Links Outside of the EWTA Website:

 I submitted the following response to Mr. O’Kelly’s recent letter that stated the EWTA is holding up negotiations.


To the Editor:
      Over the past several months, I have refrained from submitting another Letter-to-the-Editor of the Williston Times. However, when I read Mr. O’Kelly’s comments on February 1, 2008, I felt compelled to present a different perspective on negotiations for your consideration.
This is not the first time I have read letters written by members of the Board of Education that comment specifically about provisions of the teachers’ contract that remain on the table or the present status of negotiations. In my opinion, these letters constitute a violation of the agreement reached when negotiations began in the fall of 2006. At that time, both parties agreed that we would not negotiate in public. Whether individual Board members supported that jointly reached decision or not, that was our agreement. Mr. O’Kelly broke that trust when he accused union leadership of purposely stalling negotiations.
I was astonished to read that Mr. O’Kelly decided the union leadership made “a tactical decision not to engage in serious negotiations” for almost a year, especially since he was not a member of the Board during that entire period. I certainly would not characterize negotiations as overly productive. I can say, however, that the District’s attorney and the Union forged a relationship that was necessary for meaningful negotiations to take place. Needless to say, when the Board suddenly decided to replace their attorney, we were disheartened. All that groundwork went right out the window. Obviously, between the firing and the subsequent appointment of new labor counsel, all negotiations ceased. We, the Union, waited until the Board was prepared to return to the table.
        It is easy to respond to the allegation that we continue to delay negotiations. That is simply not true. We agreed to meet with the District on the first available date that allowed both sides to have full representation at the table as negotiations resumed in September of 2007. In addition, a tremendous amount of paperwork had to be carefully drafted and submitted to PERB when the Union declared impasse in the late fall. That kind of work takes time. Were these actions calculated attempts to delay negotiations? I think not. They are simply examples of the Union’s commitment to its members and the process as a whole.
      In terms of picketing, we do it because we were given that right under the First Amendment of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with peaceful picketing that seeks to inform the community about the state of labor relations in the District. Comments that suggest this union opted to participate in “public pressure tactics designed to frighten the parents of school children and intimidate the Board” are inflammatory and misleading. They can only exacerbate the negativity surrounding the proceedings as the custodians, the teachers, the clerical staff, and the administrators strive to renegotiate successor contracts with the Board of Education.
      As I stated at the beginning of this letter, I felt the need to offer another take on this topic. I believe it is unfair for one side to have its say while the other side remains silent in deference to an agreement made back in 2006. Furthermore, negotiating in public jeopardizes the very process designed to bring about a resolution that both parties can endorse and support.

John J. Coyne
East Williston Teachers’ Association