Richmond School Board defers action on collective bargaining changes for another month

A divided Richmond School Board voted 6-3 Tuesday night to defer a vote on major changes to the division’s collective bargaining processes until the November meeting, committing to a series of conversations with the unions representing RPS employees to further refine the proposal.

Collective bargaining talks were set to begin this month. Board member Ali Faruk (3rd District) suggested conducting this year’s negotiations with the old rules, but Superintendent Jason Kamras said he believes the month-long discussions will be enough to produce a finished product, which Board members asked to include a set process if future changes were to be made again.

Kamras and the administration proposed changing a number of the collective bargaining rules, including limiting union discussions to outside of school hours and the ability to make raises contingent on receiving funding. 

The deferment came after a fractious week between the unions and administration, more than an hour of public comment urging the Board to either postpone or vote no on the changes, and nearly an hour of the Board’s deliberation on the matter. Some board members expressed disappointment with the tone of the protests, which included an inflatable “fat cat” displayed in front of the City Hall entrance during a rally unions held Monday evening.

Stephanie Rizzi (5th District) was particularly disturbed by the unions’ comparison of the administration to current President Donald Trump. She added that she hasn’t seen the unions discuss children during any of the conversations.

To “portray us as though we are intentionally trying to restrict you or hurt you – it just seemed a little disingenuous especially because I never saw the word child in any of the communications,” she said.

At one point in the discussion, Shonda Harris-Muhammed (6th District), who participated by video chat, said she was under the impression the changes were going to be approved at the meeting.

“I was told by the superintendent that the majority of the board was going to vote in favor for the document to move forward, which I was fine with, because that’s a part of governance,” she said. 

She added that if a deferment was the plan, it should have been communicated before the meeting to avoid the lengthy public comment — though it appeared it was the public comment which swayed some of the members of the Board to switch from a yes vote to a deferment vote.

“Changes to the collective bargaining resolution have been made without the collective. The REA and other unions are frustrated because we were not given a fair chance to collaborate,” said Richmond Education Association President Andrea Bryant. 

She and the nearly 30 union members and supporters who spoke during public comment said that the time allotted to review the changes does not build trust between the unions and division.

“We need an opportunity to come together, truly together, and make changes to the resolution that yield to the true definition of compromise – a settlement of differences by mutual concessions. Additional time would not hurt this process,” she said.

Board members who voted no on the deferment to November expressed concern that less than a month was not enough time to install a fully agreed-upon new process for negotiations. 

“When we went through for collective bargaining …it took months. And it's going to take a while to get this straight,” said Cheryl Burke (7th District). “To ask the administration to come in here in November with everything done is not going to happen. If we're going to do it right, allow the administration the time.”

Kamras said he would defer to the board’s will on the matter.

“I do think given the work that has already happened, that actually a lot of good compromise has occurred, and I certainly believe over the next four weeks there is time for us to have further conversations and produce a document that addresses what I heard from many folks on the dais, which is that you wanted more time,” he said. “This is more time to truly consider. 

“And I am happy to meet with each of the union partners every week for the next four weeks, to take their feedback, to share with the board, to get your input. I think that is a reasonable amount of time to try to close the gap on this and bring it back to the board, but I serve at the pleasure of the board and will do as directed.”

Board navigates tension between unions, administration

Board Chair Shavonda Fernandez (9th District) emphasized that the changing of the collective bargaining process is not a negotiation, but the Board still wanted to make sure that unions have a say on the matter.

In Virginia, the right of public workers to collectively bargain is not guaranteed, and was granted by the School Board just four years ago.

Fernandez said the changes were made in alignment with and in response to the division’s tight budget, saying that RPS is pulling from “a well that is almost empty.”

“That does not mean that we’re trying to restrict, it does not mean that we’re trying to minimize – what it means that we have to streamline,” she said during Monday’s meeting. 

Four unions represent teachers, janitors, bus drivers and managers – Richmond Education Association, Laborers' International Union of North America Local 804 and Teamsters Local 322 and 592. 

Before the deferral, the division made additional changes to the resolution right before the School Board meeting, after conversations Board members said they had with union members. Some of those changes include negotiating on three topics instead of two during bargaining sessions, and a provision that free speech will not be restricted. 

Kamras said that the division is proud to be the first in Virginia to allow collective bargaining for school unions and still believes in the process – a sentiment shared by the Board and union members. But he also said he wants to make sure that the process is sustainable long term for staff and Richmond schools’ tight budget.

“That is why we have proposed some common sense modifications to the underlying resolution that streamline practices and provide greater clarity, both for our employees and for the board,” he said during Monday’s meeting. He added that the division has since made additional revisions that are backed by feedback his administration received from the unions.

