Richmond School Board delays vote on controversial collective bargaining policy changes
VENN
RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) -- The Richmond School Board has opted to delay its vote on highly controversial changes to its collective bargaining policies after a fiery public comment session Tuesday night.
During its regular business meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 7, the board voted to defer a set of proposed amendments to policies impacting the unionized employees of Richmond Public Schools (RPS).
Richmond was the first locality in Virginia to adopt collective bargaining, with this move the result of collaborative work between union leaders and the school district. However, RPS leaders now want to make changes to these policies.
MORE: Richmond Schools denies allegations that it wants to silence teachers
Union leaders have described the changes as "anti-union," while RPS leaders defend them as community-informed adjustments meant to make the process better. The unions have been especially critical of how little time they were given to review the proposed changes prior to Tuesday's meeting.
Public blasts proposal during public comment period
The school board meeting room was packed Tuesday night, with more than thirty people pre-registered to speak during public comment. Many of them were there to discuss these union-related concerns.
"The REA and other unions are frustrated because we were not given a fair chance to collaborate," said Andrea Bryant, president of the Richmond Education Association (REA). "Collaboration on changes to the collective bargaining resolution could have started in July, when I took office. Collaboration could have started in August with good faith and a true chance to build trust and assume positive intent. Yet, this did not happen."
According to Bryant, the RPS unions received a detailed overview of the proposed changes on Thursday, Sept. 18 -- just over two weeks before Tuesday's meeting. They then received the exact language of the changes on Wednesday, Sept. 24.
"[This] left two weeks [for us] to try and process these changes, their ramifications and proposed our own ideas with the short deadline provided," she said.
In response, Bryant asked RPS leaders if the changes could be retracted so collective discussion could take place -- which she said was "brushed off with a statement that changes will be presented on Oct. 6."
"This type of behavior contributes to an already-tense relationship between the workers and the RPS administration," Bryant said. "How could we build trust and goodwill with behavior such as this?"
More than two dozen speakers, including multiple RPS employees, echoed Bryant's sentiments Tuesday night.
"It was discussed that negotiations happen best when everybody assumes good intentions," said Jacob Neil Helt, a REA District Board member and a Richmond High School for the Arts teacher. "This is true. But these changes that were proposed to the collective bargaining resolution actively prevent staff from being able to fully negotiate."
Helt stressed that this isn't about what is being negotiated -- it's about allowing negotiations to happen in the first place.
"Let's stop simply talking about respect," they said. "All of these proposed changes can and should be brought to the negotiation table. Not made in a way that limits the voices of those most affected by them. Let's move forward, not backward."
Steven Strauss, treasurer of the REA and an RPS high school teacher, said the school board was defying its own precedent in circumventing the unions with this proposal.
"The school board often stands by the idea that the community should have a seat at the table," he said. "Today, we're telling you we have been excluded from the table."
Strauss acknowledged that collective bargaining is costly. However, he said the value of such policies far outweighs those costs, adding that they're far more attractive to a teacher seeking work than a signing bonus.
"That meant something to me," said Sophia Barbieri, an RPS middle school teacher who said collective bargaining motivated her decision to work for Richmond. "It meant we were building a future where teachers had a voice, where we could stand together and fight for the conditions our students deserve. But that promise feels like it's being broken."
Barbieri said she was the fourth English teacher superintendent Jason Kamras' own son had in a single year.
"That's not just a staffing problem," she said. "It's the result of a system that keeps pushing workers to their breaking point."
Chloe Trumper, an RPS middle school teacher, added that multiple studies have shown that collective bargaining agreements are associated with reduced teacher turnover.
"If you all truly care about the success of RPS students, then you need to support and fight for your teachers," she said.
Board shares conflicting perspectives on proposal
The board was fairly split on how it felt about this proposal.
Those against the proposal agree with workers about timeline
School board member Ali Faruk said he has personally received a lot of questions and concerns about this proposal. He said he appreciates any and all efforts to "improve the efficiency and effectiveness" of RPS' processes.
"But, to use Stephen Covey's famous quote, 'It's important to move at the speed of trust' -- and I worry this process has erroded trust between our management and our staff," Faruk said. "And if you want efficiency and effectiveness, you really do have to build trust -- because, I think, in the long run, the eroded trust will cost us more."
School board member Cheryl Burke said she appreciated each and every public speaker who came out tonight and voiced their concerns to the board, describing them as respectful and professional.
"I am very much concerned about the process -- not about the money, not about the working conditions," she said. "It's about how you make me feel."
