UPDATE TVESPA - April 1, 2019 


The following is a response to your March 28, 2019 email to me:

1. Your allegation that the District lied to its own employees and to the public with the statement of “paid for negotiations” is without merit. The District does not lie to its employees or the public. I did review all the District’s statements prior to the postings. 

2. Scheduling of Negotiation Dates:

(a) On February 26, 2019, you advised me that the Union had no “authority” to hold a second meeting to revote on the District’s Last Best Offer. You then gave me three (3) dates in March to schedule a table meeting with both negotiation teams. You never mentioned anything about these members having to work late or they wanted to meet on weekends.

None of these dates worked for me or the District’s team.

(b) On March 11, 2019, I e-mailed you with two (2) alternate dates to meet – April 2nd or 3rd. That same day you responded that April 2 at 5:30 P.M. should work.

(c) I advised the Board team and mediator that we were set for April 2 for a team negotiation meeting.

(d) On March 21, 2019, I received an e-mail from you stating that April 2 would not now work for your team and that your team would prefer to meet on weekends (not providing any dates or times).

Further stated you would be willing to meet with me and the mediator on April 2, 2019.

Since I have no authority to negotiate anything other than the District’s Last Best Offer, I believe this meeting with just you, me and the mediator would be fruitless.

Your team did cancel the scheduled negotiation meeting on April 2, 2019 which had been agreed to by you, me and the District team.

Your allegation that I cancelled the meeting is false.

3. Voting on your counter-proposal to District’s Final Offer:

(a) In my e-mail to you of February 25, 2019, I advised you that I had met with the Board of Directors and they rejected all six (6) changes.

(b) Your response to me of February 26, 2019 asked if the Board had voted on the Association’s six (6) item counter-proposal.
(c) I immediately responded to you that my previous email had stated that the Board reviewed and rejected the six (6) counterproposals. You then asked why the vote was not public to which I advised you that there is no requirement that the Board vote publicly on accepting or rejecting proposals except in fact finding or last best offer arbitration.

4. You asked me if my client would be willing to use binding arbitration or Mediator’s Proposal to settle this matter.

I advised you that I would not recommend binding arbitration in that it is not required by law and I would never recommend binding arbitration to any of my clients.

As to Mediator’s non-binding proposal, I will discuss with my client to determine if they have any interest in using this method and advise you accordingly.

Your allegation that the District’s request to revote again on the Final Offer and the Board’s alleged failure to vote on TVESPA’s counterproposal (my e-mails state they did vote in executive session as they are permitted by law) is not good faith bargaining is without merit or basis.

I am hoping that the bargaining teams can come up with a mutual date and time to resume negotiations.

Very truly yours,

Twin Valley Educational Support Personnel - TVSD Final Best offer - 3/28/19

Click here for information.

Twin Valley Education Support Personnel - TVSD Fact Sheet #2 - 2/26/19

Click here for information.

Twin Valley Education Support Personnel - TVSD Fact Sheet & Additional Information  - 2/19/19

Click here for information.
Posted by KHARPLE On May 20, 2019 at 3:33 PM