. So, we can definitely um allocate some some time to get it to get it done. >> Okay. >> So, then Terry, we'll keep the 30th and

133
00:40:39.200 --> 00:40:54.160
we'll come to that session. Here are your um articles that you'd like to address in open book. >> Mhm. >> Start at 3:30. >> After that, we'll pick future. >> I would like to move it to 3:30 cuz it is a flex. We have some teachers. Yeah, we just have to uh change change

134
00:40:54.160 --> 00:41:09.359
it on the website, but um >> we can do that. It'll be 3:30, Terry. >> Okay. >> On the 30th instead of 3:00 >> obviously as we're able to hone in more on when can we jump back into compensation. I think we keep that

135
00:41:09.359 --> 00:41:25.760
discussion going. Um you know, I heard some of the things that you mentioned in your response. So, I think once we have a better picture of when that when that jumping off point is, we'll keep that that iron in the fire. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We want to keep this all the open communication going because I don't want

136
00:41:25.760 --> 00:41:40.880
to drag this out like if I could get everything wrapped up, you know, that's what we're >> understood. I just wanted to be transparent that if we came on the 30th, we wouldn't be able to talk further. >> We knew we we understand. >> Um, >> anything else before we close the meeting for a recording purpose?

137
00:41:40.880 --> 00:41:49.160
>> Nope. Just we could get that printed. So, um, we shall adjourn the meeting at 4:48 p.m.