School board listens to grievance hearing

PLAINS – The Board of Trustees met on Thursday, July 17, to take part in a grievance hearing filed by former English and Spanish teacher Melissa Martin.

Martin was represented by Heather Diehl, a field consultant for MEA-MFT, a union and one of the oldest advocacy groups in Montana.

The nonrenewal of the non-tenured teacher without cause was approved during the May 12 school board meeting after being tabled for a month, terminating Martin.

Diehl said Martin’s nonrenewal was due in part to budgetary restraints the Plains Public School District was facing.

In an April 21 school board meeting, Plains Superintendent Thom Chisholm stated the district was facing an approximate deficit of $190,000 for the 2014-15 school year. The minutes from the school board meeting stated the deficit was compromised of many components “including the loss of ANB, loss of federal funds, contractual obligations, and general operation expense increases.” The minutes also stated another enrollment drop was expected in the high school for the next couple of years.

Chisholm recommended reductions for the 2014-15 school year to help ends meet. He recommended the reduction of one high school teacher, while not replacing retiring teacher Walt Hermiston or retiring custodian Sharrill Smith. He also recommended to cut the remaining district funding allocated for Tier II sports.

Later in the meeting, during new business, Chisholm recommended the nonrenewal of employment for non-tenured teacher Martin without cause as per Montana Code Annotated 20-4-206. The board motioned to table the decision until the May board meeting. During the May board meeting after funding options for the program were exerted, the board voted to not renew Martin’s employment.

Diehl said their goal was to have the board comply with the teacher’s rights as listed in the Plains Teachers Organization contract.

“The remedy being sought here in the grievance is only to comply with Ms. Martin’s rights under the reduction in force and recall provisions of the agreement and second, consistent with those provisions, to retain her employment as a teacher and the teaching position for which she was endorsed for the 2014-15 school year and observe her recall rights for any other positions,” Diehl stated.

According to Article 8 – Seniority, reduction in force, and recall, the reduction in force clause states that the least senior nontenured teacher shall be laid off unless the teacher is the only employee with the necessary endorsements for a particular position. Martin had three teachers listed under her on the Certified Employees’ Seniority List.

PTO President Carl Benson was called as a witness during the grievance hearing and stated that he believed Martin was reduced due to budgetary constraints. Martin echoed Benson’s thoughts and said she was told her nonrenewal was due to budget issues.

Martin hopes to be reinstated as a teacher.

“My job means everything to me,” Martin said. “I came here wanting to do well in the Spanish program and I think I have succeeded. My numbers are rising…I want to continue teaching in both of the subject areas that I am qualified for.”

Diehl explained she did not believe the school board followed protocol when they did not renew Martin’s employment.

Chisholm however disagreed. He stated the motion the school board passed was being confused.

“Indeed there is contract language in the collective bargaining agreement that refers to a reduction in force, however, the action presented by me to the board, not once, but twice, was not a reduction in force action,” Chisholm explained. “It was indeed a non-tenured, nonrenewal action without cause, which is clearly defined and precedent in Montana law and has been.”

He did admit that the declining enrollments are unprecedented in Plain’s history and the projection into the future is also unprecedented, but according to Chisholm, that’s a different issue in its entirety.

“Getting back to the non renewal non tenured teacher without cause, I don’t think the board erred in any of those particular venues of how they handled that,” Chisholm stated. “I maintain to the board that my recommendation for nonrenewal of a non-tenured teacher is viable. I’m not contesting that there are other mechanisms there, but I believe the board acted appropriately and I recommend they consider continuing on that vein and supporting that action.”

The Board of Trustees has ten working days to establish a position and have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, July 29 at 5 p.m. to give their answer.

According to the contract, a grievance is defined “as an alleged violation of any of the express provisions of this agreement,” referring to the Plains Teachers Organization contract.

The meeting concluded the third step of the grievance process. If Martin is not pleased with the outcome announced on July 29, the PTO can decide whether the response by the board is acceptable. If it is found not acceptable, the matter may be referred to the PTO for arbitration.