Kamras also stood fast in defending employees’ freedom of expression, despite unions’ assertions that the changes depict otherwise. 

Board members who expressed support for the changes echoed Kamras in underscoring how many meetings each member had with the unions to receive their input and ensure that feedback was reflected in the new changes the division had made. 

Vice Chair Matthew Percival (1st District), who expressed support for the changes on Monday, called the revised collective bargaining process a “one-size fits all sweater.”

“It’s not designed to flatter anybody, but it’s designed to keep us all warm,” he said. “Any feedback that has been expressed, I feel, has now been presented in this document.”

He called the unions’ actions “an aggressive public campaign,” and said that the restrictions the unions claim don’t match the rhetoric in the document.

Members Rizzi and Katie Ricard (2nd District) said that all parties are going to have to compromise, with Ricard adding that it’s important that the Board model civility and compromise, because she asks the same of her own children. 

“We don’t get everything we want, the world is not fair,” she said. 

Fernandez also called the unions’ actions hurtful. 

The amount of time allocated to review the process played a role in some members’ decision to defer the proposal. That included Wesley Hedgepeth (4th District), who said Monday that he was “pretty bothered” by the timeline that Board members had to follow to make a decision on the matter. He said the Board requested the administration present unions with the changes and was regretful that it was later than it should have been.

“This is a test of our collaboration, this is a test of the trust we need to be building with our partners and I think it's paramount to our success to be collaborative with our bargaining units,” he said. 

On Monday, Hedgepeth recommended that the original agreement should remain in place for the upcoming contract negotiations, and that future revisions can follow a better timeline.

Harris-Muhammed said that she received calls from colleagues across the state who told her that the division’s process in pushing the changes was done without good faith and in little time for parties to review. 

“I still stand ten toes down in the fact that if you all don’t feel comfortable … that this process is supporting you, then I have a problem with that,” she said, making it clear since Monday that she would vote no. She did emphasize that she agrees with some changes and appreciates the administration’s work on the proposal. 

Burke suggested that the division hire a neutral third party to guide all parties through the changing of the collective bargaining process, a suggestion backed by Hedgepeth.

“This is new to us,” she said during Monday’s meeting. “I was the [Board] chair when this was brought about. There was a lot of anxiety, a lot of talking time, a lot of listening time. And right now we’re in a different place. Whenever you go back to change what’s in place, it’s hard.” 

Unions rally support outside meeting

At both before Monday’s meeting, union leaders and members rallied outside of City Hall, yelling chants like “union yes, Kamras no, union busting’s got to go,” and calling on the Board to vote no on the proposed changes. 

In addition to remarks from union representatives, Elected officials from City Council and the State House of Delegates spoke at Monday’s rally, demanding the same thing. Former City Councilor Michelle Mosby said that RPS leadership did not do its due diligence in ensuring “that all parties had the information about the proposed changes.” 

Councilor Kenya Gibson (3rd District) said that many victories have occurred as a result of collective bargaining, including adequate pay, teacher retention and stable contracts for American Sign Language teachers who help teach hearing-impaired students. 

“The proposed changes to the collective bargaining policy are being pushed in the name of government efficiency,” she said. “It's been a pattern with this administration where slapped decisions are made without engaging the public or thinking fully through the consequences for students.”

Del. Mike Jones (D-Richmond), another former City Councilor, echoed similar sentiments, saying that the division needs to give unions a seat at the table to talk about the changes. 

“You can’t be for the students, if you’re not for the janitor. You can’t be for the students if you're not for the bus drivers, for the people that work in the cafeteria, for the teachers,” he said.

He also said that he would question the Board when RPS goes to the state in January asking for funding if they had voted no.

“Where were you in October? Where were you when people showed up in red outside of City Hall? Where were you when your students needed your support? Where were you?”

Individuals from outside of Richmond either spoke or wrote in on the matter as well, including National Education Association President Becky Pringle, who wrote in a letter read by Loundon Education Association President Kris Countryman. Pringle said that Richmond’s trailblazing in allowing collective bargaining rights for unions had significance all over the country, “specifically in the South where segregation error laws denied public sector workers' labor rights for decades.”

“Superintendent Kamras’ proposed changes to the collective bargaining resolution threaten to undo much of that progress,” she wrote. “We are writing to urge you to reject these changes and to instead work collaboratively with union representatives to improve the resolution in ways that work for all and not just management.”

Contact Reporter Victoria A. Ifatusin at vifatusin@richmonder.org