Ousted Hawaii Education Board Still Negotiating Teacher Contract
This year’s teacher contract negotiations are taking place under unusual circumstances: The elected board that was effectively ousted by Hawaii voters in November could still negotiate an agreement that will be binding for the next two years. It’s also possible that the education board, and therefore its negotiators, could be replaced in the middle of the talks.
The teachers’ two-year contract expires June 30 this year, and negotiations for the 2011-13 contract effective July 1 have already begun.
But the current elected school board, which provides two of the state’s six negotiators during collective bargaining, may be entirely replaced by one appointed by Gov. Neil Abercrombie before summer. Voters passed a constitutional amendment in November to make the switch to an appointed board, but former Gov. Linda Lingle last year vetoed the bill outlining a process for selecting and confirming appointees.
The new Legislature is fast-tracking a fresh proposal that would give the governor authority to make direct appointments to an 11-member board, subject to Senate approval.
If the new appointees come into the negotiation process before the teachers’ contract is ratified, they would be able to make changes to the agreement. If they don’t, the current elected board could take its last stand at the bargaining table.
“My understanding is that if a labor contract is ratified by the elected board, it will be binding for the duration of the contract term, regardless of when an appointed board takes office,” said Alex Da Silva, public affairs officer for the education board.
But the governor and the newly appointed board would not be without recourse, said Joan Husted, former executive director for the Hawaii State Teachers Association. The governor’s negotiating team, which also has yet to be appointed, already has the strongest representation in negotiations. The new board of education could also negotiate supplemental agreements, pointed out Husted, if it wants to make changes to the contract later.
Collective Bargaining Process
The process of coming to a contract that would be binding on more than 11,000 teachers for the next two years is “basically a process of human interaction,” Husted said. “And sometimes it gets messy.”
Even though the make-up of the and the are laid out in state law, it does not prescribe how many negotiators are to represent the Hawaii State Teachers Association.
It does, however, mandate that all of the union’s members have the opportunity to ratify the contract, Husted told Civil Beat.
| Employer’s Team | # of Negotiators, or “Votes” |
|---|---|
| Governor’s Office | 3 |
| Board of Education | 2 |
| Superintendent | 1 |
Beyond that, there is no actual definition of what constitutes “agreement” among the negotiating parties. No negotiator has veto power, and even the “votes” assigned to the various parts of the employer’s negotiation team don’t translate into mathematics at the bargaining table.
Because the union’s team is not granted a specified number of votes, the votes don’t carry weight during collective bargaining. On the other hand, negotiators recognize that the governor’s team is “first among equals” at the bargaining table, because in the case of the teachers union, the state is the employer.
“The reality is, you know the governor has enormous amounts of authority, because he holds the purse strings,” Husted said.
An official vote is never taken, except among the union’s members, Husted said. And although unanimous agreement is not required, the employment contract is usually sealed with a handshake.
“It’s a very dynamic process,” she said. “It’s a very human process, and it’s very dependent on how much each side trusts the other. There’s nothing that says 50 percent plus one of employer’s team must agree and 50 percent plus one of union’s team must agree. You always try to hammer out the best deal you can get — one that your members will buy, that the employer can implement and the state will pay for.”
