Is teacher union deal legal?

By: Leon Page - Commentary | Monday, August 1, 2005 9:24 PM PDT ∞

There are things that unions say that they care about ---- the mantra of "rights, raises and respect." And then there are the things that unions actually care about ---- dues, closed shops and the acquisition of political power. To this latter group, add "release time."

To most folks, even most union rank and file, "release time" probably doesn't mean much. For union leadership, however, release time is a top priority during contract negotiations. Release time is a contract benefit that allows union officials to conduct union business while on the payroll of the public employer.

Consider the current labor contract between the Vista Unified School District and the Vista Teachers Association. Under the terms of that agreement, the VTA president is given "release time" up to 100 percent of the president's employment contract. This means that the VTA president can devote his or her entire workweek to union business while still receiving all of the compensation, civil service protection and fringe benefits that come with public employment.

One wonders how this is supposed to benefit kids, teachers or the public.

Admittedly, the contract provides that the VTA must provide some reimbursement to the district for the lost teacher. However, the level of reimbursement is set at the salary of a near entry-level employee. The contract does not require the VTA to reimburse the district for the true cost of the VTA president's retirement benefits or his or her medical, dental, vision, life or workers' compensation insurance, even though he or she may be doing exclusively union work. Thus, the policy falls far short of reimbursing the district for the substantial replacement cost it would incur to hire a similarly experienced teacher to do the work of the VTA president.

Nor is cost the primary problem. Trustees Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti sought an outside opinion about the legality of the release time provision.

The district's lawyers opined that the policy might not be legal. Though a reasonable amount of release time may be used for collective bargaining and the processing of grievances, release time may not be used to wholly subsidize union activity. As the district's legal counsel opined, "To the extent that it can be determined that the VTA president is using his time for internal union business, it would be a violation (of state law) were the district to subsidize such activities."

To ensure that the district is not providing an illegal subsidy, the district's lawyers recommended that it conduct "some form of audit" of the VTA president's activities. This sound legal advice was given in March 2003, and Trustees Gibson and Guffanti have sought such an investigation. However, the pro-union board majority has little interest in finding out where the public's money actually goes.

School districts should be in the business of educating kids, not subsidizing the work of union officials. If the district followed the advice of its legal counsel, we'd know precisely where the money goes. Have courage. Listen to the lawyers. Run the audit.

Leon Page lives in Oceanside.