08/28/2026
CFT Local 1272 Members,
We want to provide the membership with a clear account of what occurred during our August 26 bargaining session and why the Bargaining Team has serious concerns about the District’s conduct and commitment to reaching an agreement.
WE AGREED TO THEIR LOCATION — THEN HAD TO FIGHT OVER WHO WAS IN THE ROOM
In an effort to move bargaining forward, the Union agreed to the District’s requested change in bargaining location, even though we believed that change was inconsistent with the parties’ previous agreement regarding bargaining locations.
Before substantive bargaining even began, however, Superintendent McCall included numerous individuals at the bargaining table who had never previously been part of the District’s bargaining team. This included a community member.
The Union challenged the sudden expansion of the District’s bargaining team. We were prepared to respond by bringing our entire membership into the bargaining session if the District intended to open the bargaining table in this manner.
Only after that challenge were many of those individuals removed.
It is also important for members to know that not a single Board of Education member attended the bargaining session.
THE UNION PRESENTED A REAL COMPROMISE ON LESSON PLANS
Despite the problems at the beginning of the meeting, the Union came prepared to find a path toward an agreement.
We presented a logical, well-thought-out compromise regarding lesson plans. Our proposal did not eliminate teacher accountability. Instead, it attempted to address the District’s stated concerns while protecting teachers from unnecessary and excessive paperwork.
We didn't just talk about what our proposal would look like. We showed them.
The Union provided sample lesson plans from the previous two weeks to demonstrate the volume of work needed to comply with their directive, along with a lesson plan demonstrating what would be required under our new proposal.
Our goal was simple: show the District that teacher accountability and reasonable lesson-plan requirements can coexist.
We believed this compromise provided a legitimate path toward resolving one of the major remaining issues between the parties.
INSTEAD OF WORKING TOWARD COMPROMISE, THE DISTRICT ATTACKED THE EXAMPLES
Rather than seriously engaging with the Union's compromise, District administrator Sherina Johnson began tearing apart the lesson plans Wendy provided as examples.
Among her criticisms, Johnson stated:
“This is you submitting a compliance document versus a real plan for students.”
She also questioned how a teacher could have more than one standard contained in a week's lesson plan and asserted that a teacher should never have more than one.
What should have been a discussion about whether the Union's proposed language could provide a workable compromise instead became a critique of individual lesson plans.
In addition, the District singled out one teacher by presenting that teacher’s lesson plans from the first two weeks of school and then used those documents to make the sweeping accusation that the teacher was not teaching at all. The District provided no context, no classroom observations, no discussion with the teacher, and no other evidence to support such a serious claim. Instead, they attempted to judge an educator’s actual classroom instruction solely from two weeks of written lesson plans. They then made the blanket assumption that their fairy tale applies to every teacher in the district
Eventually, Mr. Mundorf stopped the discussion and the District went into caucus.
THE DISTRICT CAME BACK WITH AN EXPANDED PROPOSAL
When the District returned from caucus, instead of moving toward the Union's compromise, it moved in the opposite direction.
The District verbally presented a lesson-plan model that appeared even more strenuous than the seven-item lesson-plan requirement contained in the District's imposed terms.
The District also included language requiring teachers to turn in their lesson plans.
This led to a lengthy disagreement between Ray and Barney over whether the District's actions constituted regressive bargaining—moving backward rather than forward during negotiations.
Think about where that leaves us:
The Union came to the table with a compromise designed to resolve the lesson-plan dispute. The District responded by proposing requirements that were even more burdensome than what it had previously imposed.
That is not movement toward an agreement.
THEN WE WERE TOLD THEY COULDN'T MEET AGAIN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30
After everything that occurred at the table, the District informed the Union that it could not meet again until September 30.
For a membership that has already endured an extraordinarily long contract fight, continued delays combined with movement backward at the bargaining table are unacceptable.
Our members deserve better!
They deserve a bargaining process focused on reaching an agreement—not expanding the bargaining table, creating unnecessary disputes, attacking examples offered in support of compromise, moving backward on proposals, and then delaying the next bargaining session.
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
The CFT Local 1272 Bargaining Team will be meeting to discuss what occurred on August 26 and determine our next steps.
Everything remains on the table.
We have demonstrated repeatedly that we are willing to negotiate. We have demonstrated that we are willing to compromise. And on August 26, we came to the table with a concrete proposal that we believed could provide a path toward an agreement.
Compromise requires two parties willing to move toward each other.
Our membership has been patient. Our bargaining team has been persistent. But patience cannot be mistaken for acceptance.
We will be communicating with the membership regarding our next steps.
Stay informed. Stay together. Be prepared.
In Solidarity,
CFT Local 1272 Bargaining Team
