By Patrick Tepoorten

The grievance leveled at the North Branch Area School District by teacher Bruce Anderson was taken up again last Thursday and denied. It had been postponed at an earlier meeting due to a miscommunication between North Branch Education Association (NBEA) Member Rights chairperson Jeanne Richards and school board chairperson Kim Salo.

The grievance charges the district with making arbitrary and capricious decisions regarding retirement requests as well as open meeting law violations. Filed on Jan. 27, Andersonís grievance alleges that district superintendent Rodney Reisnouer refused to forward a letter of resignation to the school board while allowing others to be placed on the agenda of the Dec. 8, 2005 meeting.

Also, that in subsequent discussions with Salo about teacher retirement during the year, she said she had conferred with other board members. Anderson contends that since the alleged discussions did not happen in public they violated open meeting law.

Reisnouer began Thursdayís meeting by insisting that open meeting law was not an issue because it has nothing to do with collective bargaining agreements between the district and teachers. He also explained his refusal to forward Andersonís letter.

According to Reisnouer, Anderson stated his intent to take advantage of the ìRule of 90,î by which he would be eligible for a pay increase before retiring. Reisnouer believed the language of the contract between the district and the NBEA to state that Anderson would not be eligible for the Rule of 90 until 2006-07, assuming he were to announce retirement prior to Dec. 1, 2006.

Richards stated that it was capricious for Reisnouer to submit two other letters of resignation for consideration at the Dec. 8 meeting. She pointed out that there is no language in the contract that denies an employee from resigning before Dec. 1 of the year they plan to retire and that Anderson could announce his intention ìnow or in the fall. He gave his now.î

Richards also took issue with the districtís position that Andersonís retirement, sought for Oct. 1, 2006, would be disruptive to the educational process.

ìThere are over 200 teachers here. It has not been brought to my attention that it is a huge concern,î she said, adding that the contract allows for retirement during a ìnatural break in the school year.î

School board vice chairperson Donna Setter, who took part in the contract negotiation, noted that the Rule of 90 was specifically put in the contract to keep teachers from retiring until the end of the year. ìIt was a carrot to make sure the person completed their contract. You work under a contract that goes until the end of the year. Correct?î she asked.

Richards responded that there is no language in the contract that states teachers must wait until the end of the year to retire.

Setter replied that retirement at mid-term is ìnot good for children,î and that it is in the boardís interests to minimize.

Salo added that the two other retirements that were approved on Dec. 8 were special circumstances. Richards took issue with that, stating that the contract says nothing about special circumstances and that Anderson has a ìserious health conditionî that would qualify in any case.

The board asked why those health conditions were being brought up at this late date and Richards replied that, due to the other two retirements, it was not felt any special circumstances were needed.

ìThen why did your organization sign an agreement?î asked Setter, referring to a letter signed by the district and the NBEA at the time of the Dec. 8 resignations. That letter stated that the two resignations were special circumstances and that the NBEA recognized that and would not pursue more resignations using the two special cases as precedent.

ìWe did what was best for our members at that time,î replied Richards.

As to the open meeting violation, Setter asked Richards when the alleged meeting occurred.

ìMr. Anderson had no opinion as to when,î responded Richards.

School board clerk Jeanne Walz stated that she didnít know anything about a private meeting, adding that one or two people does not constitute a meeting. ìAddressing something and holding a meeting are two different things.î

Salo seemed to admit that the topic had come up casually as well, but not in the context of a meeting.

According to Post Review legal representative Mark Anfinson, board members are allowed to meet informally and discuss issues as long as the group never comprises a quorum. The characterization of discussions put forth by Salo and Walz would therefore not qualify as a violation of open meeting law.

The board voted unanimously to deny Andersonís level three grievance. Richards responded to the vote by notifying the board that the grievance process would move to level four, including arbitration.