By MaryHelen Swanson

A joke about an uncomfortable chair and a story about a Canadian fishing trip were not enough to put the Rush City School Board in the mood to accept a proposal from the districtís Education Association Monday night.

The issue? How the district should handle the disbursement of an insurance refund, in an amount of $86,000 (some of this money goes to the St. Croix Regional Education District).

It was at the February school board meeting that the refund was announced.

It was noted at the time, that the money was returned, (it had been paid by premiums), due to a lower than estimated usage of the health insurance.

The refund was for the school year 2003-2004.

Sitting opposite of the board Monday night, in the conference room of the administration office, four teachers represented the district employees.

Superintendent Vern Koepp said it was a ìmeet and conferî session, not a negotiation session.

Led by elementary teacher Mick Louzek, the associationsí members presented a proposal.

The premise was that some of the employees should get money returned from the insurance refund. This they felt was a fair way to deal with the issue.

To explain their point, Louzek told a story about a fishing trip to Canada.

The scenario was that a school board member asked him to go on a fishing trip, the member would pay 70 percent of the cost, Louzek would pay 30.

They go on the trip, have a good time and when they get home are satisfied with the trip. Louzek pays the board member what he promised.

But six months later the company through which the trip was scheduled pays back a significant portion of the cost.

Louzekís question to the board - should he get a percentage of the refunded trip money?

The question was then moved to the school district scenario.

The association members were suggesting that employees who contributed for family coverage, over and above what the district paid for the individual coverage, should get a percentage of the refund.

Louzek pointed to the Forest Lake district which, he said, had worked out a formula for employees to receive benefit from such a refund.

Louzek suggested further that some sort of formula could be worked out so employees with the family contribution could have reduced premiums until a specified percentage of the return was used up.

Direct refund to the individuals was not the best way to handle it, he said.

The school board listened, as they had agreed to do before the teachers entered the room.

Financial manager Laureen Frost noted that in that school year, there were 64 single and 36 family coverages. She was uncomfortable with the idea of only offering a refund to those who had contributed to family coverage.

The board members said they were concerned with what was best for the school district.

After the teachers presented their recommendation, they left the room.

Supt. Koepp reminded the board during their absence that an attorney had advised that the district had met the contractual obligation for that year.

The contract, he said, did not include any provision for a situation where there was an over estimate of usage.

It was either good luck or good choices, he said, but felt that all teachers are benefitting now already.

The money is going into the districtís general fund, which, along with tobacco settlement money in the amount of $6,500, is expected to keep the district in the black at the end of the year. Koepp said the employees received a letter informing them of where the money was being put.

Board chairman Scott Tryon said everyone who didnít use the insurance contributed to the savings, not just the people who opted for family coverage.

Board member Mark Moulton said everybody is already benefitting from lower premiums.

When the teachers returned, Tryon stated that the contractual obligation had been fulfilled and that was going to be the boardís stand.

Louzek suggested that that was ìlawyerî talk and that lawyers arenít always fair.

What is fair and equitable is the concern, especially for those who chose family coverage, Louzek said.

Koepp noted that the board was wrestling with this issue, but felt that the contract, which defines salaries and benefits, had been met.

Not willing to let the issue drop, Louzek told Koepp the employees would get back to him.

ìWeíre not in agreement,î he said.