School board member Shonda Harris-Muhammed shared similar thoughts to Bryant on how little time the unions were given to respond.
"The process was not clear [and] they could not unpack such a thick document in a short period of time," she said. "Several of them made this point and Ms. Bryant was very clear ... and I just thank her for bringing some of the clarity."
Harris-Muhammed said that clarity was helpful to her, as she hadn't realized just how unreasonable such a time crunch was.
"I'm just not sure that our friends [union partners] that we want to build a bridge with together, be collaborative with, had the opportunity to make sure that they were clearly [heard] in the process," she said.
School board member Wesley Hedgepeth said that he "continue[s] to regret the timeline" and that he wants to bring this proposal to the unions for collaborative discussion before proceeding.
Others defend proposal's intentions, argue against speakers' comments
School board member Stephanie Rizzi said that she was a retired educator who has never worked under collective bargaining. According to her, the proposal contains some policy changes that are "common sense adjustments that prioritize and protect instructional time." She also described them as "fiscally responsible."
Unlike the three school board members before her, who announced how they would vote, Rizzi did not.
"What I will say [is that] it's my hope that our journey -- including our difficulties and hiccups -- will make the road easier for other districts who are considering taking this incredible step," she said.
She said that she's been in touch with other districts that have told her that they could never adopt collective bargaining policies.
"I don't want us to be an example for why collective bargaining won't work," Rizzi said. "And, believe me, they're not here -- but there are quite a lot of people out there with that perspective."
School board member Emmett Jafari's comments centered around defending the board.
"RPS brought this into existence -- so I have been concerned about the kinds of attacks the board has come under for basically doing what its job is," said school board member Emmett Jafari.
He continued by saying that RPS leaders would be "derelict" if they did not try to refine their processes. He criticized those who spoke tonight, saying they assumed that RPS was trying to use "subterfuge" or "undermine the workers."
However, Jafari went on to say that he feels this proposal is unfinished and that it needs more adjustments before it moves forward.
"I want to get as many of our partners on board as possible," he said.
School board member Matthew Percival addressed what he described as "false dichotomies" made by some speakers, saying that those in favor of this proposal were not "against teachers" or not "listening to teachers." He said neither was true.
"Another narrative that I heard is that 'There hasn't been a seat at the table,' 'There hasn't been a voice,' 'There hasn't been input,'" he said. "The document that Mr. Jafari just refered to empirically begs to differ with that."
Percival explained that the proposal had many edits, describing "strikethroughs upon strikethroughs" and "multiple colored fonts" used in its pages.
"This document is a collaboration," he said. "We can argue about the length of time, but it is a collaboration. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it more or less true."
Board considers delaying its vote on the proposal, allowing more time
School board chair Shavonda Fernandez echoed Percival's thoughts in her comments.
"The idea that folks are not being heard is farthest from the truth," she said. "The decisions that we've made had you in mind and [there was] also the opportunity to share. Would I agree that there could have been more time to consider the resolution? Absolutely. [In] hindsight, I think that we all agree that we probably would've addressed that a little bit sooner."
To that effect, she said -- as multiple other board members had previously -- that she would like it if the proposal could be deferred to allow more time for discussion.
A motion was then made to delay this decision until November. Harris-Muhammed expressed frustration about this, because she felt that, if the idea of deferral had been on so many school board member's minds, it should have been communicated prior to Tuesday night's meeting.
"I just really feel like we have allowed hundreds of people -- thousands of individuals to go through this for nothing," she said. "I appreciate the motion to defer. I really do. But really could have dealt with this yesterday [during an Oct. 6 public work session, in which this topic was discussed]."
Fernandez said she still appreciated that the topic was on Tuesday's agenda because it allowed the board to hear in-person public comment on this matter for the first time.
She also emphasized that, during this deferral period, she wants to connect with unions to make changes to the proposal before it returns in November. Hedgepeth asked for that to be guaranteed.
In answer, Kamras said he was "happy to meet with [union] partners as many times as they would like."
"I don't forsee us walking out of this where both sides feel like they've been completely vindicated," Fernandez said. "But if we could try to meet somewhere in the middle, I think that's where we will win."
Burke continued to voice her concern that just a few weeks -- from Tuesday until November's business meeting -- was not long enough to do this right. Kamras disagreed, saying he believed enough work had already been done that this delay was enough.
"You wanted more time -- this is more time, to truly consider," Kamras said. "And I'm happy to meet with each of the union partners each week for the next four weeks to take their feedback -- to share that with the board, to get your input."
Ultimately, the board voted 6 to 3 in favor of deferring the proposal to November.
