Negotiations Break Down Between Teachers and District

Teachers working without a contract since August; Trustees working in dark with gap in actual budget

By Anna Pier

In sparring press releases, the Sonoma Valley Unified School District and Valley of the Moon Teachers’ Association made public their disagreements and failure to break a stalemate. In a press release dated December 10 and addressed to the Sonoma Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) Community, the District announced that no agreement had been reached between the District and Valley of the Moon Teachers Association (VMTA) after three rounds of impasse mediation with the assigned State Mediator. The process is now released to fact finding, a process in which a three-person panel reviews the arguments and proposals of both sides before issuing nonbinding recommendations. If that does not produce an agreement, the District can impose its last best offer, and VMTA could maintain the right to strike. 

Noting that they are “deeply disappointed,” Chien stated, “The District’s leadership team assures the Sonoma Valley school community that it has worked diligently on behalf of its students and employees to bargain in good faith with VMTA, presenting a salary offer more favorable than the original agreement and beneficial to all members.” 

VMTA, however, alleges bad faith on the part of the District. They described their position in a press release issued on December 12, which announced that the union has filed an unfair labor practices charge with the Public Employment Relations Board. The union’s position is that they have a tentative agreement signed on October 1 by the SVUSD lead negotiator, Chief Financial Officer Rena Seifts, SVUSD’s attorney Matthew Juhl-Darlington and VMTA Bargaining Chair Drue Jacobs. Union leadership took this signed tentative agreement to their membership for approval, and it was approved “overwhelmingly” by the almost 200 members. 

The District asserts that it all hinges on the necessary approval by the Board of Trustees, insisting that, “The Parties reached an agreement contingent on board approval.” At their regular meetings on October 10 and November 14, the Board did not approve the agreement, and instead notified VMTA they would issue a counter-offer. The District asserted, “Instead of considering the counter-offer, VMTA took the non-approved agreement to its members for ratification.” 

But in their press release, VMTA describes the events this way: “On November 18, 2024, coming out of closed session, SVUSD Board President Celeste Winders reported that, ‘The board has voted to approve a TA (tentative agreement) with VMTA for the terms reached in impasse mediation. The board will bring the complete TA and articles and CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) back to an open session at its next regularly scheduled board meeting.'” VMTA states that later that evening they received an email from  SVUSD Superintendent Jeanette Chien notifying the union that the board had not voted on the Tentative Agreement reached with VMTA, but rather on revised terms, which were the terms of the agreement that would be presented at the December meeting.

Co-President of VMTA Dennis Housman replied to the Sun, “To say a “non-approved agreement” makes literally no sense.”  … In reference to Board Policy 4143, Housman observed, “SVUSD does not seem to understand labor law or their own board policy. The Board of Trustees has never taken official action on the tentative agreement their own administrators signed on October 1, 2024.” Housman concluded, “If they want to make a counter-offer, they simply have to vote on the signed tentative agreement first. Exchanging proposals and counter-offers happens before a tentative agreement is signed, not after the fact.”

The failure of negotiations was an informational only topic at the December 13 meeting of the Board of Trustees. District attorney Matthew Juhl-Darlington, at the invitation of the Superintendent, made an informational presentation onnegotiations between the District and its labor partner, the teachers. He clarified that no details can be discussed. In response to public comment, Trustee Landry stated impassionedly that the Board did vote on a Tentative Agreement (TA) that was presented by a VMTA negotiating member, and so it is possible for the two parties to sit down in negotiations. She urged VMTA members to ask their leadership team to tell them about the TA. 

Superintendent Chien did not respond to the Sun’s request for additional comment on the stalemate. In the press release, however, she pointed out going to fact-finding will be very costly, unnecessarily spending District dollars. 

The failure of negotiations had a negative effect on the Board of Trustee’s recent meeting regarding school closure. Lack of information about salary increases for certificated employees (i.e. teachers) made the Interim Budget projection, presented at the meeting by CFO Rena Seifts and already showing deficit spending of $931K, incomplete.